we're talking about a school situation here the schools have the rights to you to be an open or closed form they don't have to let people come in or they can let people come in it's their choice they have the right to control and have one sided presentations and those have been before the courts dealing with things like aca much speak with just signs on the outfield or baseball field or of the guard a bulletin boards in the downs case they can control those things the question here the school district to be neutral in the discussion of religion and not giving the speaker access to a school assembly who might have a particular theological position thereby causing the children's of leave the school is promoting one religion over another religion does not allow one to be quarantined and in fact court goes on rumor citing the bradfield case that a person of religion can work for a state for a secular purpose council was a valuable government did not pay him that's correct that's what i thought we're not asking for damages for the lack of speed the court in the republican you were about to tell me very there are two parts to your answer he said there were two things that he him the question is talked about in the rosenberg case and more importantly in the verse the republican party case it's not a question of the value of whether a person is find a penny for being a republican or denied a but why does it come within the government all of the school is allowed to bring someone in to give a speech the rosenberger case talks about that and when they are asked by the school to give a the school school is allowed to controlled a certain extent that speech once he has invited me and he has been given the right to speak that is a right because it's it has to be granted by someone given the close form of the was given the right to speak it cannot be taken away for reasons that are discriminatory based on his association that needs to make sure i understand your groceries for chips at a military installation it is it may not be being paid by the government but it is a right and it can be taken away i believe the court said in both those instances they can be take away for a myriad of reasons however they it based on anything relating to speech the fact that they may or may not have gotten bad legal advice if i send them to rescind it if they rescind it based on association with a religious whatever so i think we have as much it would be as slightly i mean if i don't know the slightly or greatly but it would be a different case if there weren't an immediate shortly thereafter rally to be held the same individual as it then rousing it makes a difference if if i hire someone to notice and make any difference in your mind because it might make a difference as to whether the school board would be liable for having  speak at the school it does not make a difference in my mind no it is not going to have lived realty fine inviting a priest or an advocate of any religion the speaker of the school on ethical values i don't think just by virtue of their affiliation but they might be if that person is immediately after the school tours close holding of a religious oriented rally well in your example you're on if you invite a priest to give a speech on philosophy and that and afternoon after school he's giving you say mass which everybody is invited or these people are invited that would be the same analogy i think the problem you have is that again w talking about is the freedom of association the person is asked to speak on a secular topic she agreed as part of the foundation set forth the agreement there are two things a school district one is that all parents will be notified they can opt out that they cannot tonight any more than they can to now volunteer any more they can deny anyone other than if it's other than for legitimate reasons that are not connected with his right to associate was a particular group which which they either disagree the time i was there a thousand dollars for everything and later i said did you get paid that full amount answer sorry did you get think that the mother answered yes to the question even though you were unable to do the assembling answer gruntal permission slips when that controversy arose over the course of the next two weeks there were there were some discussions about it in the context of the the second meeting there were discussions about well what if we be mandatory it ended up that ended up being part of the decision cancel it all together that's all in the record it is in the record your honor and in fact it was also in the record that what they ended up doing is allowing any students assembly the dylan ministerial association rented a theater and students were allowed to leave school premises and go to the theater that morning with parental permission they were transported there by the dylan ministerial association  things you're really stripping from them as a practical matter their ability to make any kind of reasoned judgments or decisions if if i come to the town of bill and i'm a neo nazi the survivalist and we have some of those in montana and i want to give a speech on morals and values it is perfectly appropriate for the school board to inquire into my background and my associations to find out who and what i am difference i don't really know i don't i don't really think that it that it does i mean i think that in one case you're talking about political beliefs in the other case you're talking about religion but the broad powers the broad discretion the school board  disruption of fear of litigation a potential controversy all of those things in the record is clear on this occurred in the two weeks between the two school board meetings if you're saying that they were right springs into sum up we believe that the record is clear that the school board reliable relied upon several perfectly appropriate bases or not allowing the speech to occur spite of that you give us your word that you cannot talk about anything else that's no different than the in coming here and saying that the court that i'm going to talk about the second triode one of the national labor relations act that's nothing new in this case why would i raise it from hired talk about one case that's what i'm going to talk about and that's what this gentleman did give speeches for two different organizations one of which i think he actually own them both but they were separate and distinct he can make that distinction he never said he would not comply was that the decisions the sensor has no valid educational purpose and there it was a clash that there was a school newspaper there was some real questions of journalism journalistic integrity and so it was educational when it requires judicial intervention to dist own boundaries i believe that's the island case if you set up boundaries you have to grieve your own you have to abide by your own boundaries you can't change them later because somebody in the community is upset whether it be the deputy county attorney who goes to every school board being a start record your honor is a transcript before he was allowed to speak the first time when they said you can come he gave a copy of his usual secular speech to the school one of them sought in fact usually once you it's not there at the the control school had the right to control speech and if he i mean i guess we go to the hypothetical say he got up there and started speaking went away from what he said he would you away from the speeches he's given