Daily Archives: November 25, 2019

To the editor:

Due to a recent retirement, Gov. Tom Wolf has an opportunity to fill a vacancy on the Commonwealth Court, one of Pennsylvania's two intermediate appellate courts. The governor would have had to work hard to make a worse choice than Drew Crompton.

Crompton's name isn't likely one that most Pennsylvanians are familiar with, but he has worked for the Senate for over two decades. He currently serves as chief of staff and counsel for Pennsylvania Senate Pro-Tempore Joe Scarnati. Over the course of his career, Crompton has been on the periphery of ignoble moments in Pennsylvania's recent history.

In 2005, Crompton authored a memo suggesting that activists exercising their First Amendment rights in advocating for the repeal of the "midnight pay raise" should have to register as lobbyists. Concerning the memo, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review stated: "It suggests an orchestrated plan of attempted intimidation that, to this day, we believe is worthy of a Justice Department investigation."

In 2006, Crompton took three months of "unpaid" leave from the Senate to work on Lynn Swann's gubernatorial campaign. He then, remarkably, received a $19,647 bonus. This activity resulted in an investigation by the Attorney General's office.

Although no Senate Republicans were charged with wrongdoing, a similar scheme among House Democrats resulted in multiple arrests and convictions.

Crompton's role in the Senate would raise serious questions about his impartiality in legal cases. How will his involvement in the drafting of legislation, public statements and issuance of internal documents impact his ability to hear cases? How many plaintiffs or defendants will seek his recusal? How disruptive will it be for the Senate to have parties to cases file suits seeking email communications on legal matters authored by Crompton?

In the entirety of Pennsylvania, there certainly must be more qualified candidates to serve out a term on the Court.

Leo Knepper, Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania CEO

Visit link:
Judicial appointment a foe of the First Amendment - Daily American Online

No Safe Spaces, a documentary which aired in select theaters nationwide in the past month, featured comedian and podcast host Adam Carolla and acclaimed author Dennis Prager and their views on the First Amendments future in America. A good amount of the documentary focused on their podcast interviews, and their upbringing and experiences, such as Carolla growing up in a welfare-dependent home and Pragers upbringing as a devout Jew who once served as an Israeli government agent in Soviet Russia.

They interviewed an extensive list of political pundits and commentators, online personalities, college professors and administrators, and activists. No Safe Spaces did not exclusively interview political conservatives, but also liberals and leftists to provide ideological balance and provide deeper context to the ongoing discussion about the First Amendment in America. The documentary interviewed the likes of:

It is difficult to go through the documentary piece-by-piece, due to the wide swath of information that it goes over for the audience. The documentary outlined multiple on-campus controversies related to freedom of speech, such as Yale professors Nicholas and Erika Christakis being shouted down for endorsing Halloween costumes, Bret Weinsteins dismissal from Evergreen State College for refusing to stay off campus due to an anti-white protest event, protests at California State University-Los Angeles over Ben Shapiros scheduled speech, and outrage over Ann Coulters scheduled speech at the University of California-Berkeley. It went into as much detail as time permitted on these various controversies, which highlighted how the First Amendment is under assault and under attack by todays on-campus college activists. The video footage of these protests, combined with the candid interviews from those affected by the protests and at times, violent and aggressive rhetoric from protesters, portrayed a college campus run by activist students, not college administrators.

The documentarys premise painted a stark contrast to what the mainstream media and academics portray, that freedom of speech is alive and well on college campuses, despite evidence to the contrary. Van Jones, while on Carollas podcast, said that he preferred that college students be offended each and every single day in order to grow from those experiences. He pointed out that college students were meant to graduate and leave their safe college environments, and being offended every day while at college will help them become stronger and understand the importance of freedom of speech.

Former Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz said that he was not worried about the much-hyped anti-fascist Antifa protesters, but the hard left due to their repression of freedom of speech on college campuses. Dr. Everett Piper added that college campuses now protect ideological fascism at the cost of the First Amendment freedoms Americans should hold dear.

