Current Event

As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on October 15, 2003 (full article available on-line)

The Wisconsin chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is objecting to a laceName>New BerlinlaceName> laceType>School DistrictlaceType> policy prohibiting political activity on school grounds, arguing that the policy violates free speech guarantees in the Wisconsin and U.S. constitutions.

In a letter to the New Berlin School Board and district administration, ACLU of Wisconsin Legal Director Laurence J. Dupuis said the ACLU is stepping in after receiving complaints from New Berlin residents about the policy. Dupuis said the district's policy regarding the use of school facilities violates state and federal law by placing content-based restrictions upon "an otherwise open forum for expression of ideas."

The policy on use of schools was revised in June by a 3-2 vote to include language banning political activities from New Berlin's schools amid discussion that changes to the policy were necessary to prohibit extremist groups from using the schools.

The updated policy now says groups shall not use district facilities for any election campaigning activities, including candidate forums, speeches by political candidates and "activities related to the promotion of or opposition to a particular candidate or political platform."

Applications to use schools for such a purpose will be denied "without regard for the political viewpoint of the group," the policy says.

……………………………..

But in a letter sent to the New Berlin school officials last week, Dupuis said the policy's language is "vague and subject to discriminatory application." For example, Dupuis asked, would the policy prevent non-profit groups from promoting public policies that a political party has also endorsed in its platform?

………………………………

Eitel (school board president at the time) said the discussion began when concerns were raised about Home and School organizations holding School Board candidate forums at schools.

In some cases, Eitel said, school principals received concerns that candidates themselves were helping to plan the forums, or the organizations were using the forums "to further the political agenda of the Home and School-supported candidates."

………………………

VS

Free speech vs. the control of local public facilities

Founding Document

The US Constitution: First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Wisconsin Constitution Article 1, Section 3:

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and if it appears to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquited; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and fact.

We the People:

This New Berlin Schools policy (number 1330) is not under the jurisdiction of the first amendment to the US Constitution, which restricts only Congress from making such laws.  And since no state or local law was created, the second clause of the second sentence of the Wisconsin constitution was not violated.

Note that the state does not define the criteria for abuse; that definition is left to the local authorities.  And that is how the founders intended it.  They respected “vertical” government which allows local levels to maintain the authority.  This does not apply to some articles of the US Constitution; but it certainly applies in the first amendment.

The school board retains that authority to limit speech in school facilities with input from the local community.  Ultimately the people decide by their votes for or against the school board members.  Interference from the ACLU was unwarranted since it forced the community to choose between paying legal costs (even if it won) and doing what it thought was best for the students.  The discussion would have otherwise remained centered on whether the change was better for the students’ education.