Home Comments/Qoutes
Viewpoint discrimination-A regulation is considered to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint when it attacks a particular individual’s or group’s message, as opposed to the mode in which that message is conveyed.
The Defendants’ decision to prohibit the Plaintiffs from performing at the assembly constituted viewpoint discrimination against the Plaintiffs and violated the Plaintiffs’ right to free speech granted by U.S. Const. Amend. I. Pawns Civil Complaint The band’s arguments fail, however, because they misapprehend the nature of the School assembly. This is not a case about the state discriminating against speech and religion, but rather about the state having control over who speaks on its behalf....Rather, when there is no public forum and “the government appropriates public funds to promote a particular policy of its own, it is entitled to say what it wishes.”  To continue the analogy, the state is entitled to lend out its microphone to whomever it wishes to speak on the state’s behalf. In that situation, the state need not remain viewpoint neutral Memorandom order and opinion
Equal protection-Constitutional guarantee embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states in relevant part that ‘no State shall . . . Deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' The essential purpose of this constitutional doctrine is to ensure that the laws and the government treat all persons alike, unless there is some substantial reason why certain persons or classes of persons should be treated differently.
The Defendants’ decision to prohibit the Plaintiffs from performing at the assembly because the Plaintiffs are devout Christians and because of the Plaintiffs’ public avowal of their religious beliefs deprived Plaintiffs’ of their clearly established right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the U.S. Const. Amend. XIV. Pawns Civil Complaint Here, Defendants had both “realistic” and “legitimate” concerns. Pawn is an avowedly Christian band whose musical lyrics reflect that religious tradition. Though Kleeberger promised the band would refrain from any prosletyzing or evangelical behavior at the performance, earlier he had publically expressed his desire that the assembly reintroduce religion into the public schools. In any event, his later assurances do not render Defendants’ concerns either unrealistic or illegitimate. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims are without merit. Memorandom order and opinion
Page maintained by Steve Bruno Contact