Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Supreme Court rules against student who displayed "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 682
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

19272 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2007 at 11:22 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



682 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-06-25 02:15:08 PM  
prejudices distort facts.
 
2007-06-25 02:15:29 PM  
MrGumboPants
Actually in this day and age he is lucky he did not get a riot cop hitting him with a baton for his troubles.

Just holding a sign often results in that these days.
 
2007-06-25 02:16:01 PM  
NakedYoga 2007-06-25 01:19:47 PM
craigh328, you're pretty much entirely wrong. Frederick never came to school that day. He only showed up at the Olympic Torch relay, which wasn't an event the school put on. The school just let the kids go to it.

And just because his message was "against school rules," doesn't mean the school has absolute authority to proscribe his speech. That's what this case was about! Read some of the older Supreme Court precedent on this type of issue. One involves a kid being punished for wearing a Marilyn Manson shirt, and another involves a student wearing an NRA shirt. It's not as easy as you make it out to be.



Hm. FTFA then:

"His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event."

So, kid's a student, shows up at a school-sanctioned event right in front of the school...the hair you're trying to split in that the event wasn't one that the school "put on" is a non-starter. It's immaterial whether he attended that day. It's also immaterial that the school didn't "put on" the torch event.

Also FTFA:

"Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use"..."Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one"..."n their concurrence, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy specified that the court's opinion provides no support for any restriction on speech that goes to political or social issues.
It's a narrow ruling that "should not be read more broadly," said Kenneth Starr, whose law firm represented the school principal."


So, to your point of "the school has absolute authority to proscribe his speech"...clearly, this is NOT what the ruling says. The judges and the winning side both concur on that point. Just because YOU spout such inanity doesn't make it so. This was a very narrowly defined issue wherein the right of the school to promulgate and enforce rules pertaining to banning the promotion of illegal drug use in relation to school activities clearly trumps the free speech rights of the student who had to TRY to make an issue out of this. As I said before, had he unfurled his banner elsewhere not in relation to a school-sanctioned event, this issue doesn't happen.

So, given that the court clearly intended this as a narrow issue, you can pretty much keep your t-shirt issues to yourself. They don't apply...and rightfully so.
 
2007-06-25 02:16:37 PM  
NakedYoga

firefly212: Students being released to the aquarium doesn't make going to the aquarium a school event for non-students... it's just an event that students are also at. There were non-students at the event, which was conducted in a public, non-school venue... simply being at such an event is insufficient to establish that presence at the event constitutes being at school,

Right. But according to the facts, Frederick was a student at a school event (it doesn't matter if the school actually organized the entire event; that argument is ludicrous), so he'd be under the thumb of the school's rules. It's not unreasonable.


It does matter. It's a public event, as such attendance at the event does not necessarily subject one to the schools supervisory capacity.

. . . all of which is to say nothing of Tinker specifying that the speech must be contrary to the educational mission in order for it to qualify for restriction, which is insane to demonstrate, given the totally non-educational mission of the event in the first place.

That's a narrow reading of Tinker, and if you remember that case resulted in a broadening of speech rights.


What can I say, I'm an originalist.

The students in Tinker wore black armbands, but the Supreme Court ruled the school could not restrict them merely because protesting a war was contrary to the school's mission. If the school could do that, it would have an absolute right to just carve out its "official mission" extremely specifically in a handbook and restrict everything contrary to it.

First part is content, which I already argued isn't relevent. Second part, yes, the court (correctly) ruled that only in cases where the speech interfered with the schools educational mission could the speech be restricted. In this case, I would contend that the event had no educational mission and arguing that the speech could contradict a temporally non-existent mission is is like arguing an assault on a non-existent person... it's not possible to contradict that which does not exist, even if the non-existence is a temporary state, especially given the temporary state of the contradiction being contained within the time frame of non-existence of the schools educational mission.
 
2007-06-25 02:16:41 PM  
If we ban signs advocating Christian weed smoking, only criminals will have signs advocating Christian weed smoking?
 
2007-06-25 02:17:12 PM  
VideSupra: I study law, this is the latter.

So what? That doesn't mean we can't tell when someone is pissing on our leg.
 
2007-06-25 02:18:05 PM  
Bob Dolemite: Secondarily, smoke weed and see if you get lung cancer.

Yeah? Well your mum still owes my dog fark-money! I can't believe out of all the millions of sperm that your father deposited, that you were the fastest. You are a waste of skin !! Bush scumbag.
 
