we'll hear silver first amendment rights because she is a public school teacher who displays at issue in this case convey personal non curricular messages they were posted pursuant to a school district policy permitting such speech now this is a factual conclusion that is not only established in the complaint but was admitted to by the defendants in their answer so here defend his directive impinged upon his silver's first member right to freedom of speech and it's restrictions were viewpoint based and those are those a key facts for this for this case and it distinguishes it from other cases involving issues with teacher speech now pro the u s supreme court speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public form on the grounds of the subjects is discussed from a religious viewpoint which is precisely what happened here what is the framework that you think we should apply there which framework write your own i think appropriately based on the facts which is why i pointed out that this is unique because you view this from a form perspective and so from a former specter because you have you have pickering pickering balancing test which  didn't rely on you have margie you have cases where they've just determined that the speech is government speech i mean there's a there's a whole host of different ways that the courts have reviewed these types of cases but this case is factual unique because the speech occurs in the in the factual context of a forum that the school district created for this type of speech and so the restriction is viewpoint based and so you must apply the standards for a few viewpoint basis res that message that message would be permissible otherwise except for the fact that it's referencing first corinthians chapters thirteen through fourteen so it's because it's the religious viewpoint of the inspirational messages that were conveyed the message itself on its pay on its face is an inspirational message those types of messages are permitted in the school district but because it came from first corinthians it was a night that is classic viewpoint discrimination and so because of viewpoint discrimination and i understand in march and they said the government  which is an interesting case because there the forum was for for students that belong to the school so the form doesn't doesn't necessarily have to be open to the general public you can government can limit a form however they want to in this case they limited to that the teachers and their form certainly if the governor wanted to nego into your question your honor if the government tomorrow wanted to close the form of the school district wanted to close the form to all speech that is limited to just speech that's curricular in nature that's related to school they could do that but they've chosen not to do that what's the best argument i know this is not your argument what's the best are human and sticky notes separately would cost because each week an argument yes you're on the line whether because you're on each one of these restrictions are restrictions on speech so you have to evaluate each one independently i think that says that even in march they looked at they looked at the authors were unfair and all your grammar the sticky notes what were your argument what would your argument going to be the same thing or it is those again the sticky notes are a perfect example of why this is personal not curricula speech we're going to censor posts on the backside of the desks they weren't displayed for the purposes of conveying any instruction to the to the students and because they allowed personal inspirational messages to be displayed by the teachers they can't say well these messages are permitted because they do so from a religious perspective and there's no ground so we have to ask though whether it would be reasonable of a child or parent entering the room to perceive that this has these communications pretty pre mature the school and there's not such a clear line in the context of a school setting particularly you know precisely or a high school setting this their viewpoint discrimination is permissible but getting to more to your point even under close analysis he would have to be determination that an objective reason observer would conclude that the speech endorses religion in a way that violates the wonders above the earth and the heavens what were you that doesn't sound like an inspirational message as the religious well i mean i think it is an inspirational oh tell me could that be that's not that's not content viewpoint is that the school have an interest in not having proselytizing with regard to this is a religious mistress let me finish you take a religious interest there may be children of buddhist faith question is it has to be justified and has to be justified with regard to each of the speech restrictions them or where also they allowed religious speech in the school was not a matter of allowing little speech on it's allowing inspirational messages and this is based on viewpoint they say they don't want religious speech the fact that it may also be inspirational doesn't absolve it i mean there are many there are you know there are many passages that are inspirational but still have a  example i gave you about the be on guard stand true the first corinthians that's a perfect example of your best example i don't blame you for that right i gave you a little tougher case in one and since some cases are tougher than others but certainly school district justified taking this down because it's not a religious man i don't think so because of why because in let me just have a right she does not have a constitutional right to express her religious beliefs where no religious beliefs are allowed to be expressed within a classroom when you allow verse the ninth circuit saw in the seventh circuit this is far