Assembly Bill 123 Cripples 1st Amendment

[Twoller]

What is this bill supposed to address? What motivates it? Any particular incidents?

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Twoller

What is this bill supposed to address? What motivates it? Any particular incidents?

You know; I'm not sure. I have to get records from the capitol. They don't put everything like that on line

[ilbegone]

disruption
threatening pupil's immediate physical safety.

creates a disruption with the intent to threaten the immediate
physical safety of any pupil

whose presence or acts
interfere with the peaceful conduct of the activities of the school
or disrupt the school or its pupils or school activities,

Remains there after being asked to leave

How could it be that a mobile message board be construed to immediately harm elementary and junior high kids or interfere with and disrupt a school or school activities?

Do parents retain the right to picket over shoddy education results?

Do unions which represent teachers in any location have issue with this piece of legislation concerning first amendment rights?

What about activities such as road repair, utility maintenance, trimming or removing trees? "Educators" are so goofy that a downed light pole is cause for classroom lock down and escalating the situation into a virtual national disaster by calling every legal guardian of every student.

Who ultimately decides what constitutes a disruption or threat, and how is that applied without prejudice or even malice? Just what is "willfully or knowingly"?

The bill may be well intentioned (I see perceived hordes of child molesters inspiring the bill), but I believe it to ultimately be just one more weapon to fortify schools against parents and just about anyone else who may unwittingly stroll down the sidewalk while blithely minding his own business. Maybe it's written so broadly that it wouldn't stand up in court, but then someone has to have their innocent activities unconstitutionally punished and have the resources for a court challenge.

I remember something about the authorities in the Inland 10-210 freeway corridor communities crushing cars impounded for street racing - until they crushed a car belonging to a kid whose parents had some money behind them and an attorney wanting to earn it.

Which one of those Sacramento wastrels wrote this thing anyway - don't we have a runaway deficit to address?

[ilbegone]

Assemblyman Mendoza's finer moments:


AB 265 – Threading: This bill extends the sunset date for the provision exempting threading from the Barbering & Cosmetology to July 1, 2009. Threading is the removal of unwanted hair by using a special cotton thread. The practice of threading has existed for centuries and is a well-established beauty practice in many countries, such as India and the Middle East.
Status: Signed by Governor, July 2007

ACR 32 – Read Across America Day: This bill recognizes March 2 as Read Across America Day. The resolution stresses the importance of reading and urges teachers and parents to read to their children every day.
Status: Signed by Governor, March 2007

ACR 37 - Automotive Career Month: This bill designates the month of April 2007 as Automotive Career Month and encourages automotive career tech education to meet the increasing demand for automotive Technicians.
Status: Signed by Governor, May 2007

AB 1831 - Teacher Housing: This bill would require the Department of Education to produce a teacher housing report detailing the need for, and ability to implement, a program to better serve local communities by assisting teachers in purchasing homes located in the communities they serve. The bill would also require the report to contain specific information, by county, relating to housing for teachers.
Status: Passed Assembly, May 2008

AB 63 – Postsecondary Education Tuition and Fees: Requires retailers who offer and sell extended warranties to maintain on file a copy of the terms of the warranty in the event the consumer misplaces the original.
Status: Signed by Governor, May 2009

AB 518 – Threading Sunset: This bill seeks to remove the sunset date exempting threading from the Barbering & Cosmetology Act.
Status: Held by the Assembly, January 2010

AB 1569 - Damaged Merchandize: This bill removes “beer” from the list of the alcoholic beverages that, under the existing law, can be sold as damaged merchandise after being involved in a fire, wreck or catastrophe as long as being granted authorization from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Status: Passed Assembly, May 2009

AB 78 - Pathway to Citizenship: Places an initiative on the June 2012 primary ballot asking voters if they would like to create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who speak English, pay taxes, have worked in the U.S. for 5 years and have not been convicted of any felonies.
Status: Referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee and Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting. Hearing dates not yet set.

Redistricting. Hearing dates not yet set.