2007-06-25 02:18:45 PM  
firefly212

Because I've read the cases and the precedent and I am studying to become a lawyer, hence I practice this. Have you?


Here's some information for you.

American courts primarily apply the doctrine of in loco parentis to educational institutions.

The first major limitation to this came in the U.S. Supreme Court case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1942), in which the court ruled that students cannot be forced to salute the American flag. More prominent change came in the 1960s and 1970s in such cases as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), when the Supreme Court decided that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."

Many provisions of in loco parentis have been upheld over time. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) upheld the search of lockers and other personal space while on school property, indicating that students are not afforded the same rights as adults in other settings and stating that while acting in loco parentis, school officials are still representatives of the state. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1987) the Supreme Court similarly ruled that "First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment" and schools may censor school-sponsored publications (such as a school newspaper) if content is "...inconsistent with its basic educational mission.


I don't agree with it ideologically, I've lost count the amount of times I've said that. But to argue that this is a new limit to our free speech is ludicrous and unfounded. This legal limit has been in effect for a long time and has been constantly upheld, even by "liberal" courts.

You can accuse me of not citing facts if that was the actual case. But in reality, the only "facts" you are citing is your own interpretation of the court's findings. I cite legal precedent. There is a difference.
 
2007-06-25 02:18:54 PM  
First, this is Alaska, where it used to be legal. Second, the event was the passing in review of the Olympic torch. Seems to me the sign should have said


Legalize Dope, Stop the Testing.
 
2007-06-25 02:19:05 PM  
VideSupra
Fine disagree all you like, but to me this is a simple matter that I can evaluate.

Where did I say I did not study the law? I have to a very minimal extent and when I have a few dollars to waste and time I will do it again. One needs not study to the law to spot bullshiat.

Is Roberts not a bush appointee?

Is the concept of protecting order over civil rights not the foundations of the organic state theory as held by fascism?
 
2007-06-25 02:19:47 PM  
The other problem is that drug legalization is a political issue.

So a high school kid can wear a shirt endorsing comprehensive immigration reform but not one implying that drug use should be legal?

The court's decision and the school's response would have been correct if the sign had said: Buy Weed From Me
 
2007-06-25 02:20:24 PM  
VideSupra, I agree. My position is, though, that the fact that he was at school (because it's stupid to suggest otherwise) shouldn't bear on the outcome of this particular set of facts.

I think if you look at Tinker, Fraser, Kuhlmeier, and other, the precedent had established three classes of these types of cases: (1) cases involving "plainly offensive" speech, (2) cases involving speech reasonably anticipated to cause a disruption, and (3) all others. Frederick surely falls into the third category, and should be accordingly judged by a much less stringent standard. Roberts et al. disagree. I'm not too surprised, but I actually thought Kennedy would make it 5-4.
 
2007-06-25 02:21:11 PM  
craig328

So, kid's a student, shows up at a school-sanctioned event right in front of the school...the hair you're trying to split in that the event wasn't one that the school "put on" is a non-starter. It's immaterial whether he attended that day. It's also immaterial that the school didn't "put on" the torch event.


It isn't immaterial. The school sanctioning their students attendance at an event does not give the school supervisory capacity over all members of the public who choose to attend the event, nor does it imply that members of the public choosing to attend the event are subjecting themselves to the schools supervisory capacity. He wasn't a kid, he was an 18 year old exercising his right to free speech, and the school asserts that simply because they sanctioned attending students to go to the event, they have supervisory capacity over him. In this case, the school's argument is that if they sanction students to go somewhere, they have authority over tangentially related members of the public because wherever the students go, said members of the public are implicitly subjecting themselves to the authority of the school.
 
2007-06-25 02:21:20 PM  
FTFA - "Frederick, now 23, said he later had to drop out of college after his father lost his job. The elder Frederick, who worked for the company that insures the Juneau schools, was fired in connection with his son's legal fight, the son said. A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 in a lawsuit he filed over his firing."

All this over a sign? The poor kid - whatever he was thinking at the time, I'm sure he didn't expect THIS.
 
2007-06-25 02:21:22 PM  
The operative word you choose to ignore is illegal. A person can still talk about a substance that's non-toxic and relatively harmless at school as long as it is LEGAL.

Just because something is in the law does not mean that it's right, correct and/or proper.

And what better way to protest an unjust law then by staging a protest or waving a sign or banner? Only the thing is - SCOTUS just said that kids can't do that.

My my, how far we've come. All the way from the 'summer of love' to banning signs that even suggest the concept of marijuana.

