Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal News

: Lawbeat

'Church and state' just doesn't cut it

By Mark Obbie

ADVERTISEMENTS

I derive no pleasure from criticizing the legal coverage in my hometown paper, The Syracuse Post-Standard. But I was dismayed by a story about a new appeal in Peck v. Baldwinsville Central School District, printed on Tuesday, April 7, and first published on the web on Friday, April 3. The case stems from a 1999 lawsuit over whether kindergartener Antonio Peck's First Amendment rights were violated when school officials covered a displayed picture of Jesus that Peck drew for a class assignment on the environment.In nearly 400 words, the sole quoted source is Matthew Staver, an attorney for Liberty Counsel, representing the plaintiffs, whose quotes are from a previous interview and a press release. The reporter, Tom Leo, does not reference any precedent cited by District Judge Norman Mordue other than "church and state concerns." Compare what Leo wrote to an October 2008 New York Law Journal article about the third appellate court ruling.The Post-Standard:

In 2000, Mordue ruled the school had the right to censor the poster because of "church and state" concerns. In 2001, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision 3-0 and sent the case back to trial court. In 2004, Mordue again ruled in favor of the school district, but that decision was again reversed 3-0 in 2005, when the appeals court ruled that public schools may not censor a student's viewpoint on a permissible subject matter when it is responsive to a school assignment or program.

NYLJ:

In February 2000, he [Mordue] granted summary judgment to the defendants on all of the claims brought on Antonio's behalf by his mother Jo Anne Peck. They alleged violations of the boy's First Amendment right to freedom of speech and religion and of the equal protection and establishment clauses of the U.S. Constitution.Following remand for discovery by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Mordue again dismissed the action in its entirety in August 2004.The 2nd Circuit then remanded the case a second time to the judge.A circuit panel agreed with the judge's finding that the actions of school officials did not represent state inhibition of religion and violate the establishment clause.But the appeals court held there were disputed factual questions surrounding the plaintiff's First Amendment claim, namely whether the school would have censored Antonio's poster had he used a nonreligious image and if the actions by the school officials and Baldwinsville Central School District amounted to viewpoint discrimination.Following the framework outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kulhmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1984), Mordue last week again dismissed the claim of a free speech violation in his third review of the case.

Admittedly, a law journal is a completely different medium, and its article was three times the length of the Post-Standard's. But that doesn't absolve the Post-Standard from covering more than just what Mordue ruled, and quoting from one side in the case. How Mordue ruled and why the appellate court overturned is just as important, if not more so. And to compound matters, Liberty Counsel is referred to as "Liberty Council" in the Post-Standard's article. This was not corrected for the print edition. As a graduate student in journalism, I understand the constraints local newspapers are facing, especially in regards to legal reporting, which can be a complex and time-consuming subject. And I've read the Post-Standard for as long as I can remember, and consider it a good local newspaper. But given what we've discussed in Law, Politics, and Media, and how most people learn about court rulings through the media, this article disappointed on a number of levels.-- Nate Smith

Full post as published by Lawbeat on April 08, 2009 (boomark / email).