No Safe Spaces dove into a Canadian controversy in which a teaching assistant was criticized by administrators for playing a video of Jordan Peterson discussing gender identity and gender language during one of her discussion labs with students. The assistant was accused of gender violence due to playing the video and recorded the conversations, the latter of which is still in the legal system in the form of a lawsuit between her and the university, Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada. Peterson chillingly reminded the audience that this kind of groupthink, where only one opinion reigns supreme, led to Nazi Germanys systematic mass murders and Soviet communisms murder of tens of millions of people.

No Safe Spaces also features an interview with Bret Weinstein over the months-long anti-white protests at Evergreen State College in Oregon; the campus was paralyzed due to the administrations resistance to confronting student protesters who occupied an administrative building. Weinstein noted that as a liberal, he thought that fellow liberal students would agree to openly discuss why he did not agree with activist demands that all white people leave the college campus for an annual event highlighting racial inequality. But he was shouted down in a scene reminiscent of the French Revolution: activists shouted at, berated, and criticized Weinstein in an example of an unfair public trial without impartiality. Weinsteins wife, Heather Heying, said that when children were raised by helicopter parents and bubble-wrapped or shielded from other views, of course youll be fragile.

Prager, at the end of the documentary, poignantly said, America is the true safe space.

Overall, the documentary was presented from a conservative perspective, but it was balanced in how it interviewed and presented liberal and progressive views of the current free speech environment. There were multiple quotes from liberal and progressive figures, and it provided context and examples of how free speech culture is neglected, if not trampled over, on college campuses. It is worth watching for the lay person in order to get past the censorship from the media and the likes of Big Tech, including Google, Facebook, and other internet-based or social media platforms.

Reviews and ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, a popular website where movie critics can rate movies as fresh or rotten, displayed the divide of opinion over the First Amendment. The documentary received six rotten reviews from critics and five fresh reviews. Meaning, six critics thought the movie was terrible (i.e. rotten) and five critics disagreed with the rotten rating. Much of the criticism focused on how the documentary was one-sided and dogmatic, which is ironic in itself as most documentaries tend to appeal to liberal and progressive ideologues.

The website also featured two distinct rating systems. On a scale of 1-100, the Tomatometer from critics is 45%, which is considered a bust or a terrible movie. However, the audience score, which comprises of reviews from non-movie critics, was 99%. In other words, moviegoers rated the movie much higher than the movie critic class.

Continue reading here:
'No Safe Spaces' Documentary Warns of Dangers Facing First Amendment Rights in America - Accuracy in Academia

Columbia Daily Tribune

MondayNov18,2019at3:03PMNov18,2019at4:12PM

Nobel Prize winner and retired University of Missouri professor George Smith will discuss boycotts and the First Amendment in a talk at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Daniel Boone Regional Library Friends Room.

The event sponsored by the Mid-Missouri Civil Liberties Association is free and open to the public.

Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress and in the Missouri General Assembly to outlaw the use of boycotts against Israel. A boycott, divest and sanction movement against Israel for its treatment of Palestinians has gained traction among some groups and people.

The Mid-Missouri Civil Liberties Association doesn't take a position on the BDS movement, but resists any effort to limit the First Amendment rights of Americans to take part in the activities, according to a news release.

George Smith shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2018.

See the article here:
Nobel laureate Smith to speak on boycotts and First Amendment - Columbia Daily Tribune

The Constitution of India was first amended in 1951 for the welfare of scheduled castes, tribes and backward classes and its latest amendment was for providing 10 per cent quota for economically weaker sections in educational institutions and in appointments.

These details were provided by a Rajya Sabha publication titled 'Rajya Sabha : The Journey since 1952' which has chronicled all the amendments. Their details were shared by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat in a statement.

The government is celebrating 'Constitution Day' or 'Samvidhan Diwas' on Tuesday in the Central Hall of Parliament to mark the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly.

President Ram Nath Kovind, Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Prime Minister Narendra Modi will address the MPs on the occasion.

The first amendment of the Constitution in 1951 was to empower the state to undertake affirmative action for the advancement of any socially and economically backward classes or categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by restricting the application of fundamental rights.

The latest 103rd amendment passed in 2019 enabled 10 per cent reservation for the economically weaker sections in educational institutions and in appointments.