Ok, so now that we're sacrificing the 1st amendment to the drug war - does anyone care to speculate what'll happen if/when the 1st amendment conflicts with the 'war on terror'?
 
2007-06-25 02:21:29 PM  
VideSupra
1. this is not a legal argument, but one based on our own beliefs, sorry if anyone misled you
2. in loco parentis, at least in concept, as I am sure you know, only takes place when the school is acting in the best interests of the student. Is preventing him from being educated in his best interest?
 
2007-06-25 02:21:38 PM  
VideSupra: Under these circumstances, we agree with the super intendent that Frederick cannot "stand in the midst of his fellow students, during school hours, at a school-sanctioned activity and claim he is not at school."

I did just that my senior year. They had a class trip to a water park on one of the last days. I ditched and went on my own so that I could smoke. The school didn't have a problem with it, other than the unexcused absence. And why should they? No reasonable person would say they were responsible for an adult that didn't even attend class that day.
 
2007-06-25 02:21:43 PM  
Parents can't simply dump you at the petting zoo... they have to actually make the handoff to the agents of the school (teachers, chaperones, etc.). No such handoff or demonstration of intent to attend school was made in this case... the teachers saw the student, and argued that visual contact and proximity to other students was enough to constitute attendance... given that in no other legal context would the school be assumed liable for the student, especially given his age and the venue, I would argue that such contact and proximity neither inherently constitute subjection to the schools supervisory capacity nor intent to do so.

So does that mean I can fark a goat?
 
2007-06-25 02:22:15 PM  
Isnt this akin to liquor and cigarettes companies putting up advertisement outside of schools?

/not trying to flame
 
2007-06-25 02:23:01 PM  
Weaver95
Already happened, gitmo is where you go for that one.
Remember citizen, free speech is only for free speech zones, and then it may still be monitored to protect you.
 
2007-06-25 02:23:40 PM  
So does that mean I can fark a goat?

I think the goat might have something to say on the matter.
 
2007-06-25 02:24:00 PM  
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Get outta here with your g0d-d4mned piece of paper...
 
2007-06-25 02:24:31 PM  
Uncle Karl

Sandra Day was a conservative appointee too and she went completely against the grain. Who appoints them makes no difference, it's how they act. Roberts is conservative and to be honest, I'm not a big fan of his and I am wary of what the "Roberts Court" will bring.


However, lines must be drawn. I'm a libertarian. I believe in complete free speech and yes, civil order at the cost of civil rights is fascism. However, this country, centuries ago, struck a balance. We are not a free market anarchical system. Nor are we fascist. Nor are we communist. We aren't perfect, but so far we've managed ok. This decision is NOTHING NEW, its the upholding of legal precedent set decades ago - why complain about it now as if someone JUST took away your 1st amendment?

You can't expect the Supreme Court to go against established legal precedent just because you think it's the wrong way. You have to get the law's changed. Pass a federal law that states a student can talk about anything they want under school supervision and this case would be overruled immediately. However, that hasn't happened, despite this being around for ages - why not? Because it is a necessary curtailment of free speech in the setting of education.

He can still talk about it all he wants, but not in a disruptive manner within a learning environment. That is what the law states. If you would like that changed, more power to you and I support you, call your senator. But don't blame the court for doing their constitutional job.
 
2007-06-25 02:25:03 PM  
Remember citizen, free speech is only for free speech zones, and then it may still be monitored to protect you.

I admit, I haven't been following that particular subject as closely as I should (mostly 'cause reading about it just makes me wanna kick something) - has anyone yet managed to mount a credible legal challenge to 'free speech' zones?
 
2007-06-25 02:26:43 PM  
Weaver95
My my, how far we've come. All the way from the 'summer of love' to banning signs that even suggest the concept of marijuana.

The people making these sort of decisions weren't apart of the 'summer of love.' The notion of a generation of free-thinking revolutionaries who changed the world is a load propagandra produced by Baby Boomers who want to feel special.
 
2007-06-25 02:27:24 PM  
Bob Dolemite: Secondarily, smoke weed and see if you get lung cancer.

I want Bob Dolemite arrested for inciting me to do something illegal.
 
2007-06-25 02:27:50 PM  
This thread makes me terribly sad. This kid was trying to exercise one of his human rights, and was punished for it. And people in this thread think he deserved it.

How do you turn something like that around? How do you get people to understand that people have rights even if it's inconvenient for authority?

