AZ GOP/tea party quashes free speech

[UncleBuck]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2015/03/30/house-amendment-silence-schools/70676094/

the bill "prohibits an employee of a school district or charter school, acting on the district's or charter school's behalf, from distributing electronic materials to influence the outcome of an election or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation."



good ol' constitutional conservatives, eh?

last week it was mandatory church attendance, this week it is silencing teachers (or they face a $5000 fine).

thanks, GOP and tea party.

 

[OddBall1st]

What do they need ? Flashlights ? Stun Guns ? Where do the teachers get it ?

 

[see4]

Oddly enough, Rob Roy, sloppy seconds and the rest of the Klansmen aren't in here agreeing and demanding that AZ law makers are forcibly coercing teachers.

 

[see4]

Crickets from the right. Typical.

 

[ttystikk]

I'm stunned at their audacity to trample on the Bill of Rights.

I say every fucking teacher on the state disobeys and dares the legislature to do something.

 

[Glaucoma]

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/52leg/1r/bills/sb1172h.htm&Session_ID=114

A. A person acting on behalf of a school district or a person who aids another person acting on behalf of a school district shall not spend or use school district or charter school resources, including the use or expenditure of monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value of the school district or charter school, for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections. Notwithstanding this section, a school district may distribute informational reports on a proposed budget override election as provided in section 15‑481, subsections B and C or informational reports on a proposed bond election as provided in section 15‑491, subsection D if those informational reports present factual information in a neutral manner, except for those arguments presented as prescribed in section 15-481, subsection B, paragraph 9. Nothing in this section precludes a school district from reporting on official actions of the governing board.

Don't push one-sided politics while on the clock or use school resources for such things. Yeah, horrible idea.

B. This section does not prohibit the use of school district or charter school resources, including facilities and equipment, for government‑sponsored forums or debates if the government sponsor remains impartial and the events are purely informational and provide an equal opportunity to all viewpoints. The rental and use of a public facility by a private person or entity that may lawfully attempt to influence the outcome of an election is permitted if it does not occur at the same time and place as a government-sponsored forum or debate.

Here's how school resources may be used when it comes to politics. Only stuff that is factual and gives equal time to all views in debates. Yeah. More horrible ideas. How DARE they?

C. An employee of a school district or charter school who is acting as an agent of or working in an official capacity for the school district or charter school may not DISTRIBUTE written OR ELECTRONIC materials to influence the outcome of an election or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation.

No passing out propaganda leaflets while on the clock. Just more of the same.

D. Employees of a school district or charter school may not use the authority of their positions to influence the vote or political activities of any subordinate employee.

No telling your subordinates how they should vote or that they need to promote X. Oh, the oppression!

E. Notwithstanding section 15‑342, paragraph 8, a school district shall not spend monies for membership in an association that attempts to influence the outcome of an election.

No spending district money on campaigns? When will it end?

[/quote]F. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as denying the civil and political liberties of any person as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions.[/quote]

I thought this was supposed to be denying civil liberties?

The rest are logistics and penalties/definitions. What exactly is the problem? Am I missing something? Again, from what I understand, this is about money intended for education being spent on education and teachers teaching while on the clock.

Personally, I never knew this was ever an issue to begin with. Don't they have something better to do?

 

[see4]

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/52leg/1r/bills/sb1172h.htm&Session_ID=114




Don't push one-sided politics while on the clock or use school resources for such things. Yeah, horrible idea.



Here's how school resources may be used when it comes to politics. Only stuff that is factual and gives equal time to all views in debates. Yeah. More horrible ideas. How DARE they?



No passing out propaganda leaflets while on the clock. Just more of the same.



No telling your subordinates how they should vote or that they need to promote X. Oh, the oppression!



No spending district money on campaigns? When will it end?

F. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as denying the civil and political liberties of any person as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions.

I thought this was supposed to be denying civil liberties?

The rest are logistics and penalties/definitions. What exactly is the problem? Am I missing something? Again, from what I understand, this is about money intended for education being spent on education and teachers teaching while on the clock.

Personally, I never knew this was ever an issue to begin with. Don't they have something better to do?

