Jun 12th, 2009
Posted by Chris Hampton, LGBT Project at 11:39am	Free Speech, LGBT Rights

Got Milk? Why, Yes, We Have Harvey Milk

Yesterday morning, a sixth grader in California gave a report in one of her classes. That might not sound like terribly exciting news, except that the report was about Harvey Milk, and the student only got to give her report after the ACLU threatened her school with a lawsuit for censoring it.

Natalie Jones, a sixth grader at Mt. Woodson Elementary School in Ramona, California, had been given a class assignment to write a report on any subject she wanted. Natalie got a score of 49 out of a possible 50 points on her report about the gay civil rights icon. Students were then told to make PowerPoint presentations about their reports, which they would show to other students in the class. Natalie put together a 12-page presentation on Milk that you can view here.

But the day before Natalie was to give her presentation she was called into the principal's office and told she couldn't do so. Then the school sent letters to parents of students in the class, explaining that Natalie's presentation was being rescheduled for a lunch recess and that students could only attend if they had parental permission due to the allegedly “sensitive” nature of the topic. School officials tried to justify all of this by claiming Natalie's presentation triggered the school's sex education policy.

Please note that by playing this clip YouTube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.

After the ACLU threatened to sue them for violating the First Amendment as well as the California Education Code, school officials finally backed down. Natalie has received a written apology, and school officials sent a letter about that apology to all the parents who got the original “warning” about the presentation. The school also agreed to bring its sex education policy into compliance with state law, and acknowledged that the mere mention of a person's sexual orientation isn't enough to invoke sex education policy. And perhaps most important of all, Natalie gave her presentation to the entire class Thursday morning.

Natalie's mom Bonnie tells us it went really well. She's terribly proud of Natalie, and we are too. But I suspect Harvey, if he were around today, might be proudest of all.

CORRECTION: The title has been amended to better clarify the subject of the this blog post.

Permalink |	Free Speech, LGBT Rights

Tags: video

1. Paen Says:
   Jun 12th, 2009 at 12:51pm

   Good for Natalie and I hope that the school administraters have learnt their lesson.

2. Roberta Dees Says:
   Jun 13th, 2009 at 12:00pm

   I just want to tell Natalie that she did a great job on her presentation!

3. Mary Ann Maikish Says:
   Jun 13th, 2009 at 3:50pm

   I found this inspiring and full of hope!!!

4. Ken George Says:
   Jun 13th, 2009 at 8:22pm

   I am grateful for all the good work you do to protect our civil liberties.
   This was a great example.
   Thanks again.

5. Lucila Conde Says:
   Jun 14th, 2009 at 8:54pm

   I applaud Natalie and her mother for not giving up on this. I loved the presentation, I wish I could see it as well as hear your oral presentation on the subject! Thank you for helping the adults in your school community learn this great lesson too Natalie!

6. Vic Livingston Says:
   Jun 15th, 2009 at 10:14am

   CENSORSHIP VIA GOVERNMENT INTERNET FILTERING INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USERS IS ALIVE AND WELL -- AND THE ACLU HAS YET TO CONFRONT THE ISSUE

   Some months ago, this writer, a former editor of TV/Radio Age and CableVision magazines, television industry trade journals, found he no longer could post commentary to articles on the web site of Broadcasting and Cable, the "bible" of the industry.

   This occurred in the wake of a series of commentaries in which I advocated a delay in the "digital TV transition" deadline -- a deadline that subsequently was pushed back after a deluge of adverse publicity about the possible "disenfranchisement" from broadcast television of thousands of viewing households that were unprepared for the switch to digital.

   Around the same time, I found that I was "banned" from making commentaries to articles on Politico.com, a major political web site. I had published as commentary an article advocating the delay in the digital TV deadline, along with articles critical of the government's role in creating and maintaining a "vigilante" citizen army that allegedly is violating the civil and human rights of unjustly "targeted" Americans.

   Now, months later, I continue to be blocked from posting comments to articles on both Broadcasting and Cable and Politico.com. In the same of Broadcasting and Cable, I have been told by editors there that they cannot determine why my posts are not getting through. In the case of Politico, I was told on the phone by someone who identified themselves as a Politico representative that I was banned due to making multiple postings of the same material. Yet months later, the ban remains in place, despite the fact that many other readers continue to make multiple posts on Politico threads.

   I believe what's happening is government CENSORSHIP emanating out of a Homeland Security- administered "fusion center," in my case, the installation in Newtown, PA. I believe that officials involved in telecommunications policy led to the imposition of a "filter" that blocks my posts to Broadcasting and Cable -- possibly because my commentary was effective in helping to persuade Congress to delay the digital TV deadline.

   As for the continuing ban from Politico.com, I believe that government officials may have pressured management there to maintain by banning, despite the fact that other readers have have made multiple postings are not subject to such a permanent injunction.

   I believe my case shows that certain agencies of the U.S. government are using regional "fusion centers" as a mechanism to impose prior restraint and censorship upon the telecommunications of "targeted" (in my case, unjustly targeted) individuals and families.

   This draconian policy is clearly unconstitutional and must be brought to the attention of officials of both the Obama administration and Congress.

7. Laura Minnick Says:
   Jun 15th, 2009 at 4:46pm

   To Vic Livingston:

   Your post has nothing to do with the story above. And the political websites you've been 'banned' from posting on are not public or governmental entities. They can ban you if they want to. Last I knew, the ACLU isn't interested in conspiracy theorists. Why don't you post your story over at RedState or Free Republic? They love that sort of thing.

8. Anonymous Says:
   Jun 16th, 2009 at 2:36pm

   To: "Laura Minnick"

   The posting above is about government censorship -- the misuse of "fusion centers" to exercise censorship, prior restraint, and even alleged malicious interference and tampering with telecommunications.

