Wallace v. Jaffree and a Moment of Silence

Whose liberty is deprived by a law that allows each student a "period of silence 'for meditation or voluntary prayer?'"


No one was required to pray and each student was free to think or reflect on any subject or none at all. Each student was free to pray, or meditate, or reflect on his Little League batting average, or worry about whether the Social Security system would remain solvent for her generation of future retirees. 

So how does this harmless law violate the incorporated Establishment Clause?

Was the legislature's purpose somehow unconstitutional? Was the pupose to advance religion or to advance religious liberty by clearing up "a widespread misunderstanding that a schoolchild is legally prohibited from engaging in silent, individual prayer once he steps inside a public school building."

How do we know what was the legislature's purpose? Are the views of one legislator controlling?

I conclude in my article that this decision by the Court amounts to a judicially-imposed heckler's veto, one that allows one group of citizens (the offended observers) the power to deny another group of citizens  a brief opportunity to engage in silent prayer. 

Am I wrong? Or am I right?

Please prepare to take both sides of this issue for class discussion.