Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (43782)	2/6/2002 12:05:51 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

The school is inane. If it had editorial control, it could accept that which furthered the intent of the project, and excluded that which did not. If the objection were "entanglement", since the religious symbols were incidental to expressions of grief and the desire to honor the slain, and did not amount to proselytizing, there was no issue. The problem is that once it is a lawsuit, the means used to force the school to use the material in question matters. If it is a free- speech issue, it may be that "content neutrality" necessitates allowing the offensive material. On the other, perhaps the columnist is right, that you could narrowly tailor a result that was content- neutral as long as the goals of the project were fulfilled, in other words, that showed a groundless discrimination against the religious symbols. My hunch is that they should not have made it a free speech issue, which makes the outcome less predictable, but should have made it an issue of free exercise. The state cannot prevent people engaged in a project like this from using religious symbols, any more than it can make them take off crucifixes at PTA meetings, unless the reason alleged for interefering can withstand strict scrutiny and is the least restrictive means to achieve the result.