   And I believe the "banning" I have experienced is a result of government-initiated action or pressure. Censorship by proxy is censorship nonetheless.

   Conspiracy theorists? How about truth-tellers? Isn't that way you are so dogged in your protestations?

   Have a nice day. Your attempt at spreading disinformation is noted.

   I especially like the double-reverse of identifying me with right-wing web sites. Very disingenuous indeed.

   But lame psy ops. Is that the best you can do?

9. Vic Livingston Says:
   Jun 16th, 2009 at 2:37pm

   To: "Laura Minnick"

   The posting above is about government censorship -- the misuse of "fusion centers" to exercise censorship, prior restraint, and even alleged malicious interference and tampering with telecommunications.

   And I believe the "banning" I have experienced is a result of government-initiated action or pressure. Censorship by proxy is censorship nonetheless.

   Conspiracy theorists? How about truth-tellers? Isn't that way you are so dogged in your protestations?

   Have a nice day. Your attempt at spreading disinformation is noted.

   I especially like the double-reverse of identifying me with right-wing web sites. Very disingenuous indeed.

   But lame psy ops. Is that the best you can do?

10. Mona Says:
    Jun 16th, 2009 at 9:17pm

    Why the ACLU should shut up and butt out?
    1) No sense of good and bad
    2) No sense of when to leave other institutions alone
    3) No sense to look at both sides of the issue
    The ACLU does not care about Americans. They care about themselves and how to improve their policial influence in changing America to fit their philosophy. Which I might add is not in the interest of the majority of Americans.
    Please rethink before supporting the ACLU until you have the chance to learn more about this organizations secrets. America depends on smart informed Americans like you. Please do not drink the coolade.

    The ACLU was wrong to push their agenda on the "milk" presentation. Who do they think they are? I and many other parents would not want my young child to hear about the life of a gay man at such a young age. Let the people (parents) decide what is best for their child, not a political organization like the ACLU!

11. Lisa Says:
    Jun 16th, 2009 at 10:03pm

    The ACLU was wrong to push their agenda on the “milk” presentation. I and many other parents would not want my young child to hear about the life of a gay man at such a young age. Let the people (parents) decide what is best for their child, not the ACLU!

12. Amy Kube Says:
    Jun 17th, 2009 at 3:07pm

    Thanks, ACLU!

13. veteran Says:
    Jun 18th, 2009 at 2:49pm

    I see here the aclu has pushed it nose into something it should stay away from making people sit thru something they dont want and what about the kids who didnt want to here this report did they have there rights taken from them shameful

14. Anonymous Says:
    Jun 18th, 2009 at 4:40pm

    I realize this is off topic but I can't find anywhere to post it. The City of Dearborn is censoring a Christian pastor from handing out Christian literature during it's Arab festival. This is a low-key Christian pastor, not some anti-Arab extremist or wing-nut. This appears to be a clear 1st Amendment violation. A lawsuit has been filed on his behalf. You can see it at http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/CityofDearborn.pdf . Is the ACLU interested in this governmental attempt at censorship?

15. Lenore Parks Says:
    Jun 19th, 2009 at 4:45pm

    The ACLU is clearly uninterested in the true concept of freedom of speech. The only freedom of speech that they advocate for are those which support their own agenda, which is clearly anti-family, anti-JudeoChristian, and anti-individual rights. Teachers and children are free to speak about homosexuality in class but are not allowed to mention the name of Jesus Christ during any school function. A child may bring in the Koran for show and tell but not the Bible. A person is free to say whatever they want as long as it does not offend the ears of any popular minority group. A person is free to disagree but if they disagree with the politically correct, even in a polite, peaceful, and respectful manner, they can still be prosecuted for hate crimes, or at least lose a national beauty pageant for being honest. This is the "freedom" found in the book 1984, the same kind of "freedom" we see currently being practiced in the Iranian election process. The ACLU has published an entire book on restricting Islamic religious freedom while at they same time they are trying to remove a cross from a 75 year old veterans memorial in the Southwest, because it is supposedly federal property, and they won't let the veterans buy the land from the government so that it would be private property. Explain to me the rationale of why one of these groups deserves religious freedom and the other does not.
    I do not consider the ACLU as a defender of freedom in this country -- they are a blatant and unrepentant opponent of faith, morality, and the traditional values and constitutional rights on which our country was founded. George Washington would be thoroughly disgusted with the ACLU and with the current state of the government that he and the other founders created with such wisdom and sensibility.

16. Jack Wilson Says:
    Aug 6th, 2009 at 8:27am

    Would the ACLU protect the right of a student to present a report on Jesus Christ - or to even do a report in general on Christianity? Or to discuss the wording of the Declaration of Independence with the phrase 'endowed by their creator'?

    We know the answer. The ACLU sees freedom of speech throught the Marxist filter.

17. Sandy Says:
    Aug 13th, 2009 at 2:26pm

    Shame on the ACLU for muddying the waters yet again. Are schools allowed to present sexual information to children against the wishes of the parents? NO. Are schools REQUIRED to allow someone else to present sexual information against the wishes of the parents? Apparently the ACLU thinks so.

    The school acted in the most responsible way possible, asking parents to 'opt in' if they wanted to. They did not stifle the girl's freedom of speech or act punitive in any way. I have to question the wisdom of the parent who thought this was an appropriate subject for a school project, unless they were looking for a little publicity too?

18. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 15th, 2009 at 2:52pm

    The school was right in this case. I am in 7th grade & I would not want to watch that & my family wouldn't want me to watch that presentation either.

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image.