DO YOU MIND THIS GUY WAITING FOR KIDS OUTSIDE THEIR SCHOOL?
By Dave Wielenga
A clean-cut white man in a plaid shirt and khakis lingered outside Rogers Middle School one afternoon last month, waiting for students to be released from another day of classes. But when the boys and girls began to pass through the campus exits, the man waited a little longer. Obviously, he was experienced at this.
Only when the children had reached the sidewalk did the man finally begin to interact with them, and in this legally permissible zone his reticence disappeared. As he engaged one or another of them in conversation while handing them pamphlets, he was self-assured, well-rehearsed and quite clear in his objective.
But everything changed when another adult arrived, a woman who’d been driving past the Belmont Heights school and didn’t like the look of things—the clear mismatch between grown-up and youngster in what clearly was an attempt at persuasion. She parked her car, grabbed a camera, approached the man and asked him what he was doing.
Faced with an equal, the guy clammed-and-covered—refusing to give so much as his name and blocking his face with the Christian booklets he’d been foisting on the kids—as he scurried back to his big panel van with “Christ Died for our Sins” painted on the side.
Jesus probably hadn’t had a so-called friend bail on Him this quickly since Simon Peter.
But the clean-cut man’s seeming creepiness and cowardice aside, what he was doing—standing on the public sidewalk outside a public school and approaching minor children with a religious (although it could have been political or who-knows-what) kind of message—is not illegal.
IT OUGHT TO BE, asserts a group of Lakewood High School seniors enrolled in a legislative-advocacy class called Civic Voice. They say they are weary of fending off the Bibles periodically forced upon them by the Gideon Society, appalled by the hate that was spewed last spring by the Westboro Baptist Church during a chaotic demonstration outside Wilson High and concerned that the children following them through the school system may face much worse. They contend it is unfair for proselytizing adults to opportunistically use schools to prey on young prospects who are helpless to avoid their advances.
“It’s a law that we have to come to school every day,” points out Todd Thomas, one of about 40 students sprinkled among the three Civic Voice classes overseen by teacher Wendy Salaya. “At home, I don’t have to open the door when someone knocks. At the store, I don’t have to use the entrance where someone may be standing—or I don’t have to go to that store at all.
“But walking in and out of school, I don’t have a choice; there are only a few entrances and exits, and every day I have to go through one of them. If some adult is waiting there to talk to me, I can’t avoid it.”
During months of classroom discussion, the Lakewood High students hammered out a proposal they believe would solve the problem—the establishment of a 100-foot “safety-zone perimeter” around every kindergarten-through-12th-grade public school in California. Within that zone, the solicitation of minors by adults would be illegal.
Late last month, the students requested such a law in individual letters to their local representatives in Sacramento.
Less than a week later, Assembly member Warren Furutani agreed to take their cause through the legislative process.
“It’s an issue that’s definitely worth looking at,” said Furutani. “It’s even more exciting because it is real, grass-roots democracy—the practical application of an idea coming from constituents.
“I’m going to go to their class as soon as possible, probably after holiday break, to talk about the whole process of having bill become a law. And then we’re gonna go through the real process—this is not going to just be an exercise, we’re not going to do this hypothetically. They are going to see the realities of an idea that maybe becomes a bill that maybe becomes a law.”
NOBODY IN TEACHER WENDY SALAYA’S second-floor classroom seemed to notice the Lakewood High pep band that was sis-bah-booming it’s rah-rah-rah through a bank of open windows from the quad below. For one thing, it happens every Friday.
But in this instance, it also happened that the students were so engrossed in discussion—about First Amendment issues like freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the right to petition the government, not to mention the intention of James Madison when he pushed to include these American guarantees in the Bill of Rights—that their normally distractible natures were overpowered by an exhilaratingly weird power of concentration. Well, until the bell, anyway.
“The issue of a safety perimeter around public schools is important to us because we’ve nearly all had the experience of being approached by adults on the sidewalks outside our schools,” said Brandon Perez, explaining the group’s focus.
Their specific concerns differ, but most of the students acknowledge what adolescents are stereotypically famous for denying—that they don’t know and can’t handle as much as their parents and other adults.
Some students cite their physical vulnerability; others acknowledge their comparative inexperience or immaturity; many believe it’s their parents’ right to determine when and how they are exposed to certain topics; a few point out that they don’t yet possess all their rights, and thus aren’t sufficiently armed to contest an adult.
