you know what. Mom should tell the kids to go on and do what they want.
Stupid rules were meant to be broken, and this is an INCREDIBLY stupid rule.

Jackson, MS? Bwha ha ha!

SilentStrider: you know what. Mom should tell the kids to go on and do what they want.
Stupid rules were meant to be broken, and this is an INCREDIBLY stupid rule.

Which will at best get the kids a detention. Principals and administration staff are nothing more than little dictators at public high schools these days. Actually, after a quick Google, this place is a K-12 school with a grand total of 700 kids. The people running the school are probably the sort of people who get featured on McCain rally videos.

GAT_00: Which will at best get the kids a detention. Principals and administration staff are nothing more than little dictators at public high schools these days. Actually, after a quick Google, this place is a K-12 school with a grand total of 700 kids. The people running the school are probably the sort of people who get featured on McCain rally videos.

probably would result in a detention, yeah.
But like i said, its a stupid rule that needs to be broken.

SilentStrider: you know what. Mom should tell the kids to go on and do what they want.
Stupid rules were meant to be broken, and this is an INCREDIBLY stupid rule.

Not to mention that this rule is so unconstitutional it isn't even funny.

SilentStrider: But like i said, its a stupid rule that needs to be broken.

Yeah, it does. It will probably cause all kinds of havoc for these poor kids though. Even though going to the media might get it repealed, those administrators are going to make life hell for those kids.

SilentStrider: you know what. Mom should tell the kids to go on and do what they want.
Stupid rules were meant to be broken, and this is an INCREDIBLY stupid rule.

This. Speech restriction rules were made for breaking.

In which backwards, third-world country is this nonsense taking place? Maybe we should send in troops to liberate them.

Why is the fascist?, was the headline changed?

AntiNorm: Not to mention that this rule is so unconstitutional it isn't even funny.

The court rarely finds in favor of a student A student's 1st amendment rights are pretty much non existent while they're at school.

This is just silly, if they could come up with a reason, even a bad one, that would be one thing, but this sounds more like sour grapes.

Occam's Chainsaw: SilentStrider: you know what. Mom should tell the kids to go on and do what they want.
Stupid rules were meant to be broken, and this is an INCREDIBLY stupid rule.

This. Speech restriction rules were made for breaking.

You know, the first time I read your post, my brain saw it as: "Speech restriction rules were made for breathing."

jbuist: A student's 1st amendment rights are pretty much non existent while they're at school.


*bzzt*^{^}

". . . In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views."

GAT_00: those administrators are going to make life hell for those kids.

I know, which is why I hope mom stays on their side and fights like hell for them.

And political speech is one of the most protected classes of speech. What the hell were the admins thinking?

Occam's Chainsaw: And political speech is one of the most protected classes of speech. What the hell were the admins thinking?

They were thinking, "We here in Mississippi don't approve of a darkie in the White House, and we'll be damned if we have to hear about that damned negro for the next 4 years!"

I'm guessing that's as far as these hayseed asshats got.

Occam's Chainsaw: What the hell were the admins thinking?

I don't think they were. This sounds like a "gut" reaction. However, we sure can't know from that article which was devoid of facts from which to make any sort of judgment.

Perhaps the kind of people who don't have enough sense to say, "Hey, wait a minute, if word of this were to get to the right people, we'll have an army of ACLU lawyers and the media descend upon us like locusts," are the same kind of people who we don't need attempting to educate our children? Just a thought.

Shenanigans! They have schools in Mississippi?

Courts have long upheld the school's right to restrict student speech. It's perfectly reasonable for a school district to limit political speech to avoid some of the problems it can cause. Especially given the current polarized political climate.

The story lacks the kind of detail we'd need to make an accurate assessment of the school's intent.

I'd like to know if they are -specifically- restricting talk about Obama or whether they're clamping down on politics in general.

I'm not in favor of either of these kinds of restrictions.

Aw crap.

I'm not in favor of these kinds of restrictions, but I can see some situations where it may be needed to keep the upheaval to a minimum.

Maybe they think Obama is "The Invisible Man."

Yesdog: In which backwards, third-world country is this nonsense taking place? Maybe we should send in troops to liberate them.

Africa?

Remove all Republicans: Try to keep up. See the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case (Morse v. Frederick).

Endorsing drug use and discussing the news are two *very* different things.

Some Bass Playing Guy: It's perfectly reasonable for a school district to limit political speech to avoid some of the problems it can cause. Especially given the current polarized political climate. The story lacks the kind of detail we'd need to make an accurate assessment of the school's intent.