Since the first Constitution amendment made by provisional parliament in 1951, when Rajya Sabha was not in existence, the Constitution has been amended 103 times so far, the Upper House Secretariat said.

Of these 103 amendments to the Constitution, the 99th amendment for setting up of a National Judicial Commission was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it noted.

A maximum of 32 amendments were related to the matters of states including reorganisation, transfer of territories, inclusion of some languages in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, etc.

Twelve amendments were aimed at extending reservation for SCs, STs and Anglo-Indians in Parliament and state legislatures, eight each related to reservations in educational institutions and employment, including in promotions. Another six amendments related to taxation including introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

Since coming into being in 1952, Rajya Sabha has passed 107 constitution amendment bills out of which one was negatived by Lok Sabha while four have lapsed on its dissolution, the Upper House Secretariat said.

Accordingly, Rajya Sabha has been a party to 102 Constitution amendments. And the only Bill passed by the upper house in 1990 for proclamation of President's Rule in Punjab, was negatived by the lower house.

Lok Sabha has passed 106 constitution amendment bills.

Read more here:
Indian Constitution: First amendment, and the last - Deccan Herald

If youve been reading Binghamton Review headlines, youll know that crazed leftists have been preventing conservative students from expressing their right to free speech by forming a leftist mob. However, if you look a little closer at the real story, youll recognize the headlines and statements for what they are: an attempt to spin events in conservatives favor.

On Nov. 18, protesters shut down an event hosted by Binghamton University College Republicans and Young Americas Foundation, who invited Arthur Laffer to speak on campus. If youre familiar with Laffer, the most recent target of the crazed leftists, you may know that he was a key adviser to former President Ronald Reagan and an architect of the explosion in inequality that transpired under that administration. Does that sound like someone whos at risk of having their free speech taken away by college students? Am I expected to believe that my freedoms, security and comfort are under threat from college protesters, and powerful and wealthy men like Laffer are my allies in this fight for free speech? I feel insulted by the suggestion that this could be true.

Freedom of speech, an inviolable principle of political democracy, has been turned into a political bludgeon by the political right. There is not a single student or student organization on campus that has the power to threaten the freedom of speech of someone like Laffer. Freedom of speech exists so that people like Laffer can be held accountable, not so that they can endlessly run the university lecture circuit. I was under the impression that student protest was considered a component of freedom of speech, and not evidence of crazed leftism.

When students yell, lack civility or use politically polarizing language, are they not exercising their right to freedom of speech? We may disagree politically and on what manner of action is appropriate to voice our views, but this disagreement is not one around the freedom of speech. Progressive student organizations on campus have their political views and goals, and clearly so do Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and College Republicans. Are we supposed to pretend these arguments will never result in protests, angry yelling or confrontation?

While the average BU student enjoys a relatively privileged lifestyle, it is important to remember that political decisions affect peoples lives. People like Laffer helped construct policies that hurt workers, while their superiors like Reagan went on racist rants behind closed doors. When Reagan dealt a death blow to the power of organized labor in America, the right did not protest the repression of their freedom of speech or right to strike. Rather, they celebrated the accomplishment of their political goal. When you choose to agitate for your political views, when you choose to bring archconservatives to campus, you have entered the sphere of public debate. I think that TPUSA and College Republicans should be allowed to say what they say. But I think if politics is to be understood as the serious matter it is, then rhetorical tricks using free speech as a bludgeon against crazed leftists should be off the table. Calling organized students mobs also strikes me as a deeply anti-democratic sentiment. If students of color, LGBTQ students and their allies see a reason to yell and protest, people should listen. Disagreement is a natural fact of political life and is protected by freedom of speech which is exactly what protesting students were exercising.

John-Paul Keblinski is a junior double-majoring in sociology and geography.

Visit link:
BU protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights - Binghamton University Pipe Dream

Life was hard in the American West of old. Water could be scarce, infrastructure was non-existant, the natives were sometimes deadly, and the law could be hours or even days away. But hard times breed hard people, and the people who settled the West tamed the West. What was once a wild frontier soon grew into America's economic engine of resource production and technological innovation.

