DarkVader: spyderqueen: Okay, I'm not saying that this school isn't administrated by total assholes, but it's not like she got surprised with this suspension.  She knew it was the punishment she faced for doing this anyway.

No.

An unconstitutional action taken by a public school is no less unconstitutional because the school announced it ahead of time.

Why is it people are always crying "first amendment" when the GOVERNMENT had nothing what so ever to do with anything, and therefore the first is not applicable at all?  Are you people so poorly educated as to not understand that?

The school is not a government arm, it made no law, and therefore the first is irrelevant.  PERIOD.  You may now continue ranting about school administrations looking like Nazi enforcers.  But please remember they only look that way, they don't actually have governmental authority.

I am absolutely shocked - SHOCKED I say that I scrolled through this ENTIRE thread and not one, NOT ONE pic of lesbian teens!!!!!

ah, so it is like trying to explain to a fish that he is wet


You probably think the fish is dumb in that analogy

no, but unaware that there can be any different existence to his own. to a fish he is wet, all the time, so you cant explain wet to him.  not stupid or dumb but ignorant.

Stupid or dumb comes to play when you refuse to acknowledge that there can be any different kind of life to theirs

Interesting. I think the foolishness lies in the person actually attempting to explain to the fish that he is "wet", a concept that has no meaning in the fish's life. Much as anyone or anything trying to explain to you that you are "dry". You are applying your reality to the fish, then shaking your head when he doesn't understand what you mean.
In effect, you're doing the very thing you condemn.

DarkVader: spyderqueen: Okay, I'm not saying that this school isn't administrated by total assholes, but it's not like she got surprised with this suspension.  She knew it was the punishment she faced for doing this anyway.

No.

An unconstitutional action taken by a public school is no less unconstitutional because the school announced it ahead of time.

They probably don't want the school taken over by everyone's personal agenda. Sometimes,  things create distraction.

octopied: They probably don't want the school taken over by everyone's personal agenda. Sometimes,  things create distraction.

Distracting a classroom by being quiet?  More kids should be so distracting.

Using a whiteboard to communicate when she has the ability to speak deliberately mocks the truly mute students who cannot speak up for themselves.  She is the bully!

Twigz221: Random Anonymous Blackmail: jack21221

Schools really need to lighten up. They had to have known that this was a legal minefield. Just let the student peacefully protest that day and get on with it.

Agreed, but also the spoiled snowflakes start stomping their feet and kicking up dust when they are not getting the attention they think they deserve. It sounds a lot like "no one is paying attention to me" PAY ATTENTION TO ME I'M A LESBIAN AND I DESERVE BETTER RIGHTS THAN YOU. THE SAME RIGHTS THAT YOU HAVE.

I blame the parents.

Fixed that for you.

Exactly

pDiablo: Straight, white hardworking family man day


those dont exist anymore.
also would they have preferred she took part in the other think april 20th is known for?

pDiablo: hmm lets see, gay pride, lesbian day, hmm oh yes notting hill carnival ( celebration weekend for afro carrbibean culture..hey how about this one... Straight, white hardworking family man day..gimme a date and we'll make it so...

Those other groups arranged their own parades. If you want one for your group then you should arrange it yourself.

Maybe, or maybe not. But gay parades were not accepted for a long time either.

BarkingUnicorn: Cybernetic: Tinker allows restrictions where they are necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Communicating via whiteboard has the effect of slowing down the class and interfering with the lesson, which impacts all of the students in her classes, even those who have no interest in or involvement with the protest. It also draws attention of the other students away from the task at hand, and generally makes it more difficult for the teachers to do their jobs. IMHO, that qualifies as disruptive, and therefore can be prohibited under the Tinker test. The rest of the students have the right to go about their school day without having their classes impeded by this student's chosen form of protest.

Perfect example of how the critical qualifier "substantial" gets lost.

It's possible for people to differ on what constitutes "substantial" disruption; the word is a qualifier, but not a quantifier.

IMHO, if this girl's protest actions are making it more difficult for other students to learn, then that's a "substantial" disruption--literally, a disruption to the substance of the school day.

As a further add: i don't remember school much, but when I went there were always a few dumbass rules you had to follow and punishments for breaking the rules. In high school in phys ed we were expected to either wear school colors of blue shorts and red or grey tops. It was definatly a scam to sell clothes which they made.I seem to remember white shirts being okay too. You forgot your proper colors? I believe you were allowed one mulligan a semester and then they started  giving out "Non participation" and taking points off your grade

tinfoil-hat maggie: RobSeace: CeroX: And what i'm trying to point out is that those public displays of what you call fun, is extreme behavior that the other side is paying attention to... They don't ignore that, in fact, those are the displays that stick out in their mind more than anything else, and that image is a negative image to them...