I will go with a tentative THIS. I can understand if a group of administrators are observing a racially-charged climate, and they don't want a race riot at their school because a bunch of kids want to cheer for Obama during school hours. That's about my limit for acceptable restrictions of speech, though.

We just don't know what the whole deal is right now, so I can't cry foul in either direction.

/being MS, though...duh stoopid, it burrrrns

Dear Fark Independents,

Quit stealing my Obama/Biden lawn signs.
The election's over, you lost. Move to Mississippi.
We won't give you any Federal socialist help if Katrina II hits.

That is all, thank you.

Her daughters, 15 and 18, told Hayes the principal says students can only mention Obama in history class Hayes says she called the school district to find out why, but did not receive any answers.

hmmmmm, that's a thinker...


i think i'll ask the principal:

Shrew2u: Some Bass Playing Guy: It's perfectly reasonable for a school district to limit political speech to avoid some of the problems it can cause. Especially given the current polarized political climate. The story lacks the kind of detail we'd need to make an accurate assessment of the school's intent.

I will go with a tentative THIS. I can understand if a group of administrators are observing a racially-charged climate, and they don't want a race riot at their school because a bunch of kids want to cheer for Obama during school hours. That's about my limit for acceptable restrictions of speech, though.

We just don't know what the whole deal is right now, so I can't cry foul in either direction.

/being MS, though...duh stoopid, it burrrrns

At first I thought they didn't want the positive comments, but after seeing that graph above, I suspect that they don't want a lot of racially negative comments about Obama.

High schoolers are stupid and will say a lot of hateful things. They probably don't want to have to walk around the hallways hearing how we are under 'n-word' president. That would be bad for the learning climate and the overall atmosphere of the school.

But, I also feel that school should be about socializing and educating children. If there are racist children, take them away from their parents and send them to boot camp until they conform. The same goes for any bully. Diversity should be tolerated, but hate speech and bullying should not.

sloppy shoes: Shrew2u: Some Bass Playing Guy: It's perfectly reasonable for a school district to limit political speech to avoid some of the problems it can cause. Especially given the current polarized political climate. The story lacks the kind of detail we'd need to make an accurate assessment of the school's intent.

I will go with a tentative THIS. I can understand if a group of administrators are observing a racially-charged climate, and they don't want a race riot at their school because a bunch of kids want to cheer for Obama during school hours. That's about my limit for acceptable restrictions of speech, though.

We just don't know what the whole deal is right now, so I can't cry foul in either direction.

/being MS, though...duh stoopid, it burrrrns

At first I thought they didn't want the positive comments, but after seeing that graph above, I suspect that they don't want a lot of racially negative comments about Obama.

High schoolers are stupid and will say a lot of hateful things. They probably don't want to have to walk around the hallways hearing how we are under 'n-word' president. That would be bad for the learning climate and the overall atmosphere of the school.

But, I also feel that school should be about socializing and educating children. If there are racist children, take them away from their parents and send them to boot camp until they conform. The same goes for any bully. Diversity should be tolerated, but hate speech and bullying should not.

I agree. Knowing how stupid high school kids are though I'm thinking they're going around parroting what they've heard on the news or read on the net. Obama is a racist, fascist, communist, secret muslim, Marxist, socialist who's friends with terrorists, or some such bullshiat. If it's on the news or the interwebs then it has to be the gospel truth.

Maybe someone should teach instead of playing politics?

Methinks, kids need a lot of Math learning.

Just say Southern Poverty Law Center to these vile administrators and watch them scurry like roaches.

I'd like to refer back to the Morse v. Frederick case cited earlier in this thread; I just did a presentation on this case for my law class and basically the courts rules that as long as the school finds it offensive/objectionable (regardless of the intent behind the speech) they have the right to restrict it. It may not seem right, it was actually unprecedented, but it is now the law until another court over turns it.

nads0: I'd like to refer back to the Morse v. Frederick case cited earlier in this thread; I just did a presentation on this case for my law class and basically the courts rules that as long as the school finds it offensive/objectionable (regardless of the intent behind the speech) they have the right to restrict it. It may not seem right, it was actually unprecedented, but it is now the law until another court over turns it.

Won't that law curdle the understanding of free speech in the minds of children and young adults. That's a horrible precedent.

GAT_00: SilentStrider: you know what. Mom should tell the kids to go on and do what they want.
Stupid rules were meant to be broken, and this is an INCREDIBLY stupid rule.

