IS LAKEWOOD STUDENTS’ BILL AN AFFRONT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
By Katy Grimes
Editor’s note: This dissection of Assembly Bill 1174, conceived by students in a Lakewood High School civics class and introduced by Assemblymember Warren Furutani, is excerpted from a column on CalWatchdog.org describing the California legislature as the Bad Mill Bill.
AB 1174 states that any person who disturbs a public school activity, including the arrival and departure of students at school during school hours, is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of $500. Because this bill would expand the scope of an “existing crime,” it would impose a state-mandated local program.
What crime is Furutani talking about? Under a loose definition of what constitutes disturbing public school activity, parents, students, teachers, school employees and the general public, on public sidewalks near the school, could be arrested for picketing, passing out flyers or talking to students, teachers or administrators.
Parents distributing information about after-school sports, clubs or scouting could be charged with the “crime” of disturbing public school activity if school officials don’t care for the topic being solicited. Even the ACLU opposes the bill because “on its face appear to criminalize protected First Amendment activities.”
In the bill analysis, the author cites the following examples of inappropriate interactions:
In 2002, members of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust gathered outside Millikan High School in Long Beach. The group, located on the sidewalk directly bordering the high school, displayed gruesome signs and distributed leaflets to students during dismissal.
In 2003, at Dodson Middle School in Rancho Palos Verdes, a group from the Center for Bio Ethical Reform placed graphic photographs on the sides of trucks and drove around Dodson Middle School while students arrived. Several children reported becoming physically ill, some cried and many averted their eyes from the photos.
And, at Lakewood High School in Long Beach Unified School District, different individuals have been present during school dismissal to distribute items such as flyers for a nearby strip club.
Only activities that bother Democrats were noted in Furutani’s bill. I am assuming that people handing out flyers about global warming, or from PETA, GLSEN, Planned Parenthood or AmeriCorps would not be arrested.
In support of AB 1174 is the Association of California School Administrators. A recent news story reported that ACSA hopes the bill will expand “the scope of authority for school administrators to protect students entering or leaving a school site beyond the school property itself.”
The original wording in the bill stated that it was about “curriculum,” but when amended it became a “public safety” issue.
On behalf of Lakewood High’s legislative advocacy class, Furutani introduced the bill because students “are disturbed and feel unsafe due to incidents where solicitors attempt to talk to students and hand out materials, including Bibles, on sidewalks adjacent to schools as students are leaving school. The students state that while they can choose to not answer the door to strangers at home or patronize businesses where solicitors are present, they are required to attend school and are therefore captured audience.”
How terrifying to have someone handing out Bibles. What if the offending solicitors were handing out packets of marijuana? Would the students be just as disturbed or feel unsafe?
I am not sure which is worse: Teachers and administrators abdicating their responsibility to use the picketing and protests as teachable moments about the First Amendment, or students and parents with such thin skin, they can’t face issues they find disagreeable or distasteful?
In the attempt to prevent certain messages from reaching students, Furutani’s bill proposes eliminating free speech even beyond school property. It also likely violates the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that protected even disgusting protests at military funerals. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority decision:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
Legislators talk publicly about the need to improve California’s economy, but spend time producing bills that do more damage than good, while ignoring constitutional liberties.
















8 Comments
I take serious exception to the notion this law would lead to: “Parents distributing information about after-school sports, clubs or scouting could be charged with the “crime” of disturbing public school activity if school officials don’t care for the topic being solicited. ”
The truth is that students and parents (and teachers too) are are already currently prohibited from distributing or posting anything that is not approved by school administration. In fact, you cannot even post anything on any kiosk at CSULB without a stamp of approval from admin.
This is exactly the problem: students do not actually have freedom of speech on campus because it is “reasonably” restricted. and yet any ol’ Tom, Dick, or Hairy can hand out anything they like right outside the gate of the school without any kind of supervision at all– to children as young as kindergarten age. I agree this could be a “teachable” moment for older children 14-17, but I feel it is completely inappropriate for an adult to approach a child of 5-12 without parental permission/supervision. Really? Is it too much to ask for a little permission from parents, or a notification to parents in advance letting them know so they can prepare for the “teachable moment”? or is it really because they know what they are doing is wrong and they do not want to give the parents a chance to say “no, thank you?”
In addition, students are required by law to attend school which means they do not have to choice to “ignore” aggressive people who block the entrances to their campuses. In the typical problem incident, pamphleteers block every entrance to the school–literally surrounding the campus– and disallowing the student’s choice to avoid them.
As to the comparison of handing out bibles to handing out marijuana– thank you exactly for proving why unwelcome people loitering at campus gates is a problem. Until we know exactly who is on the sidewalk, we really do not know if our kids are safe, do we?
One last question: if the sidewalk is a “free speech” place, why does the City of Long Beach require permits for parades, demonstrations, gatherings of more than 25 people in public parks, and for filming and photography?
In my mind, they are already plenty of precedents for reasonable limits to free speech. AB 1174 is no more an affront to free speech than not allowing people to exercise hate speech or yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
The US Constitution prohibits the abridgement of speech, particularly political and religious speech, and particularly political and religious speech on public thoroughfares like sidewalks.