better to teach students about the first amendment about the differences between private and public action about why we tolerate divergent views the school's proper response is to educate the audience rather than squelch the speakers schools may explain that they do not endorse speech by permitting it if pupils do not comprehend so simple a lesson one wonders whether the school can teach anything at all and i think that's a response here if you're taking the teacher teaching algebra and the teacher in the in the course of teaching algebra infuses the the class with religious preaching is an appropriate it's not you're on in this is where the distinction is if in we're not challenging the restrictions on the curriculum on her teaching her her classes her science classes there was an issue that came up with one of her to one of her lessons which is what prompted the letter from the free information foundation and we understand the government has plenary authority over the curriculum but when they create a forum that allows personal non critical admissions to be displayed and they say you can't display your m religious viewpoint that viewpoint discrimination that's a different issue that's this case and we should prevail and if you have if you have a law posters isn't that the equivalent of preaching you know your own it's not if they're displayed pursuant to this particular policy that's what makes this case different than other cases that leak case for example the johnson case and the others that have been cited throughout these briefs so he in fact his invitation to display inspirational material is that is that it opens the door to walk me through this what is the matter of public concern certainly because again you can't take it outside of the factual context of the form that these are personal these are personal messages that she conveys pursuant to the policy so that would be her personal speech and you've got to balance that against the interest of the government in promoting its interests as a as a government entity and i still think under that balance and i grant that like the counters are a closer call but that be on guard sign is is not the sticky notes in the back of the desk those are not those are personal private speech that they've restricted in a way that's absolutely unreasonable and violates the verse of what is the civilian our the silver speech the civilian analog would be perhaps the would mark ace where the government opens a form to a certain class of individuals who happen to be registered students so it wasn't open to the public and it would mar although they call that it doesn't need a public forum i think under today's standard the might consider a limited public form in the court said that they couldn't restrict that forum for religious worship because it's viewpoint discrimination and they did in the government last and i case that's that's a closer analogy to what we have your differences between students and teachers in terms of frank versus morris all these other cases have have said time and time again that not only that teachers and students are students and teachers whichever direction they go do not have the constitutional right to the school house case so you'd have to conclude that mrs th surrender is a constitutional rights when she becomes a public school teacher and that's not what the the law allows or says in fact maher she says just the opposite thank you you have a couple minutes and a bottle of materials that are subject to dispute here that is the posters the prayer box and the sticky notes separately or do we need to look at them as a group to kind of determine what the reasonable perception of be i believe that they should be reviewed in the collectively or in the aggregate just for that reason your honor because as a parent and student parent or student or any other visitor to the classroom is not necessarily going to see something isolated in context just the stickies or just this the sticky notes for on her desk the low down position as reflected photographs and not readily available are visible city the classroom or perhaps seated in the seats but any time a student were to you know come around to see the teacher to answer a question or maybe come up to the front of the room to make a presentation or even a janitor at night who's going to come in to the building is going you know cleaning around the desk and going to c v s and i think that the reasonable observer looking around could say that while the district you know has really put it in for my tour these religious references your original complain right the didn't make reference to the sticky notes that it it referred to the counseling letter in the counseling letter when they're concerned about you know the concern that animated all this was really you know it right but am i correct the sticky notes were not part of what their concern i believe i believe that's correct but i wouldn't say that it's fair to say that's not what they were concerned with i think that letter was simply generated based on a student complaint either by e mail or  or over the phone or whatever it was an investigation based on having gone through the classroom and looked around which is exactly what the school district i don't think it's fair to say you know even this it let me ask you this let's say that the posters  were out of the picture and all you had left with a sticky notes would you have the same concerns although mitigated yes i would have the same concerns i mean especially one of the sticky notes that judge specifically indicated suggested that you know an observer of that note would feel that if they don't share that belief that they would be political outsider that they were damned if they didn't follow that on the district is because again you have to separate the school district as the government as a