Which will at best get the kids a detention. Principals and administration staff are nothing more than little dictators at public high schools these days. Actually, after a quick Google, this place is a K-12 school with a grand total of 700 kids. The people running the school are probably the sort of people who get featured on McCain rally videos.


George the Ass-munch.

Brett the Nosey PTA Board Member.

Sally the ADA Obsessive.

And for some reason, Joe the Plumber is here too. Very concerned about the school's pipes.

So next year, they will talk about the President Who Shall Not Be Named? President Whatsisname?

The court decision was made in 2007 I believe, however it was filed in 2002. In either case, it was decided after Bush v Gore (2000).

The court was split 5-4 in their decision; so if the right justices are appointed with the upcoming openings and the right case comes along, I could see this ruling being overturned.

Phil Moskowitz: nads0: I'd like to refer back to the Morse v. Frederick case cited earlier in this thread; I just did a presentation on this case for my law class and basically the courts rules that as long as the school finds it offensive/objectionable (regardless of the intent behind the speech) they have the right to restrict it. It may not seem right, it was actually unprecedented, but it is now the law until another court over turns it.

Won't that law curdle the understanding of free speech in the minds of children and young adults. That's a horrible precedent.

Actually, I think it should teach them a better understanding of free speech- it shows you that speech has consequences; sometimes those are very negative.

Go yell the n-word in Downtown Detroit. We all don't live in bubbles. There is reaction to our action. Sometimes the lessons in school are not that we can't do something- but that we shouldn't.

ACLU lawsuit in 3...2...

I'm not comfortable with this. If not in school the kids will have to learn about Obama on the streets.

I was taking four upper-level political science courses during the aftermath of Bush-Gore, and apparently the head of the Poli Sci department had gently asked faculty not to take up too much class time discussing the election. That suggestion was pretty much ignored. It was an interesting time for politics nerds.

Monkey's Knuckle: I'm not comfortable with this. If not in school the kids will have to learn about Obama on the streets.

I wonder what the going rate would be for a gram of Obama?

GAT_00: SilentStrider: you know what. Mom should tell the kids to go on and do what they want.
Stupid rules were meant to be broken, and this is an INCREDIBLY stupid rule.

Which will at best get the kids a detention. Principals and administration staff are nothing more than little dictators at public high schools these days. Actually, after a quick Google, this place is a K-12 school with a grand total of 700 kids. The people running the school are probably the sort of people who get featured on McCain rally videos.

Just don't go. Don't go to detention. Have the parent pick them up. tell the kid they should just run out of the school; if the teachers try to physically stop them they can sue. Do whatever it takes. Make the most drama that you possibly can.

Now, if this is to prevent people from talking ill about the president based on his race, I think a law should be passed that it's just fine to beat the shiat out of racists, as long as they have to then be held captive and forced to be educated as to why their point of view is erroneous. They can then be let free, with the understanding that if they try to make someone's life hell just based on their race that they may get beaten again. I think it's a good law. you give them a choice. They decided to accept the consequences of their actions.

sloppy shoes: Phil Moskowitz: nads0: I'd like to refer back to the Morse v. Frederick case cited earlier in this thread; I just did a presentation on this case for my law class and basically the courts rules that as long as the school finds it offensive/objectionable (regardless of the intent behind the speech) they have the right to restrict it. It may not seem right, it was actually unprecedented, but it is now the law until another court over turns it.

Won't that law curdle the understanding of free speech in the minds of children and young adults. That's a horrible precedent.

Actually, I think it should teach them a better understanding of free speech- it shows you that speech has consequences; sometimes those are very negative.

Go yell the n-word in Downtown Detroit. We all don't live in bubbles. There is reaction to our action. Sometimes the lessons in school are not that we can't do something- but that we shouldn't.

It's not really a comparison in this case; they didn't technically break school policy, they didn't technically over-step protect speech boundaries, they didn't say anything offensive: they were stupid kids trying to get on TV during the Olympic torch relay. If any other person (not a student) had held up a banner that said "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" people would have made disgusted noises in their direction or commented about how crude they were, but they wouldn't have been punished for it.

Sym_pathetic: Quit stealing my Obama/Biden lawn signs.
The election's over, you lost. Move to Mississippi.
We won't give you any Federal socialist help if Katrina II hits.

Then why do you still have the signs up?

nads0: sloppy shoes: Phil Moskowitz: nads0: I'd like to refer back to the Morse v. Frederick case cited earlier in this thread; I just did a presentation on this case for my law class and basically the courts rules that as long as the school finds it offensive/objectionable (regardless of the intent behind the speech) they have the right to restrict it. It may not seem right, it was actually unprecedented, but it is now the law until another court over turns it.