“Groups try to target minors,” said Josh Abplanalp, who started a Facebook page for the class—Citizens For Safe Schools (Student Group). “We don’t really know what to believe about most subjects. We’re still learning, still accumulating knowledge and experience.”
“The biggest issue for me is safety,” says Addy Baldwin. “I have a sister in elementary school, and I wouldn’t want someone going to her school and handing out things. Who knows who those people are? They could be predators—we don’t know their background. It’s a safety issue for little kids because they may not know how to say no.”
Maybe for big kids, too.
“I got handed a Bible when the Gideons came around last year, and it made me feel kinda fearful,” said Andrew Hobbs. “None of us knew these people. Any one of them could be some weird killer guy, coming up to hand you stuff.”
Couldn’t that happen anywhere?
“Yeah,” said Hobbs, “but when you’re at school you’re supposed to be safe.”
Some students are simply offended by what they see as a disrespectful level of discourse.
“Last year, when the Gideons were outside the school handing out those little orange bibles, some guy came up and handed one to me,” recounted Tyler Schultz, who this year was the quarterback on the Lakewood High football team. “I didn’t think a lot about it, but as I started walking every bible they handed out to people was, basically, on the ground. A couple were in the trash. It was eye opening. It was offensive because I’ve never seen the Holy Bible in the trash.”
But who is responsible for that—the Gideons or the students?
“I kinda take it that it’s the people who were giving the bibles away,” said Schultz, “because they just gave them to everyone—they didn’t really care if you thought about it, or ask if you wanted them.”
Salaya, who became a teacher six years ago after a career in retail, is thrilled by the interest and commitment the students are displaying, pointing out that participation in the Civic Voice legislative-advocacy project was optional.
“It was one of three choices given to the students within what is called the Small Learning Community—the others were a science project and a literary project,” she explained. “About 40 of the 115 students chose legislative advocacy.”
It wasn’t because they were tuned in to politics. Before they could send letters to their local representatives in to Sacramento—Senator Alan Lowenthal, and depending on where they live, either Assembly members Bonnie Lowenthal, Tony Mendoza or Furutani—they had to learn who those representatives are. A show of hands in Salaya’s three classes revealed that none of them knew.
“But all of them knew about the issue of adults soliciting minors,” said Salaya. “All of them knew about what happened with the Westboro Baptist Church outside Wilson High. And all of them were kind appalled and amazed. They asked, ‘This kind of stuff can happen? There’s no law about this? No city ordinance preventing this?’ It became one of those things where, you know, ‘There oughtta be a law!’
“But that’s when grassroots democracy takes over—when some common, everyday citizen says, ‘There oughtta be a law! So let’s do it.’ And that’s the source of this.”
WARREN FURUTANI is enthused, too, but the excitement in his voice quickly boils down into flat practicality of strategy.
Furutani has represented the 55th assembly district—north and west Long Beach, the cities of Lakewood and Carson and the Los Angeles communities of Harbor City, the Harbor Gateway and Wilmington—for nearly three years, and he knows the painstaking work it takes to transform an idea into a law.
“There are lots of hoops to jump through,” he said, “beginning with finding out if this is even a new idea—or whether it is constitutional. It has to be written into legislative language. Then come the hearings. If it passes muster, then I will see if I can support it.”
But whatever becomes of the idea, Furutani promises that the Lakewood students who are advocating it will be involved.
“I am going to work with them and my staff is going to work with them,” he says. “I want to talk to them, grill them and take it seriously. Maybe have them come to Sacramento and testify to the policy committee. They will be along all the way.”
Salaya hears this and can barely believe that her educator’s dream is coming true.
“Think of how this is going to empower these students in terms of being future voters and future participants in democracy,” she says. “Something like this is a life-changing event.”
Some of the students are already beginning to see that, too.
“It makes you feel like an actual citizen, taking part,” said Ethan Curry. “I’ve never felt like that before.”
“I already feel like we made a difference,” said Serenity O’Leary. “We’re trying.”
















40 Comments
Refreshing to hear that teens and young adults are interested in important issues such as the First Amendment. And bravo to the teachers for encouraging the dialogue!