AB 85 - Classroom Safety Locks: Requires public school modernization projects and community college new construction and modernization projects to include classroom locks that can be locked from the inside.
Status: Referred to Assembly Education Committee. Hearing date not yet set.

AB 86 - Classified Employees/Charter Schools: Gives classified employees a voice in creating a new charter school or converting an existing public school to a charter school.
Status: Referred to Assembly Education Committee. Hearing date not yet set.

AB 123 - School Disruptions: Permits school administrators to contact local law enforcement if disruptive messages that threaten the safety of students are displayed near a school.
Status: Referred to Assembly Public Safety Committee. Hearing date not yet set.

AB 1172 - Charter School Transparency: Increases transparency in charter schools by requesting the Legislative Analyst's Office to conduct a study of best practices in charter schools, revises the charter school approval process, and grants LEAs the right to deny a charter school in times of financial crisis.
Status: Not yet referred to policy committee.

AB 1203 - Employee Release Time: Expands employee release time for union work.
Status: Not yet referred to policy committee.


Of course, something would be amiss if he, as an "educator" turned politician, didn't serve on some race based political committee or other race obsessed organization:

Vice Chair, California Latino Legislative Caucus

Caucus: a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy

[ilbegone]

Mendoza dabbling in "Equal Rights"

Mendoza Introduces Bill to Provide Equal Rights to Classified School Employees
Legislation Gives Classified Employees a Voice in Charter School Petition Process

SACRAMENTO, CA - Assemblymember Tony Mendoza (D-Norwalk) introduced AB 86 last week, a bill that would provide equal rights to classified employees to participate in the charter school petition process. If AB 86 passes through both houses of the legislature and is signed by Governor Brown, it would require at least one-half of permanent classified employees estimated to work at a charter school to sign a petition to start a new charter school, and it would also require at least 50 percent of permanent classified employees currently employed at a public school to sign a petition to convert an existing school into a charter school. The bill is sponsored by Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

"AB 86 would establish a fair process for classified employees to show their interest in being employed by a charter school," explains Assemblymember Mendoza.

This bill would provide classified employees the same rights as those afforded to teachers by allowing classified employees to participate in the petition signature process in the same manner as teachers when establishing new charter schools or converting existing schools into charters.

"Classified employees play an important role in our education system by assisting with special education classes, English learners, and a variety of other duties," says Assemblymember Mendoza. "It is clear that the creation of a charter school will impact classified employees, and I believe they should be given a voice in the process."

Assemblymember Mendoza, a public school teacher and current Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, proudly serves the 56th District.

[ilbegone]

Medoza - teacher, assemblyman, environmentalist:

Assemblymember Mendoza To Host Young Legislators Meeting To Educate Them On The Environment

WHO:
Assemblymember Tony Mendoza

WHAT:
Young Legislators Meeting

WHEN:
Saturday, Nov. 20, 2010
10 a.m. – 2 p.m.

WHERE:
Southern California Edison
9401 Geary Ave., Santa Fe Springs, Ca 90670

NORWALK, CA — Assemblymember Tony Mendoza (D-Norwalk) will host his monthly Young Legislators meeting on Saturday, November 20TH at Southern California Edison.

About 90 high school seniors from 18 high schools will attend the meeting to learn about green technology and jobs. The students were selected from a group of more than 200 seniors who applied for Assemblymember Mendoza’s 10-month program.

“It is extremely important that these young leaders learn the importance of balancing a green policy when integrating business friendly initiatives,” said Assemblymemmber Mendoza. “I was mentored by elected officials who taught me how to make a difference in my community. I hope to do the same with them.”

Assemblymember Mendoza’s Young Legislators meet once a month to learn about the lifecycle of legislation, healthcare challenges, business issues, water, labor, environment, public safety and other issues that affect the State of California. The free program, open to all seniors of the 56th District, culminates with a visit to the State Capitol in June. [WOW!]

Assemblymember Mendoza, a public school teacher and current vice-chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, represents the communities of Artesia, Hawaiian Gardens, Cerritos, Buena Park, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, Lakewood, Los Nietos and Whittier.

