Two little girls...one innocent and beaten, the other horrible and unpunished. Which story do you think involved the ACLU?

This first story is about a 6-year-old girl who accidentally stepped on the prayer rug of an Imam in Morocco. Naturally, the Imam struck her violently and knocked her to the ground.

The school (yes, this happened in school) initially told the mother that the child had fallen. The lie unravelled though, and the mother is now taking action. Parlez-vous francais?

Remember this?

France-Echos:

2006/04/19 - Tétouan, MOROCCO.

What is the crime of Nihad … a 6 years old girl?
Daring to walk on the prayer carpet of Moustafa LAZRAK, a “f’qih” and imam … How beautiful is the Religion of Tolerance, Peace and Love …

In Morocco the “f’qih” is an entire institution: it is a sort of imam-teacher in koranical schools, that belongs to public education. In Tétouan a “f’qih”, whose role is to teach Islam, attacked an innocent child of 6 years old. The picture speaks by its own: black eyes, bruises (?? ecchymoses in French), and multiple fractures of the noise. Not to mention the psychological consequences …

The barbarity happened April 19th, at the Sidi Ahmed El Bekkal School. In the afternoon, the school phoned to Fatima, the mother of the little girl, explaining her that her daughter had “fallen”. But when she discovered the state of her daughter, Fatima questioned the persons in charge, who delivered another version of the story.

Moustafa LAZRAK was praying at the beginning of the afternoon, in the classroom, although it was time to begin the class. Entering the room, little Nihad stepped with inadvertency the prayer carpet of the “f’qih”.

The child confirms the facts, and resumes the story. The imam-teacher hits her violently, and she fell on the ground.

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit, who has more here.


The next story is out of Springfield, Ohio. A 14-year-old girl apparently made some radically, sexually-oriented videos mocking of a teacher and the assistant principle.

Of course, the lawyers from the ACLU jumped in in support of the girl, changing her actions from shockingly hateful (she portrayed the educators as sexual predators trolling for children) to a "joke gone awry".

The ACLU won the battle...as usual, the school did they really could do in the face of expensive and time-cosuming litigation. Free speech? Maybe... but this girl deserved to be punished. Instead, she's reinstated.

The Toledo Blade:

As a newspaper, we are naturally partial to the constitutional right of free speech. But this is one of those cases that stretches that cherished right to the breaking point without concern for the responsibility that comes with it.

First, the Web postings were not merely accusations, opinions, or parody, but a malicious outburst in which the girl, cloaked in the Internet’s anonymity, ascribed immoral actions to the educators by pretending to be them. If this was a joke, there was nothing remotely funny about it. And it could damage their careers.

Second, despite the ACLU’s claim to the contrary, this was a valid school matter, even though the girl wrote the profiles on her home computer. Because names were used, she might as well have posted the information on a billboard next to the school. About 40 percent of the students have accounts on MySpace and similar sites.

This was not just a case of a student repeating bad things about a teacher or principal in the hall, over the telephone, or even by e-mail. Internet postings reach a worldwide audience, and sexual impropriety with students is probably the worst accusation that can be made against an educator these days.

Third, in asking the ACLU to intervene, the girl’s parents have sent their daughter the wrong message: that a false accusation is acceptable, if you can get away with it. Considering the internal disruption she caused at the school, six weeks out of class — with district-paid tutors — is light punishment for so grievous an offense.

The Springfield school board recognized that fact but its members cannot be faulted for declining to spend scarce educational dollars on years of litigation.

Even though it prevailed, the ACLU should not consider the outcome of the Springfield case as a victory for the principle of free speech. The malicious circumstances make the filthy slander posted by the student a poor standard for an otherwise valid constitutional right.

Interesting to think about how the ACLU might have reacted to the case in the Morocco. Would they have defended the beaten child or would the Imam's actions be free speech Imam-style?

-Home-