Starr and the others jumped on the "promoting drug use" bandwagon and rode it straight to Hell. And Roberts and four other SCOTUS justices followed, as the foolish often will.
 
2007-06-25 02:27:57 PM  
andrew131

Is the school not responsible for a student at a school sanctioned event?
 
2007-06-25 02:29:07 PM  
Supervised, not sanctioned...excuse me.
 
2007-06-25 02:29:21 PM  
Yoda

I think he falls in the third as well, as did the 9th circuit, they argue it falls enough under #2 to make a decision. The 9th's argument that the principal should have known her action was unconstitutional is retarded too.

This really changes nothing, people are getting in a huff because it has drugs and free speech involved. The law hasn't changed one bit from what it was ages ago. It didn't rule that school's jurisdiction is wherever it wants it to be - the fact-finders decided that a school sanctioned event is still considered a school's jurisdiction. Duh?

But I like pissing and moaning more, to be honest

Also, Karl, how was he prevented from being educated? The suspension ruling? That was in line with school policy and was never focused on. Is locking a prisoner away for years in his best interest? No, it's in the best interest of the community, much like suspending someone who has "caused a disruption" or "broken the rules" is for the benefit of the others around him.
 
2007-06-25 02:29:50 PM  
VideSupra
However, that hasn't happened, despite this being around for ages - why not? Because it is a necessary curtailment of free speech in the setting of education.
The fact that are becoming a legal professional and spout this makes me hope I never hire any firm you work for.

American public schools do this to ingrain in their students that they must always follow authority etc, etc, etc. Perhaps the teachers are not aware of that, but those at the top certainly must be as it is just far to convenient.

Weaver95
Why can one kill the goat and uses its body to produce a sex toy, but not fark a goat?
I figure the goat would rather be farked then be dead.
 
2007-06-25 02:30:53 PM  
craig238: As I said before, had he unfurled his banner elsewhere not in relation to a school-sanctioned event, this issue doesn't happen.

Of course it doesn't, that's the whole reason this case went to the Supreme Court. It's based on how far a school can stretch its in loco parentis duties.

So, to your point of "the school has absolute authority to proscribe his speech"...clearly, this is NOT what the ruling says. The judges and the winning side both concur on that point. Just because YOU spout such inanity doesn't make it so.

The majority, the other justices, nor I ever said that.

This was a very narrowly defined issue wherein the right of the school to promulgate and enforce rules pertaining to banning the promotion of illegal drug use in relation to school activities clearly trumps the free speech rights of the student who had to TRY to make an issue out of this.

Eh, that's one way you could pigeonhole this case. Believe me, I understand the issues at play here. I've read, and re-read, all the applicable case law as well as the lower Frederick opinions.

So, given that the court clearly intended this as a narrow issue, you can pretty much keep your t-shirt issues to yourself. They don't apply...and rightfully so.

The Court actually cited one of those cases in its opinion. (Cohen)

The T-shirt cases are similar because they are forms of passive speech that don't actually disrupt anything. Just because the school makes a rule doesn't mean it can't be challenged. Do you really think the Court would have granted cert if this wasn't a real issue?
 
2007-06-25 02:31:54 PM  
I wonder if all the Supreme Court cheerleaders in this thread feel the same way about Kelo?
 
2007-06-25 02:33:16 PM  
Prohest

I think your post was a perfect example as to why smoking weed is not a good thing to do.
 
2007-06-25 02:33:20 PM  
United States Supreme Court = USSC.

"SCOTUS" sounds like a venereal disease.
 
2007-06-25 02:33:47 PM  
VideSupra
Also, Karl, how was he prevented from being educated? The suspension ruling? That was in line with school policy and was never focused on. Is locking a prisoner away for years in his best interest? No, it's in the best interest of the community, much like suspending someone who has "caused a disruption" or "broken the rules" is for the benefit of the others around him.

We never claim to be acting in a prisoners best interest, this is why we do not claim in loco parentis in relation to them.

Weaver95
depends on how you define credible, if you mean reasonable sure, but if you would like to use VideSupra circular logic then no it was not a credible argument.
 
2007-06-25 02:33:47 PM  
www.vwtech.com

Most priests are sick pervs
www.davidfeldmancomedy.com

Ban it NOW !!!
fusionanomaly.net
 
2007-06-25 02:33:56 PM  
How do you turn something like that around? How do you get people to understand that people have rights even if it's inconvenient for authority?