Contact Us Sign up for E-Updates
[ Mendoza TV ]

[ilbegone]

More racial politickin'

Latino Leaders Reception Comes to Modesto on October 1st

WHO: California Latino Legislative Caucus

WHAT: Latino Leaders Reception

WHEN: Friday, October 1, 2010, 5:30 pm – 7:00 pm

WHERE: Azucar! Latin Grill & Mojito Bar
1001 10th St., Modesto, CA 95354

NORWALK, CA - Assemblymember Tony Mendoza (D-56) and members of the California Latino Legislative Caucus will join local elected officials and community leaders during a reception in Modesto on Friday, October 1, 2010.

The Latino Caucus established the Latino Leaders Reception series last year as a means to stay connected to the community. The Caucus travels throughout the state to meet school board members, mayors, council members, water board members, trustees, county supervisors and community leaders who are vital to the success of California.

“These types of events help us build relationships throughout the state so we can get to know our future leaders” said Assemblymember Mendoza. “They help open a line of communication to discuss the issues that affect our community and our state.”

Assemblymember Mendoza, former teacher and current vice chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, serves the communities of Artesia, Whittier, Buena Park, Cerritos, Hawaiian Gardens, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, Lakewood and Los Nietos.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Twoller

What is this bill supposed to address? What motivates it? Any particular incidents?

I was able to obtain this from Mendoza's office at the capitol this afternoon. The PDF is attached at the bottom too

AS 123 (Mendoza)
School Safety
Summary
AB 123 would add language to Penal Code 626.8
addressing disruptive messages where the disruption
threatens the physical safety of school children in
preschool, elementary school, or middle school while
they are coming to, leaving or attending school.
Background
On March 24, 2003, at approximately 7:30 a.m., two
vehicles driven by two members of the group Center
for Bio-Ethical Reform, drove around the perimeter of
a middle school as students were walking and being
dropped off for classes. The two vehicles consisted of
a truck displaying billboard-sized graphic photographs
of aborted fetuses and an escort "security vehicle"
equipped with a security cage, red and amber
flashing lights, push bars and antennae mounted on
the roof.
Between 7:15 a.m. and 7:45 a.m., all 1,900 students
of the school arrived on campus in the same location;
the cui de sac where the two vehicles were driving.
Because of the disiurbing nature of the photographs,
some students became angry, some began to cry,
and others stared while standing in the street and on
the sidewalk, creating a traffic safety hazard. School
officials contacted the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department. Deputy Sheriff's officers arrived,
detained the two drivers of the vehicles and
eventually determined that California Penal Code
section 626.8 was in violation and asked the drivers
to leave the area around the school.
The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform filed a lawsuit
contending school officials and the sheriffs officers
violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Sheriff's Dept. and Los Angeles Unified School
District (defendants), at which point the Center for
Bio-Ethical Reform (Plaintiffs) appealed. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals held that Penal Code section
626.8 does not, as written, permit school
administrators to contact local law enforcement in the
event that a person or entity conveys disruptive
messages on an adjacent street where the disruption
threatens the physical safety of children where they
are coming to, leaving from, or attending school.
However, in that opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals acknowledged that should the California
Legislature choose to adopt statutory language to
address this situation, the outcome may be different.
Why AB 123 Is Needed
California schools have the constitutional obligation to
provide safe campuses to students and employees.
The right to free expression is also protected by the
State and Federal Constitutions. However, the right to
free expression is not absolute, and has been limited
within the school context by reasonable time, manner
and place regulations to ensure safety and to
minimize disruption to educational operations.
If school administrators are unable to rely on Penal
Code section 626.8 to address disruptions of schools
that may result in physical harm to students, schools
will lose an important tool in ensuring safe campuses.
This change will help school administrators ensure
student safety without unduly burdening the right of
free expression.
Support
Los Angeles Unified School District LAUSD (Sponsor)
AFSCME
Ocean View School District
County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Dept
Opposition
None on file.
For More Information
Gabby Villanueva
gabriela. villanueva@asm.ca.gov
(916) 319-2919
Office of Assemblymember Tony Mendoza AS 123 Fact Sheet Page 1

[ilbegone]

Federal court upholds abortion foes' 1st Amendment rights

Ruling affirms activists' right to display photos of aborted fetuses near a middle school.