Won't that law curdle the understanding of free speech in the minds of children and young adults. That's a horrible precedent.

Actually, I think it should teach them a better understanding of free speech- it shows you that speech has consequences; sometimes those are very negative.

Go yell the n-word in Downtown Detroit. We all don't live in bubbles. There is reaction to our action. Sometimes the lessons in school are not that we can't do something- but that we shouldn't.

It's not really a comparison in this case; they didn't technically break school policy, they didn't technically over-step protect speech boundaries, they didn't say anything offensive: they were stupid kids trying to get on TV during the Olympic torch relay. If any other person (not a student) had held up a banner that said "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" people would have made disgusted noises in their direction or commented about how crude they were, but they wouldn't have been punished for it.

I don't agree with the Bong Hits 4 Jesus decision specifically- but I do agree that schools should be able to limit certain types of speech in school. But I don't like that the decision considered them in school.

sloppy shoes: Phil Moskowitz: nads0: I'd like to refer back to the Morse v. Frederick case cited earlier in this thread; I just did a presentation on this case for my law class and basically the courts rules that as long as the school finds it offensive/objectionable (regardless of the intent behind the speech) they have the right to restrict it. It may not seem right, it was actually unprecedented, but it is now the law until another court over turns it.

Won't that law curdle the understanding of free speech in the minds of children and young adults. That's a horrible precedent.

Actually, I think it should teach them a better understanding of free speech- it shows you that speech has consequences; sometimes those are very negative.

Go yell the n-word in Downtown Detroit. We all don't live in bubbles. There is reaction to our action. Sometimes the lessons in school are not that we can't do something- but that we shouldn't.

If you can't talk about your goddamn incoming president in an institute of learning. SOMETHING IS WRONG.

MacEnvy: Occam's Chainsaw: And political speech is one of the most protected classes of speech. What the hell were the admins thinking?

They were thinking, "We here in Mississippi don't approve of a darkie in the White House, and we'll be damned if we have to hear about that damned negro for the next 4 years!"

I'm guessing that's as far as these hayseed asshats got.

As tempting as it is to say "They're from the south, they MUST be racists", how about we go with the logical train of thought?

IE: There may have been an incident in the school (or concern of such an incident) in which one student becomes verbally of physically violent due to difference in political opinion/racism/bigotry etc. These are kids K-12. Every single step of puberty in there. Irrational behavior is GOING to happen. So in a half-thought-out attempt to prevent such things from going on, they say "you're not allowed to talk about politics".

I know in the incredibly short article it says her daughters were told "Not to talk about Barrack Obama", but this sounds like a tiny bit of yellow journalism in that the administrator probably meant something along the lines of "don't talk politics".

Either way, what they did is wrong and the kids should be able to talk about politics, the new president, and anything else going on in the government because it's healthy. But it's pretty hackneyed to yell "RACISM" just because it took place in the south.

I don't think school officials - not even in Puckett, MS - are retarded enough to limit some 15-year-old girl from walking around the hallway having a spirited discussion with her buddies about the historic nature of this election. I am guessing these young bumpkins were walking around the halls, hollering "commie muslin turrist in the white house!!" which of course, may lead to somebody getting punched in the face repeatedly. The school officials aren't commenting because they don't want to needlessly embarrass their community, and are hoping this would go away after they speak to the parents again. Good luck with that, 'cause the parents were the ones who were saying the stuff at the dinner table in the first place (the sh*t apple doesn't fall far from the sh*t tree), and they now feel that the whole situation is somehow infringing on everyone's right to free speech (how dare those commies do that!). Now it's all over the internets, and Fark slaps an 'asinine' tag on the administration's collective forehead.

Generally, school supervised events are considered "in school." The issue I have with this case is put forth in the dissenting opinion: previously, a student's freedom of speech could only be restricted when they were advocating for a cause. If they had said "You take bong hits for Jesus" or "You smoke marijuana" it would have been one thing, but they said "Bong hits 4 Jesus". Even the student admitted the only reason he did it was to get on TV, you can't be an ADVOCATE if the only reason you're doing it is for publicity.

Phil Moskowitz: If you can't talk about your goddamn incoming president in an institute of learning. SOMETHING IS WRONG.

Again, I'm not talking about this specifically. I don't know the circumstances and I said above it's probably because kids were saying very racist things. (Or teachers).

The problem obviously needs to be addressed.