PC 626.8(a), in part, prohibits any person from coming upon any sidewalk or public way adjacent to any school, without lawful business when his or her presence or acts interfere with the peaceful conduct of the activities of the school or disrupt the school or its pupils or school activities.
**But this section shall also not be utilized to impinge upon the lawful exercise of constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech or assembly.**
Based upon the description of his actions here, like it or not, “creepy-cowardly man” was lawfully exercising his constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech and assembly. He also has a right, as do we all, to not be photographed if we prefer to not be.
Unless or until this person’s behavior rises to the level of “annoying or molesting children,” which is a violation of PC 647.6(a)(1), he has no less a right to do what he is doing than anyone else.
Constructive suggestions:
How about teaching our children to offer a polite “no, thank you” when offered material by such people or, perhaps better still, teaching our children to physically avoid such people altogether?
How about we dispatch a school security officer to each LBUSD school where such people appear, or assign a staff member at the school, to monitor the activities and behaviors of such people and then report them -and make sure they are cited or arrested- the monent such people violate the law?
Even if such people do not violate any laws, school security and/or local law enforcement personnel can still contact them on a consensual basis (or detain them based upon reasonable suspicion) and, in the interest of public safety, find out who they are and exactly what they are doing and how they are doing it.
This alone may be sufficient to discourage such people from these activities.
But I think we should all be very careful about advocating for an abridgment of anyone’s lawful right to freely speak or to freely assemble, particularly on the public thoroughfare.
This teacher is a keeper. She is showing the students how to apply their knowledge to real life. These students are excited and are learning to be proactive and participatory citizens. I hope Ms. Salaya won’t be laid off since she has less than 10 years in at LBUSD. Ironic that this is a real possibility, eh?
It is good to make the students aware of what’s going on around them and especially to be able to discuss it in a classroom setting. Unfortunately people have a right to the public sidewalk just like the students do and this will probably not change. This is why the students need to walk together in pairs or groups whenever possible when leaving the school.
Mr. Greet’s statement that “He also has a right, as do we all, to not be photographed if we prefer to not be” does not seem to be applicable in this case where the individual has a right to be on public property but there can be no rationable reason to expect privacy.
Hi Public Photo: I think there is a distinct difference between expecting privacy (which no person who chooses to be in a public place or in public view can reasonably do) and simply preferring to not be filmed by another whether in a public place or not.
While a person who chooses to be in public view cannot stop another from *trying* to photograph or film them (paparazzi), neither is such a person wrong to take other actions, as this person clearly did, to try prevent it.
Mr. Greet, I am charmed you decided to join the debate on freedom of speech that this particular story represents. As the photographer, it is dear to my heart. I have several points I’d like to make in relation to some of your comments.
1. You wrote “Unless or until this person’s behavior rises to the level of “annoying or molesting children,” which is a violation of PC 647.6(a)(1), he has no less a right to do what he is doing than anyone else. “
I’d like to point out that if you read this story closely, the students are saying it annoys them.
2. And then you wrote, “But I think we should all be very careful about advocating for an abridgment of anyone’s lawful right to freely speak or to freely assemble, particularly on the public thoroughfare.”
I can think of these following exceptions to “free speech,” or in other words, there is plenty of legal precedent controlling freedom of speech. You are not in fact, allowed to just say anything. Each and every one of these following things were once “freedom of speech” until laws made them illegal. And this is what these students are proposing to do, make a safe zone around school—i.e. make a law– so that they may come and go freely to school that they have been ordered to attend, by law. Incidentally, it is terribly ironic that the students themselves do not have “freedom of speech” when they are on the sidewalk outside of school. And I know from personal experience that you cannot just write anything in the high school newspaper and not expect disciplinary action from your district board. (That is a story for another day.) The Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that students do not have freedom of speech even across the street from their school, even in a non-school related event in the case now infamously known as “Bongs Hits for Jesus.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick (and that one is the first example of how we limit speech routinely in the USA.)
a. It is not allowed to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
b. Many forms of hate speech are regulated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
c. Child pornography is completely illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography
d. The FCC regulates what can be broadcast on radio and TV, and how ratings are determined for feature films. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
e. The city of Long Beach routinely controls all filming and special events (which “demonstrations” do fall under) with a very specific permitting process. A permitee is expected to pay for the resources (i.e. police and fire personnel) required to staff their event—and rightfully so, I’d say. Why should the taxpayer pay for debacles like the one outside Wilson when the WBC showed up last year? And what if someone had been killed? The city arguably would bear some liability in an event gone out of control. Just look at Walmart’s “Black Friday Shoppers” to see how easily a crowd can lose control and trample someone. Organizations utilizing city property for their “free speech” should have ample insurance policies covering any potential disasters to keep the tax payer safe! I’d like to point out that unions and churches have access to these sorts of resources.