Reasonable regulation, however, does not constitute abridgemnent.
Reasonable regulations are already in place that protect our school-aged children. It is already unlawful to annoy or molest a child under 18 *anywhere* in California [647.6(a)(1) PC].
Reasonable regulations are already in place that prohibit disturbances of the public peace through loud or unreasonable noise *anywhere* in California [415.2 PC].
If a parent, guardian or any school staff member believes a solicitor may be in the process of committing a violation of PC 647.6(a)(1) or PC 415.2, he or she should call school security or the police and have the person investigated.
So long as solicitors are not violating existing laws, however, and so long as they remain on public thoroughfares like the sidewalk, their speech should *not* be either further regulated *or* abridged.
If a solicitor is present on the a public thoroughfare in front of or adjoining a school there are plenty of opportunities for students or anyone else to avoid them if they prefer to do so. No one in a public place is required to speak with anyone else. No one in a public place is required to accept anything another person offers them.
To avoid solicitors that are operating within the bounds of the law, all one needs do is walk on past, or walk around, and not even acknowledge their existence, let alone speak with or accept anything from them.
All of that having been said, people who are not students, parents or school staff who choose to hang out in front of, or near, schools are just creepy. One could go so far as to say they are suspicious. Whenever I observe a person in a public place behaving suspiciously, particularly if I think they are harboring some sort of criminal intent, I call the police and have them checked out.
Perhaps if more parents and school staff members took the same action whenever solicitors appear in front of or near our schools, such people would, in turn, find other, more comfortable, places in which to loiter.
Thanks, John.
It is my opinion that when Katy asked, what law are they breaking?… like you say…loitering is the first that comes to mind.
Here are some more ordinances they are breaking:
5.46.050 – Business license required.
No person shall cause the distribution of any pamphlet without clearly printing the business license number of the person or entity which caused the pamphlet to be distributed, unless such person or entity is not otherwise required to possess a business license under this code.
(Ord. ORD-05-0030 § 1, 2005).
5.46.060 – Public distribution prohibited.
Except for the sale or distribution of newspapers, no person as principal, agent, employee, or otherwise shall solicit, whether verbally, written or otherwise, for any business, profession, trade, transportation line, excursion or any other purpose, in person, or by personally selling, offering for sale, or distributing any tickets, cards, handbills or other printed or written matter or merchandise in or upon any public street, alley, sidewalk, way, pier, wharf or other public place, or in or on any vehicle in any such place in the city, except as may be lawfully permitted under chapter 5.66 of this title 5. No person shall post notices on public property including street signs, lampposts, etc., without a permit from the public works department.
(Ord. ORD-05-0030 § 1, 2005).
5.46.070 – False advertising prohibited.
No person shall sell, furnish, perform or in any way dispose of real or personal property, services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever, directly or indirectly to the public, or induce the public in any manner to enter into any obligation relating thereto, or acquire title thereto, or any interest therein, by means of publishing, circulating, or causing to be made, published or circulated before the public in the city, in any newspaper, magazine, book, pamphlet, circular, letter, notice, handbill, poster, or other publication, or on any billboard, sign, card, label, or other advertising medium, including any electric sign, window sign, showcase, or window display, or any other advertising device, or by public outcry, or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, which advertising contains any statement representation, or assertion concerning such real or personal property, service, or anything so offered to the public, or concerning any circumstances or matter of fact connected in any way directly or indirectly with the proposed sale, performance or disposition thereof, which statement, representation or assertion is false or untrue in any respect, or which is deceptive or misleading; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to any publisher of a newspaper, magazine, or other publication who publishes said advertisement in good faith without knowledge of its false, deceptive or misleading character.
Also here is the LB Municipal Code that shows that people handing out anything on the sidewalk ( i.e. a planned special event) are in violation of LB ordinances relating to Special Events: http://library.municode.com/HTML/16115/level4/VO1_TIT5REBUTRPR_IIIPABURE_CH5.60PASPEV.html.
Well, Ms. Jeanine, there you go. No less than four additional existing laws that such a person can be investigated for and held accountable to.
We don’t need more laws that only serve to further restrict free speech, where appropriate, we only need to enforce the ones we have.
The school administrators work hard to create a safe learning environment for people of all beliefs on campus–in fact our taxpayers pays for this. The school’s jurisdiction should extend to the sidewalk that is absolutely required for student use, in other words, the campus should extend to all areas that students have no choice about using.
The sidewalk is a public thoroughfare, used by all peoples in a community, and not only our students. This is why free speech should not be abridged upon it. As mentioned, this does not give anyone the right to block others from moving freely upon it and, if they are blocking others, they should be dealt with appropriately. Personally, I dislike the sidewalk. Grass just feels better under my feet.
If kids learn it’s illegal to annoy them in Long Beach, their teachers are toast. Parents, too.
“How terrifying to have someone handing out Bibles. What if the offending solicitors were handing out packets of marijuana? Would the students be just as disturbed or feel unsafe?”
What is this implication, exactly? What a stereotypical, sarcastic, and furthermore, unprofessional statement. However, I presume you would think it’s okay, taking into account your First Amendment Rights.
Pity.