Life can be hard in modern Florida, too. Think of the sweltering heat, streets built on top of sinkhole sands, Yankee immigrants who think they can wrestle alligators, and foreign tourists determined to cut in front of you in line at Hollywood Studios. And yet, Florida Man not only survives, but thrives. Could it be that Florida Man will stand at the forefront of the next great American Renaissance?

Let's dig into the headlines and find out, on another exciting...

We'll begin as we always do with...

380-pound Florida man arrested after hiding drugs in belly button.

More:

Investigators found a 28-gauge needle on Skelly, and he was arrested on charges of possession of methamphetamine, The Smoking Gun reported, citing an arrest affidavit.

Police searched Skelly before he was booked at Pinellas County Jail.

It's always in the last place you look, but I'm thinking I must be a horrible person for wondering if it was a two-man job to get to that guy's belly button.

The report says that Florida Man "was possibly dealing with mental health issues and/or appeared to be dealing with the effects of some substance." I say, embrace the healing power of "and." Florida Man "has not yet been identified and has not been charged with anything," which makes me think maybe there was something more wrong than just a bad batch of bath salts.

I hope Florida Man Gets the help he needs. As for Florida Woman, she's feeling friskier than usual, as you're about to see.

Multiple times? I'm thinking after the second or third bite, I'd be asking the waiter to bring the check around, and maybe a tetanus shot.

Police: Man identified himself as Brad Pitt during arrest.

Heh:

When police approached and detained the suspect, the owner of the vehicle said he didnt know the man and that he didnt give him permission to be inside it.

Police said the man didnt want to tell the officers his real name and proceeded to give them fake names, such as Brad Pitt, Nancy Pelosi, Marco Rubio and even Donald Trump.

When police questioned him, the man said he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

"Or?" As in, he couldn't remember which?

By the way, police eventually were able to establish his true identity: Florida Man.

The scene in my head is right out of one of Elmore Leonard's more absurd novels.

Florida Men break into new Fernandina Beach hotel, do $500,000 damage.

Based on the mugshot, this is definitely a "it seemed like a good idea at the time" kind of guy.

Longtime readers know I'm a sucker for a good animal story, even in Florida, where the animals can be palmetto bugs the size of miniature poodles, or meth-addled alligators.

So isn't this just lovely?

Florida Man demands bank teller give him less money during alleged robbery.

Florida Woman arrested trying to spend night, cook food in Daytona Walgreens.

Florida Man Accused Of Stabbing Woman Over Underdone Potato.

How a Florida Woman Who Won $13 Million Lottery Jackpot Ended Up in Prison.

Florida man driving with open beer blames the wind for blowing cocaine into his car.

And now, back to our regular Florida Man news...

It is possible to completely understand this occurrence without endorsing it.

Likely, even.

How a sance and a football game led to a Florida man getting kicked in the groin.

What could one possibly add to that?

How good does that sound? Sort of a Florida variation on a Manhattan. Will make a couple this weekend and try to remember to report back to you.

Thanks, Florida Man!

Florida man jailed for cursing out judge in letter sparking First Amendment fight.

This was a letter. Florida Man didn't disrupt a legal proceeding or get in the judge's face or anything like that. He just wrote a letter to a public servant in search of redress of grievances. The law is on Florida Man's side this time, or at least it ought to be.

Elsewhere...

WELL, UBER DOESN'T TAKE CASH: Florida man accused of taking taxi to and from bank robbery.

Raging fire consumes mans house then he steals a cop car, Arkansas police say.

A headline like that can mean only one thing: Florida Man has exactly one week to reclaim his crown of glory in time for the next exciting...

View post:
Florida Man Friday Saves the First Amendment | VodkaPundit - PJ Media

Largest Alumni Gift Ever

David and Carolyn Miller donated $50 million to the Cox School of Business, the largest alumni gift in its history.

This donation will help support the schools plan to modernize curriculum by offering more scholarships, collaborating across the campus on new interdisciplinary programs, and enhancing facilities.

David earned his bachelors degree in finance and MBA from SMU. He has served on the SMU Board of Trustees for 11 years and as a Cox School of Business executive board member.