And? fark those people! Why should anyone care what the people who hate them and want to deny them basic rights thinks about their behavior? If I were them, I'd do absolutely everything in my power to piss those people off and offend and annoy them as much as humanly possible!

Seriously, it sounds the same as saying to black people, "You know, if you'd just stop doing so much stereotypically black stuff, maybe the racists would hate you less!"... It's farking crazy... You don't cater to bigots and try to appease them; you defy them!

Thank you for that, big hug : )

Normally, NORMALLY i would agree with you... but you have to remember one thing...

These are the people who will VOTE on these matters

Turn it around...

What happens if a presidential candidate instead of saying "I'm a christian and i don't believe homosexuals should get married" he turned to the camera and said "fark THOSE F_GS! You see a f_g on the street, you start making out with your wife in their faces! You throw rocks at them and tell them they are sinners! And when i'm president, i'm going to push to make homosexuality a federal crime!!!"? Then suddenly you have all the chik-fil-a nutters showing up in droves to show their support for the extremist candidate...

Yes it angers me when i hear the bigotry, enough to say something to people, but i don't go out of my way to throw fuel on a fire... And that's precisely what pissing them off will do, and THOSE are the people who vote for your rights... a bill doesn't get passed in congress because 25% of congress might support your opinion, another 15% don't care, but 60% hate you with a seething passion...

You don't shiat where you eat, and the meal ticket is on capital hill...

WhippingBoy: kg2095: pDiablo: hmm lets see, gay pride, lesbian day, hmm oh yes notting hill carnival ( celebration weekend for afro carrbibean culture..hey how about this one... Straight, white hardworking family man day..gimme a date and we'll make it so...

Those other groups arranged their own parades. If you want one for your group then you should arrange it yourself.

Yeah, I'm sure a straight, white, man parade would be met with nothing but tolerance and acceptance.

Straight white men are not allowed to assemble.

When by chance they should happen to congrgate, they are not allowed to refer to their straight white maleness, or acknowledge it in any way.

Also, they are expected to disavow one another, disband as soon as possible, and take clear steps to ensure it does not happen again.

Even joking about these criteria as the reason for their proximity to one another is almost certainly prohibited, unless the comment is clearly self-derrogatory.

These are the rules. Govern yourselves accordingly.

CeroX: tinfoil-hat maggie:
Well, I was surprised when you left out the parades earlier. Well you know what you don't get it. The pride parades aren't really about the politics those are for all the "deviants", even the ones that "attempt" not to be over the top. It's to celebrate the diversity and to show our own numbers and have fun.The politics takes place everyday.

And what i'm trying to point out is that those public displays of what you call fun, is extreme behavior that the other side is paying attention to... They don't ignore that, in fact, those are the displays that stick out in their mind more than anything else, and that image is a negative image to them...

I get it, i do, it's fun, it's Pride... It's not much different than a bunch of rednecks standing around a pile of fireworks drinking beer, shooting guns in the air, wrapping themselves up in American flags and screaming "USA, USA, USA" on the 4th of July because they love being American... the one difference is that they aren't oppressed and seeking equal rights from the rest of America...

It's true. I judge all straighys by how they act at Mardi Gras.

This is really easy folks.

Kids have no rights in school. You don't get basic rights of free expression til you hit 18 and magic full rights until you are 21. Schools don't want people that are going to be different. It is easier to control a group that are essentially robots with no illusion of freedom. It is good preparation for the work force too, considering you have little if any rights there either. That is, unless you don't want a job anymore.

gravebayne2: so she was told multiple times "the school doesn't take part in protests" and she did it anyways. now she is suing? i'm sure they will hand her and her parents some huge settlement pulled from the schools general fund. this is why our future generations are getting worse....

You don't really grasp how civil disobedience works, do you?

DeathCipris: This is really easy folks.

Kids have no rights in school. You don't get basic rights of free expression til you hit 18 and magic full rights until you are 21. Schools don't want people that are going to be different. It is easier to control a group that are essentially robots with no illusion of freedom. It is good preparation for the work force too, considering you have little if any rights there either. That is, unless you don't want a job anymore.

No, this is really easy:

Tinker vs Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969.

RobSeace: CeroX: And that's precisely what pissing them off will do, and THOSE are the people who vote for your rights

[i5.photobucket.com image 320x240]

"CIVIL RIGHTS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"

If they did, interracial marriage would still be illegal in many places... (Hell, for that matter, slavery might still be legal some places!) Those people can try to vote away people's rights, but they will ultimately have their bigoted and unconstitutional laws overturned by the courts... Just as happened with interracial marriage, and just as has been happening and continues to happen with gay marriage... People's civil rights just can't be taken away by popular vote...

Wow, you fail at government...