You basically only have one choice - you ignore the law and directly oppose the controlling legal authority. Now, you can either oppose them violently (as did our Founding Fathers) or you can do so non-violently (as did Ghandi). Regardless of the path you take, you CANNOT waiver from your determination. Once you start, authority won't allow you to stop. Either you give up or they fold.

Not a fight for the squeamish. And you will be hurt in the conflict. You will suffer for your efforts. But if you fight hard enough, and if you are very lucky then sometimes you can force a positive change.
 
2007-06-25 02:34:06 PM  
VideSupra 2007-06-25 02:18:45 PM
firefly212

Because I've read the cases and the precedent and I am studying to become a lawyer, hence I practice this. Have you?


Internet credentials are not a sufficient replacement for logic.

Here's some information for you.
Oh goody.

American courts primarily apply the doctrine of in loco parentis to educational institutions.
And I argued that this doesn't apply, as in loco parentis requires intent to either place a minor in the limited custody of the school, or in the case of non-minors, intent to place ones self in the limited custody of the school.... but let's not dwell on whether or not something applies and just point to generalities and pretend they do.

The first major limitation to this came in the U.S. Supreme Court case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1942), in which the court ruled that students cannot be forced to salute the American flag. More prominent change came in the 1960s and 1970s in such cases as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), when the Supreme Court decided that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."

Yes, and I argued that aside from in loco parentis not applying, it's hard to make the case that the speech can materially disrupt classwork that wasn't occurring anyways. I'm not sure if you are trying to make the case that this impinges on anyone elses rights, so I will leave that oen to you.

Many provisions of in loco parentis have been upheld over time. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) upheld the search of lockers and other personal space while on school property, indicating that students are not afforded the same rights as adults in other settings and stating that while acting in loco parentis, school officials are still representatives of the state. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1987) the Supreme Court similarly ruled that "First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment" and schools may censor school-sponsored publications (such as a school newspaper) if content is "...inconsistent with its basic educational mission.

Yes... and still, aside from arguing in loco parentis only applies when one can make the case that the respondent was at school, which I contend he was not, you've made my case fairly well that it's hard for him to be at odds with a basic educational mission that the school had temporarily suspended for a sanctioned event with no significant educational value. Aside from that, I would contend that attendance at a public event at which the school has sanctioned it's students presence does not constitute placing ones self in a school environment... schools go on field trips and pass in front of the White House all the time... that doesn't inherently make the front of the White House a school-environment, nor those in the area subject to school administration.


I don't agree with it ideologically, I've lost count the amount of times I've said that. But to argue that this is a new limit to our free speech is ludicrous and unfounded. This legal limit has been in effect for a long time and has been constantly upheld, even by "liberal" courts.

Oddly enough, I'm fine with it ideologically... I don't want people running up and down the school screaming whatever their message is at the cost of kids being able to learn to read or do math. I'm not fine with in loco parentis being extended to people who do not demonstrate intent to subject themselves to it (or in the case of those under 18 those whose parents have not demonstrated intent to do so).

You can accuse me of not citing facts if that was the actual case. But in reality, the only "facts" you are citing is your own interpretation of the court's findings. I cite legal precedent. There is a difference.

Until now, you had been citing the origniating (and disputed) case, which, while precedent, is what is in dispute. I had cited Tinker previously, and I had cited the actual facts of the case, not the court's findings based on them. The difference being that you were repeatedly citing the same opinion of the courts, I was citing the originating facts and pointing out where the courts opinion was not necessarily consistent with those originating facts. There certainly is a difference.
 
2007-06-25 02:34:52 PM  
Uncle Karl

You realize there is a difference between the idealized world and the real one right? I agree with you - I think kids should be allowed to say whatever they want. However, thats not realistic nor will it ever happen. Furthermore, the courts is not the way to change it. Legislation is. I would never argue a case like that because I know I would lose. If the LAWS change, then the COURTS will decide differently.

Make whatever assumptions you want about my political opinions, I have made them pretty clear in this post that I am pro-freedom. But I don't mix political opinion with legal opinion as they SHOULD be two completely different things, as one is taught in law school.
 
2007-06-25 02:36:54 PM  
firefly212 2007-06-25 02:21:11 PM
craig328

So, kid's a student, shows up at a school-sanctioned event right in front of the school...the hair you're trying to split in that the event wasn't one that the school "put on" is a non-starter. It's immaterial whether he attended that day. It's also immaterial that the school didn't "put on" the torch event.