sovereign versus the school district as an employer and here the employer can govern what speech is undertaken by its employees on its premises you know we don't want you putting religious messages on your desk or anywhere in the classroom that's how the sticky notes differ from wearing you know across or you know some sort of religious jewelry but i think the sticky notes are attached to a school own desk and this is something that's in the building all the time anybody you know when the teacher is not there anybody going through that building can see th proselytizing in your classroom whereas jewelry is not as i guess in your face perhaps it's something that people are accustomed to seeing is you know reflective of that person's individual preference or style as opposed to guess text and various other things but there are said he was applying and the sixth circuit said this is the school district speech and they can they can regulate it and it's there's no first amendment right in fact plaintiff has been saying that any any case that there that a teacher in a secondary or primary setting has a first amendment right to speak or to place posters in the classroom so the school district directs the teachers not to teach evolution and to give an alternative explanation for man's presence on earth they would have the right to fire teachers who didn't follow that directive yes yes because the school district sets the curriculum and if the school district does not want creationism taught in a teacher defies that and teaches it then saying that reverses the school district decides it wants only creationism taught ok then then the teacher has no right to teach anything other than that and the school district could fire the teacher for not teaching creationism is that right i think is correct yes it doesn't doesn't marcie seem to accept that the first amendment covers  respect i would suggest that you know if he's going to be applied as i think that the case law you know suggests that it will in the classroom setting there is no first amendment right to that speech so the question of whether there was a civilian analog your answer is that there isn't that there is no other citizen could have walked in that classroom and posted things you know expected to post things on the desk or the walls or anywhere else next class room and i just want to briefly address before my time is up plan if it indicated that the it referenced the district answer again the answer was after the motion to dismiss and things properly consider on the record that said whoever paragraph sixteen which point is referencing does not admit that plaintiff speech was done pursued to a policy it simply admits the very benign fact that the school district like every other school district i think in the country has a policy of allowing teachers to decorate their classrooms in a way that you know you know establishment clause violation would justify viewpoint discrimination in that i don't know that i left it open i believe pack and peck was as i recall the case involving the regulated you know but again i think pac is is instructive in that you know again this is you know the court there said that this kindergarten students poster could be deemed an endorsement by the district or  give reasonable observer the belief that the district puts its imprimatur on this religious content which is i think a far cry from a teacher doing so in her and her public school classroom i mean i think any reasonable observer again i think that's a that's a bit aggressive because i think any reasonable observer seeing a kindergarten students poster with would think that that's the student's work not necessarily that the district puts its imprimatur as opposed to you know just permits  student posters whether it be religious or non religious or whatever so i think again i think school districts have the ability to restrict a kid in kindergarten students poster from being hung in a cafeteria based on establishment cla concerns and districts certainly have the ability to regulate where one of their own employees is decorated a classroom with with much more overt religious content thank you and thank you sorry for not speaking more clearly with with regard to the question about aggregating the displays if you look at the counseling letter itself the counseling letter itself treats each one separately in the directive is if you don't fall in each one of these instructions then you are subject to terminations so even the establishing cause violation may overcome viewpoint discrimination that is still an open question i think is an open question posed from korten with vincent whether or not that reaches the level of a compelling of a compelling interest but the fact still remains that that defense must be a legitimate one it must be grounded in the facts in the law you just can't just say establishment clause and all the study of a compelling interest and then there's different cause becomes a blunt instrument i think the tenth circuit had the right approach when they said look this is a constitutional justification and because of that we the court you the judges are very well equipped to judge their determination of whether or not it's an illegitimate exception cause violation and that you don't get the school district that much deference as you would in not it's just a content based or viewpoint based i think under the law of what the sanctions are making a viewpoint base so then the question becomes do they have a compelling interest in prohibiting that particular display and you do you would go through what would it what the and correct me if i'm if i'm wrong and your your adversary correct me if i'm wrong that the the school authorities had no objection to the sticky notes or the contents of the sticky very much appreciate them the court will reserve decision here the