Does the E.C. justify the viewpoint restriction on speech in a limited public forum?
One argument was that since the Good News Club meets on school grounds immediately after the end of the school day, young (elementary) schoolchildren might mistakenly believe that the school was “endorsing the Club and will feel coercive pressure to participate.” P. 1822
The Court says “this argument is unpersuasive.”
First, because a neutral program that treats all clubs equally is not an endorsement of religion.
Second, since parents must consent to their children’s participation in the after school programs, this ensures that there will be no mistaken endorsement by impressionable children.
Parental consent is a circuit-breaker for purposes of any claim of mistaken endorsement.
See also p. 1823: endorsement is a two-edged sword–“we cannot say the danger that children would misperceive the endorsement of religion is any greater than the danger that they would perceive a hostility toward the religious viewpoint if the Club were excluded from the public forum.”
Again, no coercive pressure for children to attend because parents must consent.
The Court declines “to employ Establishment Clause jurisprudence using a modified heckler’s veto.” P. 1823
No comments:
Post a Comment