It isn't immaterial. The school sanctioning their students attendance at an event does not give the school supervisory capacity over all members of the public who choose to attend the event, nor does it imply that members of the public choosing to attend the event are subjecting themselves to the schools supervisory capacity. He wasn't a kid, he was an 18 year old exercising his right to free speech, and the school asserts that simply because they sanctioned attending students to go to the event, they have supervisory capacity over him. In this case, the school's argument is that if they sanction students to go somewhere, they have authority over tangentially related members of the public because wherever the students go, said members of the public are implicitly subjecting themselves to the authority of the school.



That's an exceptionally convoluted leap in logic(?) you have there. You're trying to argue that because they can't and did not try and enforce the rules they have for students against a non-student at the same event that somehow they are disabled from enforcing their rules with respect to their students (at least that's the impression your argument gives me).

So, you take a non-event (the school enforcing their rules against a non-student) and use that to buttress an argument against what DID actually happen. Nobody ever suggested that the school had supervisory control over all members of the public...and I'm absolutely puzzled as to where you figure such a statement figures in to any of this. Since you're amenable to fact flexibility, let's try this:

Suppose in this instance the student is not 18 but say...oh...13. Still a student, however. And let's say instead of participating in cheering the procession of the Olympic torch they go instead to see the opera. And instead of a banner contravening school rules the student in questions jumps up and shouts a nonsensical diatribe during the performance thus contravening another school rule about behavior. Do you somehow feel in such an instance that the school would be out of line in disciplining the student? You may perhaps try and find the angle that the opera is a private event so let's go on a field trip downtown where people put on impromptu shows on the street corner for free then. How about that?

Your argument is clearly not an argument at all but obfuscation of the real issue which is the length the school's rules go. In this case the student clearly attended an event the school sanctioned and thus the school's rules were in place. The curiosity is that the student deliberately intended to offend those very rules:

"He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all."

Now, clearly he has a 1st Amendment right to free speech so it's reasonable to assume the rights he felt he was protesting were restricted were the school's rules...and so he attends, what HE clearly believed, to be a school event wherein their rules would apply.

Your argument isn't even accepted by the plaintiff in this case...
 
2007-06-25 02:37:04 PM  
Bazooka Duke: Is the school not responsible for a student at a school sanctioned event?

Too bad it wasn't sanctioned nor was he in attendance.
 
2007-06-25 02:37:23 PM  
czarangelus: *adds "The US Supreme Court" to the list of government entities that have sold out America's citizens to fascism*

That's how some people felt when the SCOTUS decided on Brown vs Board of Education.
 
2007-06-25 02:37:53 PM  
Weaver95: Not a fight for the squeamish.

I really meant about the group of people who seem to think this is a good idea. The government is the government, and it's going to take some really drastic for that to change - but we've seen it happen.
 
2007-06-25 02:39:10 PM  
Bazooka Duke: Is the school not responsible for a student at a school sanctioned event?

If the adminstrators can strut around in jack boots and masturbate while burning the bill of rights - then the answer is yes.

If the adminstrators are financially liable for the results of a bad decision and will be forced to pay damages to someone - then the answer is no.
 
2007-06-25 02:39:24 PM  
VideSupra
You realize there is a difference between the idealized world and the real one right? I agree with you - I think kids should be allowed to say whatever they want. However, thats not realistic nor will it ever happen. Furthermore, the courts is not the way to change it. Legislation is. I would never argue a case like that because I know I would lose. If the LAWS change, then the COURTS will decide differently.


You do realize that by fighting towards the idealized one, we can make the real one just a little better right?

Legal opinion is based on political opinion, as a young up and coming lawyer you should read up on English common law and how that impacts our law. All law is political and opinionated as it is just a human construct.
 
2007-06-25 02:40:16 PM  
Tastes Like Chicken: I wonder if all the Supreme Court cheerleaders in this thread feel the same way about Kelo?

I don't know who you're referring to, but Kelo doesn't have anything to do with this case.
 
2007-06-25 02:41:00 PM  
This is the same court that elected a president for us; how is a ruling that snuffs out any of our other rights shocking?
 
2007-06-25 02:41:00 PM  
Guess_Who
Some people are dumb?
How would that work anyway? Fascists are xenophobic they would love separate and unequal schools.
 
2007-06-25 02:41:15 PM  
All law is political and opinionated as it is just a human construct

I think law students tend to believe that 'the law' is seperate and contained from reality.

Oddly enough, I see this same sort of blind spot in ABAP programmers.
 
Displayed 50 of 682 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report