David said he appreciates SMU President R. Gerald Turners leadership of the university and the improvements he has made to both the university and the school of business. He also stated that Dean Matt Myers has a vision and a plan for how to take Cox to a higher level.

Our gift is all about supporting that vision, Miller said.

The Millers past support includes the David B. Miller Endowed Professorship, the Don Jackson Center for Financial Studies, the MBA-Military Scholarships, and the David Miller Endowed Scholarship fund.

First Amendment Clinic

Thanks to a gift of $900,000 from the Stanton Foundation, SMUs School of Law will launch a First Amendment clinic that will focus on issues such as free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly and petition.

We believe that freedom of expression and the First Amendment must be protected by enhancing law students understanding of the First Amendment and providing a resource for organizations, students, journalists, and citizens defending their First Amendment right, said David Johnson, spokesman for the Foundation.

Tom Leatherbury, a partner at Vinson & Elkins LLP with 40 years of experience, will serve as the director and an adjunct professor to help direct the clinic.

Researching Minecraft

SMU Lyle School of Engineering, Guildhall, and the Simmons School of Education and Human Development are using a grant from the National Science Foundation to research teaching computer science and computation thinking through the popular video game Minecraft.

Were presented with the challenge of finding creative ways to positively impact student outcomes in STEM and the value it can provide in the learning experience, said Leanne Ketterlin Geller, professor and Texas Instrument endowed chair in education at Simmons.

The research will study game design, human-computer interaction, machine learning, curriculum design, and education assessment by integrating STEM-based curriculum into the game. The research begins this month, with funding extending through 2022.

The goal is to create a more stable, ethical, and inclusive data science workforce by enhancing the interest in data science to an assorted population of K-12 students.

View post:
Happenings on the Hill - Preston Hollow People

Mike Dunleavy, Opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. ET Nov. 23, 2019

No one should be forced to give their money to issues they don't support. That's why my state is working quickly to implement this new decision.

Recently,Idirectedmy states government agencies to defend our employees First Amendment rights by complying with last yearsJanus v. AFSCMESupreme Courtruling. Our unionized state workers should be able to notify their employers, whether they consent to the withdrawal of union dues from their paychecks. This consent may be withdrawn at any time.

As a result, Im proud to report that Alaska will become thefirst stateto comply with the Supreme Courts directive that governments obtain the clear and affirmative consent of each worker. These reforms will ensure that our hardworking public servants retain their freedom of association and cannot be forced to support political organizations with whom they do not agree.

As an Illinois state employee, Mark Janus believed it was unconstitutional for the state government to automatically deduct the local unions fair share fee from his paycheck. That money was then used to subsidize political activity he opposed. The Supreme Courtagreed, finding that all public union dues and fees must be deducted with the affirmative consent of each employee.

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy(Photo: Beck Bohrer/AP)

Because the compelled subsidization of private speech seriously impinges on First Amendment rights, it cannot be casually allowed,writesJustice Samuel Alito.

The justices also made it clear that an employees waiving of their First Amendment rights cannot be presumed.

Earlier this year, I instructed my attorney general, to review all my administrations employee policies. It wasdiscoveredthat the state was not in compliance withJanus. I quickly endorsed a plan to conduct a rigorous legal review and agreed to immediately implement proposed policy remedies.

Teacher: Supreme CourtsJanus v AFSCMEruling will force unions to be more accountable

The attorney generals suggested fixes addressed several key deficiencies. For example, state employees were previously given a brief10-day windoweach year to withdraw their consent. Worse, these records were procured solely by the unions, meaning the state could not hope to verify the clear and compelling evidence of consent thatJanusrequires. Employees should be able to change their mind at any point and not need to obtain union paperwork to do so, ensuring that consent is freely given or revoked.

And for those that have sought to downplay the significance of violating the First Amendment for their own political gain, I would point out that the impact on our workers was not simply an abstract constitutional concern. The effect of this free speech violation had direct financial repercussions on the lives of our families.

For reference, about70 percentof this hypothetical familys dues will be spent on political activism and litigation, such as the litigation ASEA recently initiated to strip members of their First Amendment rights. An additional 22 percent of those dues are given to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the largest and most politically active public employees union in the U.S.