Teachers, by-in-large, are liberal, and generally vote Democrat. This bill along with bills, at local levels, require teachers to basically never talk politics ever, never talk about anything "science-y" and must accept and introduce the idea that earth is 6,000 years old and everything was created by God, as Christians see it. Google Maricopa country, Gilbert AZ introducing creationism and trying to remove natural selection from their curriculum.

This is the same state that gave us Jan Brewer.

I suppose you take no issue with redistricting either?

 

[Glaucoma]

This bill along with bills, at local levels, require teachers to basically never talk politics ever, never talk about anything "science-y" and must accept and introduce the idea that earth is 6,000 years old and everything was created by God, as Christians see it. Google Maricopa country, Gilbert AZ introducing creationism and trying to remove natural selection from their curriculum.

And where exactly does it say any of that in the bill? Is that A, B, C, D, E, F, etc?

 

[see4]

And where exactly does it say any of that in the bill? Is that A, B, C, D, E, F, etc?

C and D. Intimidation text. Teachers will begin to feel uncomfortable teaching anything that could be construed as political in nature. C and D in and of themselves are not direct laws pertaining to that exactly, but in combination with the introduced religious laws, both at state and township levels, teachers will need to teach both science and creationism as they were both equally factual and correct, and show no bias in either direction. Which could be construed as political in nature.

 

[Glaucoma]

C and D. Intimidation text. Teachers will begin to feel uncomfortable teaching anything that could be construed as political in nature. C and D in and of themselves are not direct laws pertaining to that exactly, but in combination with the introduced religious laws, both at state and township levels, teachers will need to teach both science and creationism as they were both equally factual and correct, and show no bias in either direction. Which could be construed as political in nature.

This specifically concerns pending elections and legislation. It says so right in it. Your jedi mind tricks have no effect on me.

The position you are giving me right now is exactly the sort of thing they don't want being done by school faculty while working in that capacity. Nor do they want school resources being used for such things.

Nowhere does it prohibit or limit their freedom outside of the classroom.

So again, what's the problem?

 

[see4]

This specifically concerns pending elections and legislation. It says so right in it. Your jedi mind tricks have no effect on me.

The position you are giving me right now is exactly the sort of thing they don't want being done by school faculty while working in that capacity. Nor do they want school resources being used for such things.

Nowhere does it prohibit or limit their freedom outside of the classroom.

So again, what's the problem?

Hmm, oddly you were able to dodge my entire response. Kudos.

I know that it does not prohibit or limit speech outside of the classroom, that it pretty obvious, and I'm not debating that. I am however explaining to you how it is viewed as intimidation when in combination with the recently passed religious laws in this state. My example I provided is direct and to the point of showing how this law is intimidating. It is stifling free speech. Remembering that speech doesn't necessarily mean verbal.

Now that I look these, I'm going to add A to the mix as well. A, C and D in combination with recent religious laws, means curriculums will soon be changing in the Science and History departments.

Slipper-slope at its finest.

 

[TheHermit]

Why is it just teachers that are singled out. Shouldn't it be applicable to all state employees?

 

[Glaucoma]

Hmm, oddly you were able to dodge my entire response. Kudos.

I know that it does not prohibit or limit speech outside of the classroom, that it pretty obvious, and I'm not debating that. I am however explaining to you how it is viewed as intimidation when in combination with the recently passed religious laws in this state. My example I provided is direct and to the point of showing how this law is intimidating. It is stifling free speech. Remembering that speech doesn't necessarily mean verbal.

Now that I look these, I'm going to add A to the mix as well. A, C and D in combination with recent religious laws, means curriculums will soon be changing in the Science and History departments.

Slipper-slope at its finest.

Your entire response as well as most of this one have nothing to do with facts and everything to do with your opinion.

This only applies to pending elections and legislation that are not purely factual/informational. Are you even reading the same bill?

Wouldn't allowing school faculty to use school resources to promote their opinions open the very door you are worried about? I am worried about that door being opened as well. I see this as a good thing. School is for facts, not opinions.

Why is it just teachers that are singled out. Shouldn't it be applicable to all state employees?

