Anonymous wrote:If a kid is being annoying in their "witnessing", your kid is free to tell them to bug off, and if they refuse, that's harassing behavior and the Christian kid should be sent home until they learn to mind their manners. If I got wind that my kid was being annoyed like this, I would scare the shit out of the little fucker.

Why would you assume it is a Christian kid instead of a Muslim, LBGT, democrat, republican, etc. there are lots of different views expressed by kids in schools--as there should be. Your scenario shows your own bias.

If a kid is being annoying in their "witnessing", your kid is free to tell them to bug off, and if they refuse, that's harassing behavior and the Christian kid should be sent home until they learn to mind their manners. If I got wind that my kid was being annoyed like this, I would scare the shit out of the little fucker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding was always that kids can say whatever they want that isn't a threat or hate speech, basically, because there is no unbalance of power amongst peers to add coercive weight to the discourse.

What if its on a poster on a government wall? What if there is no counterpoint next to it?

As long as all students are free to post there, it is fine. You can't allow Christians to post but forbid Wiccans. On the other hand you don't have to hunt down Wiccans to provide a counterpoint. Also any student led activity must be voluntary and not compulsory. Students cannot bully other students into prayer. Meet me at the flagpole events and student groups for Bible study are fine, student led prayers over the PA at football game are too compulsory and have the apparent endorsement of a government entity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding was always that kids can say whatever they want that isn't a threat or hate speech, basically, because there is no unbalance of power amongst peers to add coercive weight to the discourse.

What if its on a poster on a government wall? What if there is no counterpoint next to it?

Why would that matter? If it's student generated and not being pushed by the school, the school cannot possibly then ask another student to create a counterpoint if no such poster was naturally generated based on existing student viewpoints. For the school to do that, would in fact be (most likely inappropriately) putting pressure on students to express certain views.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a wall, paid for by taxpayers, can be used to try to convert people to their view point as long as that view point is expressed by a student?

Have you heard of the Constitution?

Since religious people are taxpayers, they are free to use community resources too.

Indeed, many churches and other religious entities utilize school auditoriums on Sunday.

Under the law, students are free to express their religious views short of harassing others or disrupting the educational process. The focus is on whether religious speech disrupts or disturbs, not on whether it proselytizes or seeks to convert.

Anonymous wrote:So a wall, paid for by taxpayers, can be used to try to convert people to their view point as long as that view point is expressed by a student?

Have you heard of the Constitution?

A relative started a bible study during activity period in ms in another state. She went around convincing friends to attend. I was appalled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding was always that kids can say whatever they want that isn't a threat or hate speech, basically, because there is no unbalance of power amongst peers to add coercive weight to the discourse.

What if its on a poster on a government wall? What if there is no counterpoint next to it?

If it offends you so much, create a counterpoint. Oh wait, you don't go to the school. Well, force your kid to make one then. Unless they've already been brainwashed by the evil wall...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding was always that kids can say whatever they want that isn't a threat or hate speech, basically, because there is no unbalance of power amongst peers to add coercive weight to the discourse.

What if its on a poster on a government wall? What if there is no counterpoint next to it?

Anonymous wrote:My understanding was always that kids can say whatever they want that isn't a threat or hate speech, basically, because there is no unbalance of power amongst peers to add coercive weight to the discourse.

What if its on a poster on a government wall? What if there is no counterpoint next to it?

Anonymous wrote:My understanding was always that kids can say whatever they want that isn't a threat or hate speech, basically, because there is no unbalance of power amongst peers to add coercive weight to the discourse.

^imbalance. Sorry, revised my sentence structure without sufficiently careful editing.

Unbalanced power dynamic = imbalance of power; peers = lack of coercive power of any one position and thus more free discussion is appropriate.

My understanding was always that kids can say whatever they want that isn't a threat or hate speech, basically, because there is no unbalance of power amongst peers to add coercive weight to the discourse.

There's an age in late elementary school where the kids from preachy religions are still working it out, and they aren't all that graceful. It doesn't help that the kids from the anti-preachy groups are working their own stuff out and not that graceful either. IT passes.