Agenda Materials for May 25, 2023 Schools Safety Task Force Meeting

Browse Search

5 Professor Papandrea added that a group of speakers cannot be singled out on the basis of its message, and a specific topic cannot be singled out either. The First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. Government cannot grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. Professor Papandrea then discussed some special school exceptions. The exceptions include speech that is substantially disruptive, but limits cannot be based on the content of the speech. Schools could restrict speech that promotes drug use. Other special concerns can relate to minors, such as pornography, particularly upsetting images, and potentially protests that use obscenities. However, exceptions do not apply to upsetting political speech. The Supreme Court recently noted the important role that schools play in promoting democracy, particularly with respect to political and religious speech. Professor Papandrea noted, at the same time, that content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible. Teachers, students, and members of the public do not have an unlimited right to engage in expression on school grounds. She noted the Tinker case, which held that students had a right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War because there was no evidence that this expression caused a "substantial disruption" to the operation of the school. The flip side of Tinker though was that it recognized that speech that undermines the operation of the school can be restricted. She added that, as a practical matter, it is problematic to draw a line between picketing by students/staff and picketing by outsiders. She added that any ordinance should be limited to times when school is in session. Professor Papandrea referenced two 1970's U.S. Supreme Court cases. The cases held that an anti-noise ordinance around a school in Illinois was constitutional, but not the anti- picketing ordinance. Cities in Illinois had ordinances restricting picketing and other demonstrations around schools. Chicago's ordinance restricted most picketing around a school, except for peaceful labor picketing. The Supreme Court held that if the school permitted peaceful labor picketing, there was no reason not to permit other peaceful picketing on other topics. In the other case, the Court upheld a broadly applicable anti- noise ordinance, which prohibited making any noise or diversion which disturbed the peace of a school session. 6. Discussion/Questions & Answers with UNC Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea Facilitator Bryan moved the discussion forward to questions and answers with Professor Papandrea. Co-Chair Hamilton noted that part of the problem seemed to relate to activities that disrupted the school. A student who feels threatened cannot be in the mindset to learn. The example of a Confederate symbol was referenced, and Professor Papandrea commented that cases of Confederate symbols were based on the disruption of school — not about an individual. She noted that based on a court case, the use of profanity could not be considered a disruption to school operation. Task Force Member