Home 用中文 Espaņol  
News & Opinion
CFAC Blog
Legal Hotline
Membership
Asked & Answered
Access To Meetings
Access To Records
News Gathering
Prop 59
CFAC Podcasts
Model Letters
Books
AG Opinions
CFAC In The News
CFAC Assembly
Sunshine Ordinances
CFAC Litigation
Newsletter ("Flash")
About Us
Contact Us
Useful Links


Enter your e-mail to receive our bi-weekly FLASH newsletter:




Search CFAC
Google
WWW cfac.org




mccormick

knight

LifeNews.com

11/26/03

Court Sides With Pro-Life Advocates Educating High School Students

By Steven Ertelt

Long Beach -- A California court has initially sided with pro-life advocates who say they were wrongfully asked to leave an area nearby a local high school where they were holding up pro-life signs and distributing educational literature.

Federal Judge Edward Rafeedie of the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction in favor of four pro-life advocates. They are represented by Catherine Short, Legal Director of Life Legal Defense Foundation.

The injunction prohibits the Long Beach Unified School District, a high school principal, six Long Beach police officers and the city from arresting or otherwise interfering with the pro-lifers "holding signs, distributing literature, and discussing abortion with students and others present on the sidewalk adjoining Millikan High School during school dismissal periods."

In September 2002, the four pro-life people were outside the high school. The police told them they were trespassing because the sidewalk was considered school property and the principal didn't want them there.

When threatened with arrest, three moved to a sidewalk across the street, but Dan McCullough refused saying he had a First Amendment right to be there.

Eric Milton, one of the four, videotaped the conversation with police, who demanded that he relinquish the tape to them. The police initially took the tape from Milton, though he ultimately received it back.

The police and school argue the sidewalk next to the school is not a public forum and, therefore, not protected under the First Amendment. The plaintiffs right to free speech could also be restricted, they say, because the students were a "captive audience," the materials distributed were "offensive," and the sidewalk technically belonged to the school.

The district court rejected each of those arguments when granting the injunction.

join


Have a legal question?
Check out Asked & Answered first. Chances are, we've already answered it. If not, then proceed to CFAC's Legal Hotline for help from top lawyers—free.


CFAC Archives:


Search CFAC
Google
WWW cfac.org