textfiles/magazines/TFJ/fj11.txt

The Free Journal/ASCII Edition
Volume I, Issue 1
Copyright 1991 Sameer Parekh (Individual articles copyright by author)
Editor-in-Chief:	Sameer Parekh
(fj@infopls.chi.il.us)

	This is The Free Journal--ASCII edition.  Submissions welcome.
Distribute at will; cite authors. (Or editors if no author given.)
	This is not meant to be an electronic newsletter. This is
meant to be an example of on-paper underground newspapers to educate
the masses about freedom and similar issues.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect
the attitudes of the editorial staff, Libertyville High School, the
government of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, or any
other institution or person.
	Do not believe anything you hear, here and otherwise.  If
sources are cited, check the sources.  We do not expect you to trust
us any more than we expect you to trust any other information source.
This is the Information Age--do not beleive everything you hear.
Check references.

Do I Have the Right to Distribute This?

Here is what the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition)
by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary says:

-------begin quote-------

[question:] Can a school prohibit students from handing out all
literature, including underground newspapers, on school property?

[answer:] No. This would violate the Supreme Court's decision in
_Tinker_. Literature may be barred from school property only if its
distribution materially and substantially interferes with school
activities,{32} and even some disruption in handing out the literature
does not justify banning the literature completely. As one court said
of students in a particular case, "It is their misconduct in the
manner in which they distributed the paper which should have been
stopped, not the idea of printing newspapers itself.{33}

That same court emphasized that point that minor disruptions must be
tolerated to accommodate the right of students to express their views.
Since the "interruption of class periods caused by the 'newspaper'
were minor and relatively few in number," the source said, the
_Tinker_ standard of "material and substantial disruption" had not
been met.

[Addendum to Chapter Two]

As this book went to press, the United States Supreme Court, in
_Hazelwood School District v. Kuhmeire_ (decided January 15, 1988),
upheld the power of [high] school officials to control the content of
school-financed newspapers.  [...]  As a result of the _Kuhmeire_
decision, school officials now may censor stories in official school
publications so long as, in the words of the Supreme Court, "their
actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical
concerns."[...]

The Court's decision distinguished between student speech that is part
of the school curriculum, such as official publications, theatrical
productions, and other school-sponsored activities, and all other
forms of student speech that take place on school property. The latter
would include leaflets, buttons, unofficial, or so-called underground,
newspapers, and other literature that is not school financed. As to
all such forms of speech, the _Tinker_ standards discussed throughout
this chapter continue to apply. In other words, _Kuhlmeier_ gives
school officials no greater power to control either the content or
form of such student speech than they had previously. Thus, school
officials may _not_ censor such speech merely because they believe it
to be biased, poorly written, vulgar, or unsuitable for immature
students. Speech that is not part of the school curriculum may be
prohibited only if there is evidence that it will materially and
substantially disrupt the word of the school.

[References]

_Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist._, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

{32} _Eisner v. Stamford Board of Education_, 440 F.2d 803 (2d Cir.
1971); _Quarterman v. Byrd_, 453 F.2d 54 (4th Cir. 1971); _Schanley v.
Northeast Independent School District_, 462 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1972);
_Scoville v. Board of Education of Joliet Township_, 425 F.2d 10 (7th
Cir. 1970)

{33} _Sullivan v. Houston Independent School District_, 307 F. Supp.
1328 (S.D. Tex. 1969).



Welcome to the Free Journal

	This is the first issue of the Free Journal.  This issue is
devoted mainly to the rights which I have to publish this.  I hope you
will be able to see the precedent and realize that this and every
other paper have every right to exist.
	First of all, the point of this is to provide a forum of ideas
and discussion about issues.  Any article which I (or the editors if I
ever get support) feel is good, I will publish.  I will not publish
libel, but I will use the true definition of libel.  (i. e. something
which is knowingly false, will harm someone's social standing, and has
malicious intent.)  (A cartoon making fun of someone is not libel--an
article stating that someone cheated on a test when that is false
would be.)
	Therefore, submissions are welcomed.  The means by which they
can be submitted will be dealt with when the time arises.  (And if
someone wants to let me use their Postscript laser printer, I'd
appreciate it greatly.)
	Remember, nothing should be believed without question;
question everything.  That is my most important statement.  If someone
tells you something, ask for proof.  It does not matter whether that
person is supported by any agency of authority, it is necessary to
question everything you hear.  Therefore, I would like to repeat the
statement that anything you find in here is neither trash nor gospel.
Treat it like you would any other article.  Give it your thought,
check its sources, and formulate an opinion.
	Thank you. 	



The Bill of Rights: Alive After 200 Years?

Amendment I
 	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
		The Bill of Rights (excerpt)
 		Ratified, 15 December 1791

	This is first in a series of articles about the Bill of Rights
and how it is being ignored.  My most important source is Eric
Postpischil's article of October 1990 listing violations of the Bill
of Rights.  Contact me if you would like a copy or other sources for
this article.  (I have run out of space.)
	First let me mention our president.  "I don't know that
atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
considered patriots."  I assume he hasn't heard of "respecting an
establishment of religion."
	In addition, Native Americans are prohibited from using
peyote, a mild hallucinogen derived from cactus plants, as a religious
sacrament.  However, the Roman Catholic Church is permitted to serve
alcohol, a drug known to cause more deaths than peyote, marijuana, and
cocaine combined, to minors during Holy Communion.  The Supreme Court
has upheld this law.  I don't know what happened to "prohibiting the
free exercise thereof" either.  Maybe it has been voided by the All
Holy War on Rights, er, Drugs.
	The Federal Communications Commission claims that because
radio frequencies are limited, they have the right not only to
regulate who broadcasts over these frequencies, but what exactly they
can say.  In fact, a broadcaster supporting decriminalization of
marijuana would be at risk of FCC intervention.  Another loss to the
War on Truth, I would assume.
	In Alexandria, Virginia, there is a law that prohibits people
from loitering for more than seven minutes and exchanging small
objects. Punishment is two years in jail.  Sherman Jones, 15, was
assaulted by a police officer's hands around his neck after putting
the last bit of pizza crust into his mouth.  I guess "the right of the
people peaceably to assemble" is given up in the Inquisition too.
	This was only a summary of First Amendment violations.  Keep
in touch for summaries of the other amendment's violations.