Browse
Search
APPROVED April 27, 2023 Schools Safety Task Force Meeting Summary
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Schools Safety Task Force
>
Meeting Summaries
>
2023
>
APPROVED April 27, 2023 Schools Safety Task Force Meeting Summary
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2023 10:46:05 AM
Creation date
6/23/2023 10:44:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/27/2023
Meeting Type
Special Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda Materials for April 27, 2023 Schools Safety Task Force Meeting
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Schools Safety Task Force\Agendas\2023
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Professor Papandrea added that a group of speakers cannot be singled out on the basis <br /> of its message, and a specific topic cannot be singled out either. The First Amendment <br /> means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its <br /> ideas, its subject matter, or its content. Government cannot grant the use of a forum to <br /> people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less <br /> favored or more controversial views. <br /> Professor Papandrea then discussed some special school exceptions. The exceptions <br /> include speech that is substantially disruptive, but limits cannot be based on the content <br /> of the speech. Schools could restrict speech that promotes drug use. Other special <br /> concerns can relate to minors, such as pornography, particularly upsetting images, and <br /> potentially protests that use obscenities. However, exceptions do not apply to upsetting <br /> political speech. The Supreme Court recently noted the important role that schools play <br /> in promoting democracy, particularly with respect to political and religious speech. <br /> Professor Papandrea noted, at the same time, that content-neutral time, place, and <br /> manner restrictions are permissible. Teachers, students, and members of the public do <br /> not have an unlimited right to engage in expression on school grounds. She noted the <br /> Tinker case, which held that students had a right to wear black armbands to protest the <br /> Vietnam War because there was no evidence that this expression caused a "substantial <br /> disruption" to the operation of the school. The flip side of Tinker though was that it <br /> recognized that speech that undermines the operation of the school can be restricted. <br /> She added that, as a practical matter, it is problematic to draw a line between picketing <br /> by students/staff and picketing by outsiders. She added that any ordinance should be <br /> limited to times when school is in session. <br /> Professor Papandrea referenced two 1970's U.S. Supreme Court cases. The cases held <br /> that an anti-noise ordinance around a school in Illinois was constitutional, but not the anti- <br /> picketing ordinance. Cities in Illinois had ordinances restricting picketing and other <br /> demonstrations around schools. Chicago's ordinance restricted most picketing around a <br /> school, except for peaceful labor picketing. The Supreme Court held that if the school <br /> permitted peaceful labor picketing, there was no reason not to permit other peaceful <br /> picketing on other topics. In the other case, the Court upheld a broadly applicable anti- <br /> noise ordinance, which prohibited making any noise or diversion which disturbed the <br /> peace of a school session. <br /> 6. Discussion/Questions & Answers with UNC Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea <br /> Facilitator Bryan moved the discussion forward to questions and answers with Professor <br /> Papandrea. Co-Chair Hamilton noted that part of the problem seemed to relate to <br /> activities that disrupted the school. A student who feels threatened cannot be in the <br /> mindset to learn. The example of a Confederate symbol was referenced, and Professor <br /> Papandrea commented that cases of Confederate symbols were based on the disruption <br /> of school — not about an individual. She noted that based on a court case, the use of <br /> profanity could not be considered a disruption to school operation. Task Force Member <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.