3. And then you wrote, “Hi Public Photo: I think there is a distinct difference between expecting privacy (which no person who chooses to be in a public place or in public view can reasonably do) and simply preferring to not be filmed by another whether in a public place or not.
While a person who chooses to be in public view cannot stop another from *trying* to photograph or film them (paparazzi), neither is such a person wrong to take other actions, as this person clearly did, to try prevent it.”
This one cracks me up, as you may or may not know, as a location person in the film industry I have to routinely kick photographers of all sorts off my set. As a photographer myself, there is no limit to the irony I see in this. There is definitely a fine line between calling a legitimate member of the press like Jeff Gritchen a journalist and calling another guy a stalker because he shoots for TMZ. But the thing is, as members of the press, they do both have the right to shoot from the city sidewalk at the people I am working with, and even myself. I employ all sorts of dastardly means of messing up their shots. But I cannot stop them. Freedom of speech…I love it.
4. Lastly, as a parent, I do expect the city and school district to actually know who is on the sidewalk outside school. Every staff member at my kids’schools are expected to be background checked. All school volunteers must register. Every adult that works with my kids in sports and other organization are background checked. Are you really telling me I have to give anyone at all in the world access to my young child without knowing who they are? A bible or religious tract in someone’s hand means nothing to me, some of the worst sex crimes are committed by so-called religious people. So I think a safe zone is a damn good idea. I mean really, if this guy can’t put his name and face to his beliefs, you have to ask yourself why? What is he so damn ashamed of? What is he hiding in the name of the Lord?
And if you ask me, these people are breaking loitering ordinances as well, so they are already breaking the law just by being there.
Hi Jeanine and thanks very much for the well-considered and lengthy response. A few comments in response if I may:
1. Generally speaking, a criminal complaint requires a cooperative victim. That is, a person who is willing to allege on a police report that they have been victimized, and how, and then to testify to that fact under oath in court. To your knowledge, have any of these children or any others filed police reports in the case of this person or have any of their parents done so on their child’s behalf?
2. I never asserted that there existed no exceptions to the concept of free speech. Of course there are. Speech is, in fact, regulated in any number of ways including those you mentioned and several others. All I suggested was that we should all be very careful about advocating for an abridgment of anyone’s lawful right to freely speak or to freely assemble, particularly on the public thoroughfare. To do so, I think, should require a good deal of thought and sober consideration.
3. You seem to have made my own point, if only in different words on this item. Nothing you’ve said refutes my assertion that there is a distinct difference between expecting privacy (which no person who chooses to be in a public place or in public view can reasonably do) and simply preferring to not be filmed by another whether in a public place or not. How is this person’s hiding his own face from unwanted photography to any degree different from your routinely kicking photographers of all sorts off your set or employing all sorts of dastardly means of messing up their shots?
4. All of the people you’re describing who must be background checked either work or volunteer at the school and have a legal responsibility to do so. A private citizen on the public thoroughfare has no such responsibility. Would you be willing to register with the police and be backgrounded just so that you could walk freely down the public sidewalk and engage others in conversation? I can only hope the answer is “no.” Neither should this person be so required. There do exist lines he and those like him cannot cross and they are clearly described in the section I cited for you (PC 626.8(a). I do not believe a bible or a religious tract is a guarantee of proper or even lawful behavior. In point of fact pedophiles are well known to employ any number of “props” and ruses to gain access to minors.
But has anyone accused this particular person of having done so? Perhaps we should be a little less quick to judge others in this way, especially when there is no proof whatsoever (that anyone has offered at least) to support such an accusation. We all have a duty and a responsibility to protect and defend our children. You’ll here no dispute whatsoever from me on that score. But we also have a duty and responsibility to protect and defend the constitutional rights of all to speak and to assemble freely, especially on the public thoroughfare.
I think we can deal with people such as these effectively and assertively without resorting to abridging their rights of free speech. I have offered several constructive ideas for doing so.