I'm not entirely sure, but it likely is addressed in most departments. For example AZDOT might have their specific regs, etc.. Also, it's technically not just teachers, it would apply to any school staff while they are performing their duties.

 

[Glaucoma]

@see4 , To put this in RIU terms: Would you want Rob Roy giving his interpretation of pending anti-discrimination legislation after he is done with the math lesson (edit: but before the dismissal bell rings)? Is it ok if he makes a 100 copies or so in the teachers lounge? He will promise to only do it while the kids are busy with work. Edit: Also, he wants to tell his assistant to help him.

Or would you rather he just reported the facts?

 

[TheHermit]

Fair enough, I can understand the state not wanting their employees using public resources to further their own private political agendas. That seems reasonable enough. What I don't get is why it doesn't also include police, firefighters, dmv workers, etc. Wouldn't a sheriff running for reelection be tempted to do the same thing? Maybe there are already laws against this. I can't say I know all that much about Arizona law.

 

[BDOGKush]

This bill didn't even make it to a vote.

 

[see4]

Your entire response as well as most of this one have nothing to do with facts and everything to do with your opinion.

This only applies to pending elections and legislation that are not purely factual/informational. Are you even reading the same bill?

Wouldn't allowing school faculty to use school resources to promote their opinions open the very door you are worried about? I am worried about that door being opened as well. I see this as a good thing. School is for facts, not opinions.



I'm not entirely sure, but it likely is addressed in most departments. For example AZDOT might have their specific regs, etc.. Also, it's technically not just teachers, it would apply to any school staff while they are performing their duties.

@see4 , To put this in RIU terms: Would you want Rob Roy giving his interpretation of pending anti-discrimination legislation after he is done with the math lesson (edit: but before the dismissal bell rings)? Is it ok if he makes a 100 copies or so in the teachers lounge? He will promise to only do it while the kids are busy with work. Edit: Also, he wants to tell his assistant to help him.

Or would you rather he just reported the facts?

I see your points, and they are quite rational. I just think there is a slipper slope conundrum with this bill AND the recent bills passed. Are you familiar with county statutes in Arizona forcing teachers to educate students on creationism in the classroom? It is not a separate study like gym class, it is part and/or in place of science; actual, real, science.

If this bill were to make it to vote, and pass, it would mean that a teacher or employed member within the education system would have to teach both creationism and science as if they were the same factual slab-o-information, and they aren't equal in that regard, not by a long shot.

The bill is rife with clauses left completely open to interpretation.

A person acting on behalf of a school district or a person who aids another person acting on behalf of a school district shall not spend or use school district or charter school resources, including the use or expenditure of monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value of the school district or charter school, for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections.

The wording in the above clause allows prosecution to openly interpret the term, "outcomes of elections". Many Republican candidates run on a religious platform, and I can see how this constricting this bill may be to teachers who think creationism is not actual science.

It also leaves it open for managing employed members of school districts to fire teachers who they feel may be violating this "law".

This is most certainly a slipper slope bill.


BUT, alas, BDOGKush has informed us that this pile of steamed poop hasn't even made it to vote.

So our discussion is moot.

Thanks for playing nicely Glaucoma.

 

[Hazydat620]

Hmm, oddly you were able to dodge my entire response. Kudos.

I know that it does not prohibit or limit speech outside of the classroom, that it pretty obvious, and I'm not debating that. I am however explaining to you how it is viewed as intimidation when in combination with the recently passed religious laws in this state. My example I provided is direct and to the point of showing how this law is intimidating. It is stifling free speech. Remembering that speech doesn't necessarily mean verbal.

Now that I look these, I'm going to add A to the mix as well. A, C and D in combination with recent religious laws, means curriculums will soon be changing in the Science and History departments.

Slipper-slope at its finest.

Curriculum changes, no way???? You mean like when they tried to rip out the sperm page in AP biology books???

 

[see4]

Curriculum changes, no way???? You mean like when they tried to rip out the sperm page in AP biology books???

Gilbert schools have to introduce to some level, creationism.

What. The. Fuck.?

 

[Hazydat620]

Gilbert schools have to introduce to some level, creationism.

What. The. Fuck.?

I thought that's what Sunday school was for?