We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

the brave?"

Not asking if the flag is still up on the pole, but if our country is still free and brave. Sounds like VERY contoversial questions to me?????

WTF???????????????

Thinking is a treat to a totalitarian regime.

1. Butterflies.
2. Flowers.
3. Math.
4. Geology-wait...maybe not...
5. Physical fitness I guess is OK.
6. ....



Ummm, that leaves out languages, social studies, science (creationists don't like it, nor do global warming haters), music, art,

Wouldn't they be opposed to non Euclidean geometry? Isn't that a type of witchcraft?

The same parents who can't help their kids with homework with things like math and English,(?) suddenly have the time to police what's said in school? Come on Arizona.

They can't destroy everything unless they kill off the schools, too.

Charter schools? Church schools?

Those kids also deserve such protection from harmful ideas.

We discussed current events in Civics class. I suppose this would be outlawed under this idiotic bill.

How do these nitwits expect kids to understand current issues if they are prohibited from discussing them in school? Sounds like Nazi rule to me.

Right now if you discuss a controversial issue anything might happen.

I've seen more than a few threads here calling for teachers' heads for discussing controversial issues. Always (R) teachers. And saying such things should be banned--in other words, for this law. (I've also seen applause for teachers' discussing controversial issues. Always progressive or liberal viewpoints.)

I've also seen extensive hissing over a few teachers' suspended for discussing liberal or progressive viewspoints in very conservative areas, and calling for it to be banned. Like this law would do.

It's not the discussing that's the problem. It's "controversial"--talk about guaranteed jobs or defend Obamacare, and it's not controversial. For us. Talk favorably of work requirements or against Obamacare, and it's grounds for termination for cause, so controversial. For us.

Same for LGBT... issues. Race. Not just politics.

I see students have the same biases. "Mr. Pilchard is outrageous--all those RW talking points. Now, Mr. Herring, he's biased." "Because he touts Cuba as a good example?" "Now you got it." Meanwhile, across the room, "Mr. Pilchard understands Americans, not like that socialist Mr. Herring." It goes home. Parents get involved. And the APs tell teachers to cool it.

It's a stupid law, mostly because so many people (by my observation) want it, but only want it to apply to opposing viewpoints. Freedom of speech, of course, applies to *our* viewpoints. It gets silly.

Even if Mr. Pilchard and Mr. Herring are history or economics teachers and the issues are germane to their classes, there is no debate for many topics; even the textbooks themselves are propagandistic. There is merely my side telling the truth and the other side actively engaged in propaganda and subversion. If you're playing devil's advocate, well, there you are, you're testifying that you personally side with and support the dark lord himself, Darth Sauron. ("That's not what that word means! And there was no 'Darth Sauron'." "Don't try to confuse me, you Satan worshipper!&quot