You seem to disagree and that is entirely *your* right to do so.
Thanks for your time and kind attention.
John,
No one’s right to free speech is in the least bit abridged just because they might be asked not to use the sidewalk in front of a school campus. They can go down to Second Street or pass out their flyers in front of Trader Joe’s. Those are truly public venues. I argue that the students have no choice as they are required by law to attend school. When these kooks station a member of their coven at every entrance the kids cannot avoid them. It is very easy for a 50 something guy to say “No” to people like this, but put yourself in the shoes of a ten year old kid who has been taught to be mindful of their manners at all times with *adults.* To my kids, adults are people in authority, especially if you are wearing a nice suit. It isn’t a fair situation to the student.
Regarding the fact we agree on #3…that was why I was laughing. In fact, I got plenty of shots without the guy covering his face, The editor chose this picture because it illustrates the point that this guy does not actually believe in his ideas enough to proudly give his name and put his face to it. I don’t think cowards like that are trustworthy, and they do not belong on the sidewalk around unprotected minors. To me it is suspicious behavior.
The right ting to do would be to ask parents if it is okay to distribute the literature, but they don’t ask because they know the answer don’t they? To me that is crossing a boundary–one that they know full well exists. If they are willing to cross this boundary, what others would they cross?
It seems like to some religions it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.
Wow, Jenine. Some might say that teaching your children to defer to all adults is creepy. I hope your kids don’t listen to the ice cream man when he asks one of them to step inside the back of the van for a special treat.
Now, as to why the “teachers” cited in the article might be morons, the scenario is pretty basic. They’re teaching kids to run to the government to solve their “problems,” rather than teaching them how to deal with annoying people themselves. While I grant that the former is par for the course of a junior high school teacher, in that it’s incredibly non-creative, it’s still not an excuse for parents to support such inane and childish strategies.
The Wilson drama gives a much better example of kids learning to handle a “problem” democratically. They staged a counter-demonstration. The faculty AND the kids could certainly counter-demonstrate against the superstitious idiots attempting to indoctrinate children into their intellectually retarded world view.
To be candid, I’m appalled at all the outrageous pussiness demonstrated by these kids. What a load of whining little shitheads. The students of Rogers are a community embarrassment. The boys should be forced to wear dresses until they learn to shape up, and handle their own problems, instead of running to their no-life government lackeys for support. And the girls? They should cover their faces with an old towel. They don’t deserve to be noticed.
The whole affair is sickening, and the adults, as usual, are mostly to blame for all these Whiney Willies, and Sobbing Sallys running to mommy when they should be organizing to surround the zealot with protest signs, and obnoxious slogans aimed at shaming this man back into the dark bowels of his fetid religious establishment.
Shame on you, Jeanine. Shame on you, indeed! Shame on all the adults trying to bring in the government to wipe their noses, instead of exercising their OWN freedom of speech!
Jason, when you grow up you will understand that calling people names actually makes you look worse than the people you are calling names. When you grow up you will understand that as soon as you got hysterical with the ad hominem attacks you immediately pegged yourself an incredibly sub-par thinker and you invalidated any logical argument you may have had. Your bullying behavior doesn’t threaten me. It makes me feel sorry for you.
Jeanine, when you get competent therapy, you will understand that trying to redraw the argument, then claiming yourself above the argument you’ve redefined, and then booging off, is simply being a coward by normal standards, a neurotic by clinical standards, and you should be ashamed of yourself. As it is, criticizing you is like criticizing a stripper. Nothing much will come of it besides some strange psychodrama that you may think is exclusively yours, but is really just the resonance of the neurotic dynamic that imprisons you, strippers, and people who think that employing the government to do their interpersonal dirty work is a great idea.
It’s neurotic, Jeanine. Do you understand? No you don’t. Go feed your cat, Jeanine. Your ridiculous assertions are becoming an unintended source of comedy relief, and you’re not getting paid enough.
Again, to the kids who may be reading, whatever you do, DON’T go to your “teachers” for advice on constitutional matters. They have their own agenda, and they will give you THEIR answer, not YOUR answer. Your own common sense and ingenuity should be plenty enough to make the bible-thumper take his roadshow elsewhere. Remember, you’re getting advice from a group of people that collectively provide so little real value, they felt the need to unionize to force people to pay them, essentially at the point of a gun, for a job they aren’t too good at, and have regulated our state laws to make firing them almost impossible.
Are these people the fountainhead of ethics, morals, fair play, or clear thinking that you would wish to emulate? I’m asking you to consider the notion that… they’re not. You may be young, but you’re not as stupid as some adults would like to treat you. Figure it out yourselves, and leave your “teachers” out of it. Too many of them are nervous wrecks, and they’ll just teach you how to be more like them. Merry Xmas!
Your misogyny is disgusting and I doubt anyone is left paying attention to anything you wrote, or will write ever again. If you’re the kind of guy the kids are hoping to keep off the sidewalk, I can’t blame them
Hi Jason,
I think you had better re-read the story. It was not about students at Rogers—that’s only where the latest incident of adult solicitation of minors occurred—but instead about students at Lakewood High.
Regarding your philosphy of self-sufficiency, isn’t seeking a solution through a democratic government—which Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, described as “of the people, by the people and for the people”—exactly that…self-sufficient, that is?
I liked the counter-demonstration at Wilson High, too, but I suggest that what the Lakewood students are doing is just another form of counter-demonstration. Rather than sit back and whine, the students are getting involved in the governmental process that was created for exactly such citizen participation.
Finally, speaking of pussiness, when are you going to sign your real and full name to your free-swinging comments?
Dave, if it wasn’t about students at Rogers, next time you should try to not include them as the inciting incident for your story.
I don’t agree that advocating for legislation to make annoying people have to deal with a government agent with a gun is equivalent to outraged citizens shouting them down in a public venue.
Neither did I ever advocate that students sit back and whine. They can counter-demonstrate in large, organized groups, groups of two, or even one, in which the cumulative effect will amount to bible boy looking for less obnoxious pastures.
Finally, speaking of pussiness, you seem to think that getting personally mired in this left-wing hootenanny, without pay, is a mark of courage? If so, I’m afraid you are all wrongy.
Hey Jason,
I apologize if you were confused, but the story was about how students at Lakewood High were responding to a widespread issue by proposing legislation that would be a state law.
And now I have to say that I am confused—by your last paragraph. Not sure who you are referring to or what you mean. I was just saying that some of your criticisms of people and their opinions are pretty strident, and that most of the people you are criticizing have signed their real names to their opinions. Since you had referred to the students’ response—students who, again, are attaching their real names to their positions—as a demonstration of pussiness, I just thought it was reasonable to suggest that you might want to use your real name.
Hey Dave,
I apologize if you were confused by my lumping all the students and teachers together. That was my error. I’m also bewildered as to why you seem to think I’m responsible for people who choose to have their name posted in your comments section, or cited in your article. It seems to me that was their choice. A choice, Dave.
I’m sorry if my last paragraph confused you. What part of “left-wing hootenanny” is proving to be a signigicant challenge for your deciphering skills?
It is obvious to the casual observer that Jason is suffering from sort of severe mental illness–I am guessing he was severely abused, or possibly neglected by his mother. There is no rhyme nor reason to his criticisms, it is nothing more than a person with desperately low self esteem trying to feel better by spewing verbal diarrhea. He is to be ignored.
Jeanine said: “No one’s right to free speech is in the least bit abridged just because they might be asked not to use the sidewalk in front of a school campus.”
I’m sorry but you are absolutely incorrect, Jeanine. This is not to say that the particular abridgement you and those in this article are advocating may not ultimately be deemed reasonable and necessary, but a clear abridgement it would be nonetheless. The sidewalk in front of a school is no less a “truly public venue” than is that in front of a Trader Joe’s, of this there also can be no question. The challenge is the manner in which our public venues are used (or abused) and to what degree that use or abuse infringes upon the rights, freedoms and liberty of others.
You said: “When these kooks station a member of their coven at every entrance the kids cannot avoid them.”
I disagree. These people are on the public sidewalk, not on school property, and have no less a right to be here than the students themselves. Because this is so, we need to 1: Make sure that these people are not to any degree inhibiting the free movement of others (if they are they should be cited and moved along.) 2. Make sure that these people are not annoying or molesting our children in the legal sense of those terms (if they are they should be arrested, booked and eventually try to explain their actions to a judge and jury) and 3. Observe their actions carefully at all times and have our law enforcement professionals contact, interview and identify them in all cases.
With these approaches we uphold the free speech and assembly rights of everyone while monitoring and dealing with specific public offenses if and when they occur.
You said: “I don’t think cowards like that are trustworthy, and they do not belong on the sidewalk around unprotected minors. To me it is suspicious behavior.”
Fortunately it is not yet a crime to be untrustworthy. If it were about 90% of our currently elected public officials would likely be in jail. Our minors are not “unprotected” so long as their are involved citizens, school officials and law enforcement professionals out there helping to make sure no one annoys or molests them or prevents them from moving freely along the sidewalk. Our minors are not unprotected so long as we teach them how to properly respond to *any* stranger standing in front their school.
You said: “The right t(h)ing to do would be to ask parents if it is okay to distribute the literature, but they don’t ask because they know the answer don’t they? To me that is crossing a boundary–one that they know full well exists. If they are willing to cross this boundary, what others would they cross?”
I think you are assuming a lot of facts not in evidence, Jeanine. Is every parent present to ask? No. If asked, would every parent object? I don’t think so. Some parents actually teach their children how to respectfully decline to engage with people like this when they encounter them in public places, near school or otherwise. Some parents understand that their children will be encountering and dealing with people like this their entire lives and believe that, because of this, the sooner their children learn the valuable skills necessary to either avoid or effectively dismiss such people, the better off they will be.
And some parents might actually encourage their older school-aged children to directly engage with such people, to listen to twhat they have to say, and then to counter with their own views and beliefs in a a polite and respectful manner.
You said: “It seems like to some religions it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.”
Current law does not require a person who is not otherwise violating the law to ask permission to speak with another person when they are both on the public thoroughfare. Again, if the behavior of this person rises to the level of blocking the sidewalk or of annoying/molesting children then he should be dealth with accordingly. Absent that, he has no less of a constitutionally protected right to do what he is doing then *you* do in contacting *him* in the very same venue.
As for asking forgiveness. We should all try doing a lot more of that a lot more often.
LB Girl:
“It is obvious to the casual observer that Jason is suffering from sort of severe mental illness”
“The casual observer?” LBGirl, didn’t you mean “ineffectual angry fat chicks”? Please make the correction.
Jason, which was your mother: a prostitute or a stripper?
Also, it’s “LB *City* Girl” to you, mister!
Well, if we’re trying to get it right, it would be “LB Communist Manifesto Girl.” BTW, using other women as a coin of exchange for your own purposes, in this case, to insult others, seem to be par for the course from self-hating women such as yourself. I’ve always said the first major obstacle to the women’s lib movement are… almost all l women.
Respect yourself, missy.
I see that you did not deny being mentally ill, nor did you deny you mother was either a prostitute or a stripper. I think that’s kind of fascinating.
and what’s wrong with communism?
LB Communist Manifesto Girl, it’s time for you to learn two lessons. Lessons that will exponentially improve your chances for a second date. So pay close attention:
1. When you start repeating yourself, it means you have nothing else to say.
2. When you have nothing to say, stop saying it.
Now, I’ll leave you alone to cry, and think about that.
Play me out, Dresden Dolls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO5APfKnR50
At least I do not have to pay for my dates.
Mr. Greet, I don’t think this individual is a kook, he is a loon, I believe you to be a kook, there is a distinct and real difference.
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.
PPM, Irrelevant, since the bible is, to many people, a dated newspaper. In any case, it’s not specifically cited in your definition, and the law wasn’t intended to arrest bible distribution. nice try, heathen. think harder.
Jason and others,
In the citation the bible would be represented by distributing printed or written matter in or upon any public street, alley, sidewalk .
Your GED is not cited in the municipal code either but qualifies as printed matter.
Hi Public Photo Moment. You are fully entitled to your opinion of course, however erroneous it may be.
If you are offering LBMC 5.46.060 as statutory evidence that what this person is doing is somehow to be considered unlawful, then I would encourage you or others who personally witness his activity to call a police officer and ask that the person be issued a misdemeanor citation for that offense. This would be the legal method by which the person could be brought before a judge to answer that charge in court.
How do you reconcile LBMC 5.46.060 (which either may or may not be applicable) with PC 626.8(a), which I quoted early on, that clearly is applicable and that specifically prohibits imping(ing) upon the lawful exercise of constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech or assembly?
I do not think LBMC 5.46.060 was enacted in an attempt to regulate this activity. I do not think abbreviated copies of a religious text fit the definition of “pamphlet” as defined in the LBMC. I think a person’s right to free speech and assembly on the public thoroughfare is of critical importance to our constitutional republic and that when we act to abridge those rights we should do so reluctantly and with considerable circumspection.
PPM, again, you’re trying to game the game because you’re against Christianity, just like the author and photographer of this piece, so you try to stretch a statute, like an undersized leotard around your fat, cottage-cheesey needs.
Conclusion: Stay out of the Law profession, or you will remain ever homeless.
Mr. Greet, this person has many rights, including attending the Board of Education meeting where he can speak his mind. Present his thoughts and project intentions to adults and those responsible for the safety and security of all students.
This will not happend because he does not care for anyone or anything outside of his calling. He doesn’t care about any codes or rights.
I have read and understood your comments, Public Photo Moment. Thanks very much for sharing them.
BUZZZ!
Irrelevant again, PPM. You didn’t specifically address a single point of Greet’s prior post. Straw man arguments aren’t admissible. I’m afraid the debate belongs to Greet. Time to retreat to your private hell, I’m afraid. But thanks for playing, “Am I as Dumb as You Think”
Mr. Greet, thanks and Merry Christmas.
“Mr. Greet, thanks and Merry Christmas.”
Says the man trying to get a solitary individual offering bibles on a street corner arrested.
Review your life. It’s broken.
As i need one too i shall go to my mom and cry in her while i have no life,
spend my Christmas alone.
Jason, I’d like to make it very clear I am not against Christianity. I doubt Mr. Wielenga is either. My real concern is that LBUSD and the city of Long Beach appear to be tacitly endorsing Christianity over other religions–and as I already stated–I am not convinced these guys are not a safety risk just because they claim to be religious. The school campus should be a religious free zone that focuses solely on academics and learning. Forcing religious views of any sort in the publicly paid for school system is a distraction to the learning process, and frankly inappropriate. As a person with Christian tendencies myself, I am also offended that my religion is being presented to people this way–via confrontation on the sidewalk. I think the creepers on the sidewalk make Christians (like me) look bad. It is not the way I’d go about spreading Christ’s message.
And Merry Kwaanza to all!
Jeanine: I find no evidence, at all, that either LBUSD or the City of Long Beach are -or even appear to be- tacitly endorsing Christianity over other religions. Are “representatives” from any other religions exercizing their free speech and assembly rights in this way and somehow being prohibited by either the City or LBUSD from doing so? If not, how can those entities possibly be guilty of what you allege?
The best way to determine whether or not these people represent a safety risk is to have them checked out. Have you called a cop or a LBUSD security officer and asked them to do so? If so, what did they learn? If not, why not?
The school campus *is* intended to be a religioun free zone that focuses solely on academics and learning. That’s why thie person isn’t permitted to do what he’s doing on campus and no doubt why he hasn’t been doing so. He has been on the public sidewalk, and he has no less a right to be there than you so long as he is violating no laws or obstructing anyone eles’s movement.
I find no evidence, at all, that this person is “forcing religious views of any sort in the publicly paid for school system” or that what this person is doing is any sort of “distraction to the learning process” or in any way “inappropriate.” You just don’t happen to like what he’s doing or how. Fine. Have him contaced by law enforcement or school security personnel. That’s how you can lawfully address your concerns while continuing to repect his right to freely speak and assemble. See how easy?
Just because this isn’t the way you’d go about spreading Christ’s message doesn’t necessarily mean his way is wrong. You just happen to disagree with it. Fortunately we’re still allowed to disagree with one another in this greatest of nations without being run off or being tossed in jail for doing nothing other than exercising our right to speak and to assemble freely on the public thoroughfare.
[...] DO YOU MIND THIS GUY WAITING FOR KIDS OUTSIDE THEIR SCHOOL? [ By Dave Wielenga, Dec. 13 ] When Greater Long Beach photographer Jeanine Birong began taking photographs of a man who was handing out religious tracts on the sidewalk outside Rogers Middle School, the guy covered his face, scrambled to his van and sped away. A problem? Some seniors at Lakewood High think so. Motivated by several incidents of adults interracting with students outside schools, they are proposing a state law against it. Assembly member Warren Furutani has agreed to shepherd them through the legislative process. [...]