July 03, 2008

Victoria Kim

The 1st Amendment rights of two anti-abortion activists were violated when they were ordered to stop circling a Rancho Palos Verdes middle school in a truck displaying graphic photos of aborted fetuses, a federal appellate court ruled Wednesday.

Overturning an earlier district court judgment, a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously ruled that school officials and sheriff's deputies violated the men's free speech rights by ordering them to leave the school's neighborhood.

The court in its ruling on a lawsuit brought by the activists cited the concept of a "heckler's veto," which states that free speech cannot be limited based on listeners' reactions to the content.

The activists' "speech was permitted until the students and drivers around the school reacted to it, at which point the speech was deemed disruptive and ordered stopped," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote in the ruling. "This application of the statute raises serious 1st Amendment concerns."

The 7-by-20-foot truck with photos of first-term fetuses on three sides appeared near Dodson Middle School around 7:30 a.m. March 24, 2003, as students arrived. Several stopped to stare at the photos, which showed fetuses with small hands and feet and the word "choice" in quotation marks and big block letters, according to court documents.

Assistant Principal Art Roberts told the trial court that he saw several children who appeared to be angered by the images and that he had to discourage a group of boys from throwing rocks at the truck.

Roberts called deputies, who stopped and searched the truck and another vehicle, then ordered the activists to leave the area, according to court documents.

"It's the off-putting speech that needs protection, otherwise there is no need for the 1st Amendment," said Robert Muise, a lawyer for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, who filed the suit against Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and school officials.

The three-judge panel also ruled that the individual deputies and school officials could not be held liable for the 1st Amendment violations, though the panel found that the deputies wrongly detained the activists for 75 minutes.

"A reasonable officer in the deputies' situation could believe that their actions were lawful," said Jennifer Lehman, a lawyer in the county counsel's office.

The suit is one of several 1st Amendment battles the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform is fighting around the country in its reproductive choice campaign, in which trucks and planes carry graphic images of aborted fetuses to expose the public to what its members call "the reality of abortion."

Gregg Cunningham, the center's executive director, said in a deposition that he has seen students faint, become physically ill, weep, avert their gazes and leave the room in response to photos his group uses in the campaign, according to court papers. "There are some realities which can not be adequately communicated with words alone," he said. "Students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see an abortion."

Mary-Jane Wagle, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, said her group was concerned that young children may be exposed to graphic and jarring images without proper discussion in school or at home.

"Certainly we know they will be horrified, but will they understand what they see? We don't know," Wagle said. "We really believe that what's important is for families to talk about these issues at home, in a safe place."

School representatives could not be reached for comment.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul...me-abortion3/2

[ilbegone]

I visited the bio ethical website, it does indeed display disturbing images.

It would be easy to to get caught up in justification for 123. For example,

"There are some realities which can not be adequately communicated with words alone," he said. "Students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see an abortion."

By that reasoning, "children who are old enough to have sex are old enough to view porn".



However, how did a lone incident in 2003 by a knucklehead fringe group (I am reminded of the eco-terrorist group ELF) become justification for something as broadly written as 123?

It certainly disturbed some children, but how did the actions of the group on that day threaten immediate physical harm to children? In fact, it may have been the other way around:

Assistant Principal Art Roberts told the trial court that he saw several children who appeared to be angered by the images and that he had to discourage a group of boys from throwing rocks at the truck.

So, if - in the interest of equal representation and diversity as well as accuracy in education - there were a mobile billboard set up across the street from a school protesting a large mural purporting to depict a visual history of California painted on the gymnasium wall which only shows people who have a central Mexican physical appearance, and some kids threw rocks at it, would that be considered as threatening the safety of children and prohibited under proposed bill 123?