I fully support those who chose to voluntarily redirect a portion of their paychecks to ASEA and AFSCME in support of such activities. The right to freely associate is, after all, constitutionallyprotected. However, I find it unacceptable that a family who no longer agrees with a unions lobbying efforts is forced to continue to fund a political organization against their will.

This is wrong. Not simply because the Supreme Court or Alaskas attorney general deemed it so, but because no organization governmental or political should possess the power to forcibly strip individuals of their constitutional rights. No American should be forced to associate with a political group with whom they disagree, regardless of any prior support.

Should political entities seek to deny Alaska public servants their freedom of association, I will make certainthat my administration wage a tireless battle to secure each workers unalienable rights.

No one should be forced to join a union: We need to pass the National Right-to-Work Act.

The question still remains that not all states have yet to fully comply withJanus.I respect that all governors are confronted with a myriad of important issues and each must prioritize the order as it meets their states needs.My state is unique in that it employs a larger percentage of public employees that other states do not. Therefore, not complying withJanus infringesupon the rights of a larger portion of our population.

Additionally, as other states review this landmark decision by the Supreme Court, some of my fellow governors may share these concerns and take similar steps to protect their states workers. The belief that state employees should be free to practice their First Amendment rights, 365 days a year, is a profound and deeply rooted conviction held by many freedom-loving Americans across the country.

MikeDunleavy is the governor of Alaska. Follow him on Twitter: @GovDunleavy

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/23/governor-alaska-state-first-comply-scotus-union-ruling-column/4224193002/

More here:
Governor of Alaska: My state will be the first to comply with SCOTUS' new union ruling. - USA TODAY

MARTINSBURG Retired Delegate John Overington announced his 2019 First Amendment Recognition Award to Charles and Mary Edgar for their efforts in standing up for the sanctity of life.

This couple has for decades been pro-life warriors in their vigorous defense of the Right to Life.

Their articulate and unwavering communication in the media, at rallies, with Letters to the Editor in a positive and constructive way for decades, has been critical in assisting in educating the public on this important issue. Overington stated.

Whether this husband/wife team is active in writing about the importance of being active in the education process or the political arena, their dedication with this issue has made a difference, he said.

Recently Charles Edgar wrote about the importance of being active, rolling up your sleeves and doing something, to make a difference.

Mary Edgar wrote about our Declaration of Independence, and the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, without being born nothing else matters.

Good government does not occur on its own, but because of the vigilance of its citizens. Many years ago I saw an ad that read, To speak out clearly and fairly not only is it a constitutional rightit is a moral duty. This award is for those unpaid citizens who do this, Overington said

At a recent Pro-Life dinner at St. James Catholic Church, Bishop Mark Brennan of the Diocese of Wheeling Charleston blessed the couple for their work. Deacon David Galvin of the St. James Greater Roman Catholic Church praised them for their efforts.

The three-county Pro-Life chapters of West Virginians for Life in Jefferson, Berkeley and Morgan Counties, with Regina Smith, Pam Brush and Betsy Wolfe respectively also gave the Edgars a plaque for their efforts.

Go here to read the rest:
Overington recognizes Edgars with First Amendment Recognition Award - Martinsburg Journal

NASHVILLE, Tenn Two families are tired of feeling like "second-class citizens" in the Smith County public school system due to their beliefs, according to a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and the ACLU.

According to them, school officials unlawfully promoted religion in public schools, violating the First Amendment.

The lawsuit alleges that officials directed prayer during mandatory assemblies, distributed and displayed Bibles during classes, posted Bible verses in hallways and broadcast prayers at sporting events.

It also states that coaches participated in prayer with student-athletes and that a cross painted on the wall of an athletic facility violates the separation between church and state.

When I was in the military, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which includes religious freedom, Kelly Butler said in a press release, a father to several children who attend Smith County schools. Its wrong for the public schools to make my family feel like second-class citizens because of our beliefs.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Tennessee posted tweets about the lawsuit, Butler v. Smith County.

The release said Butler and another family involved in the lawsuit are both atheists. They are also seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the practices outlined in the lawsuit.

More:
Smith County School System sued over first amendment violations, promotion of religion - WBIR.com