From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Freedom of Expression
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:08:19 GMT


Michael Kline writes of a public school student who was not permitted to end
an article with `God Bless'; given the subject line, this is described as an
infringement of that student's rights.

However, as AJ Liebling (I think it was him) once said, "Freedom of the Press
belongs to the man who owns one."

The principal of a school is, in a sense, the `publisher' of the school paper;
he is responsible for what gets printed.  As such, he has the right to stop
anything he considers inappropriate.


If some local reporter wanted to end an article with "There is no god", but
the owner of that newspaper wouldn't let him, nobody would say that the
reporter's rights had been denied.  If you call up your local paper and say "I
want you to print a headline that says `Abortion is Murder!'", and the paper
refuses, does that mean they have violated your freedom of expression?  Are
you going to sue them in court?

Suppose you want to burn a US flag; can you go into Sears and demand that they
give you one so you can burn it?


Of course not.  Just because you are free to express your opinions does NOT
mean you are free to demand that others provide the means for you to do so.
If you want a newspaper headline that says "Abortion is Murder", you are free
to buy a press and print up your own newspapers.  If you want to burn a flag,
you are free to go purchase as many as you can afford.

You are free to express your opinion -- but you are NOT free to make others
express your opinions for you.

The student at that high school can go to a streetcorner and say "God Bless"
all he wants; he can earn money and print up flyers with "God Bless" on them
and hand those out all day long.  But he has no right to use school facilities
for a message that the school administration doesn't approve.  His rights have
not in any way been violated by this particular decision.  It's not his press,
so it's not his freedom.

 *

Personally, I think the principal has overreacted in this case, and that a kid
who puts "God Bless" on something he's written isn't hurting anybody (though
perhaps there should be a disclaimer of some sort on the editorial page).
However, the US is full of litigation about religious messages in state
situations, and there have been many attempts in recent years by religious
groups to interfere in school activities.  (Let's not forget all of those
idiotic attempts to ban "Tom Sawyer" or "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" or
"Macbeth".)

I suspect that the principal figured that if he allowed "God Bless" in the
paper, somebody would get him in trouble for it.  So he refused to permit it
in an effort to keep himself out of hot water.

If so, then the Christian community has no one to blame but ourselves.  Many
of the aforementioned "idiotic attempts to ban" books have been run by people
claiming that they were acting in God's best interest.  Lots of school
officials have had to put up with real headaches over ridiculous issues
because some religious people have raised a fuss about nothing important.

As a result, other religious people are affected by the backlash; but it's
something that we brought on ourselves.  It's too late for us to complain
about it now -- we made this bed, so now we have to lie in it.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu