In documents filed in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri Monday, Anthony Rothert of the ACLU, attorney for Ladue teacher Christina Thomas, said he did not oppose a request for a delay in the case, but disagreed that the so-called "fix" to the social networking portion of Sen. Jane Cunningham's SB 54 will resolve the situation:
The Governor authorized the General Assembly “[t]o enact legislation repealing subsections 162.069.1 through 162.069.4, RSMo. This matter is limited to the repeal of subsections 162.069.1 through 162.069.4, RSMo, and should not be construed to allow or permit amendments to those subsections or to otherwise enact revised or new language in place thereof.” SB 1 goes well beyond what was authorized. As a law, it would be of dubious validity.
Rothert said the stay in proceedings should be "until further order of the court."
Attorney General Chris Koster, representing the members of the Missouri State Board of Education, who are listed as defendants in the lawsuit, did not oppose the delay.
Other defendants in the lawsuit are the members of the Ladue Board of Education.
The lawsuit was filed after school officials told Ms. Thomas she could not communicate with her own child through social networking sites.
According to the petition, "Ladue School District has notified its teachers that they cannot have exclusive communications with their own children on Facebook, if they meet the statutory definition of student or former student. Specifically, Plaintiff and other teachers at Ladue School District were notified in writing that because of the statute they will be prohibited from communicating exclusively through Facebook or other social-networking sites with their own children or members of their Sunday School classes, athletic teams, or scout troops “unless or until exceptions are enacted[,]” if the children are students or former students as defined by the statute."
The lawsuit says that SB 54 is "a prior restraint on speech in that it requires promulgation and enforcement of a policy that restricts the speech of Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class before the speech occurs."
The petition asks the judge to certify the lawsuit as a class action suit in which all Missouri school teachers would be members of the class and asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement of the law.
3 comments:
Why is it that the legislature, after being advised that a bill they are considering will likely be unconstitutional, continue to pass it and send it on to the governor? This has happened almost every session over the last few years (might I add that this is since the republicans have controlled the legislature). They have also passed bills with more than one subject, which is expressly forbidden by the Mo. Constitution, and which have then been nullified by the courts. Is it ignorance, arrogance, stupidity......? These are people who swear by the Constitution, but act as if they are ignorant of it.
This is a fraudulent lawsuit designed to claim that a law duly passed by the legislature is unconstitutional by saying that ridiculous conditions not envisioned apply and welcoming the court system -- which has usurped the legislative branch's separation of powers functions -- to 'legislate' from the bench and in essence veto the Facebook law.
The purpose of this legislation was to prevent public school teachers from using their positions to have private dealings with their charges without the consent of parents. A parent who is also a teacher shouldn't be affected under this law as it should be assumed that what is done by this teacher already is known as a parent, thus this case should be dismissed because there is no standing to sue. But this bogus case is being fraduulently used to go against the law by having the courts legislate instead.
Nor does the governor get to decide the legislation. All he gets to do is to either sign it or veto it.
Some people don't like this new law. But if they are allowed to not obey this law because they don't like it, then why should anyone be held to obey the laws that they don't like?
An even better solution would be to simply close the public schools and then there won't be any more whining about how these arrogant greedy stupid teachers can't be bothered with obeying any constraints on their behavior. Public education isn't working any more. It needs to be finished off now.
Just keep: Thanks for chiming in, Jane.
Post a Comment