First... off, civil rights are voted on, here's one called the Civil Rights Act, and again with the Equal Rights Act (not really a gay issue so much as just an example of rights), both of which were... wait for it... VOTED on...

On the subject of interracial marriage - In that you are right, but only on the basis that miscegenation laws were around before the US existed, and when the states that had the laws were formed, they were incorporated... So i'll give you that one...

But your argument fall apart at the slavery bit because again, it was amended to the constitution, which guess what? Takes a VOTE, and not just any kind of vote either, it takes a 2/3 vote, you can read more about that here

Lets move onto your next statement "They can try and vote away people's rights..." You are correct for some rights that aren't explicitly stated, but in 1996 congress VOTED on the Defense of Marriage Act which prohibited recognition of same-sex marriage by the federal government AND prohibited same-sex marriages from being recognized by any other state other than the state in which the couple was married. And until the supreme court decides to actually move on the 5 pending appeals to DOMA, it remains law.

I would assume that statement was regarding the court overturning prop 8, but you should recognize that that over half the states in the US have voted an amendment into their state constitution that prohibits same-sex marriage... Again, that is a ratification requiring a VOTE... and the question of constitutional legality is not in question like it is in CA.

Lastly, sexual preference isn't even protected by the Civil Rights Act and i believe it was left out on purpose, but that is an entirely different matter...

Now, if you happen to live in a state that favors same-sex marriage and protects same-sex rights, hooray! We have a foothold... but the problem is that the moment Massachusetts passed their pro same-sex laws, all the red states panicked and very quickly voted AGAINST the rights of LGBT people... so...

CIVIL RIGHTS CAN WORK THAT WAY...  sadly

RobSeace: CeroX: And until the supreme court decides to actually move on the 5 pending appeals to DOMA, it remains law.

The Supreme Court is hearing a DOMA challenge right now! (Well, the oral arguments take place in March...) I'm fully confident they will strike it down...

all the red states panicked and very quickly voted AGAINST the rights of LGBT people

Yeah, and eventually they'll all be challenged in court, and they'll all be overturned... It may take a while, but it'll happen... As I said, they can try to vote away people's civil rights, but they'll ultimately fail... Because, civil rights just aren't subject to the whim of popular vote... They're something we all have, even if the majority would prefer that some minority of us not have them...

I agree with you on DOMA...

But I think you're still missing the point of voting... once they put it to a vote, only during the electorial process are they in a "trying" state... after that, it's completed... the vote has been tallied, and the people have spoken... now... we are arguing semantics here, but semantics aren't just arbitrary in law... So you have to understand that the states that count LGBT as a protected community are the minority, and thus they only have civil rights in THOSE states... there is no federal provision classifying LGBT for protection under civil rights, therefore, in the federal government's view, there is no such thing as LGBT civil rights... You and I might argue that everyone SHOULD have those rights, but the reality is, they don't except for a select few states... and even though, one day in the future, we will see LGBT rights protected, and thus things like same-sex marriage be a non-issue, that isn't the way it is NOW

right NOW there is a fight over these rights, and until the day comes when the federal government recognizes sexual preference as a protected right, this fight will continue on. The thing about it is that it's the "conservatives last stand" era. Since 1965, conservatives in this country have been losing ground regarding their power and privilege, which has been based on the oppression of others, children, minorities, women to name a couple, while racism and misogyny still run rampant in the hearts and minds of those that were the oppressors, they are at least protected at the government level... They have been backed into a corner, they are losing ground and like a rabid animal, they are now fighting back in frenzy out of fear of losing everything they have stood for... But they are still the majority, and not only that, on the subject of LGBT rights, they have suckered some of the previously oppressed into fighting on their side by using religion as the armored tank in this little battle. Minorities and women who were once oppressed by these assholes have been blinded by the cross and is now fighting alongside their one time enemy against the threat of "the gays"...

Will LGBT rights get pushed through? sure, someday, it might even be within my lifetime, but it's not going to be now, and it's not going to be next year either... And where i stand on this, we COULD see a change in the next year or so if people would stop purposely trying to piss off the rational thinkers in congress on purpose and start appealing to their rational side... you can't expect to be taken serious on capitol hill if your wearing a strap on and playing "Sword Fight" in the congressional mall...  the irrational will hold mouth frothing arguments claiming that that type of behavior will be everywhere if they pass any sort of rights protection, while the rational people will agree with them because look how immature they are acting now...

Civil Rights are not "all fun and games" and in a civil rights movement, all eyes are on you, and your not acting on your best behavior...

by you, i'm not really pointing directly at you RobSeace...

RobSeace: everyone has civil rights...

yes, but the government doesn't recognize, protect, or enforce all civil rights for all people...

That's why there was a civil rights act to begin with, because even though black americans at the time were citizens, they didn't share the same rights as whites by law... and it comes down to what you and i are discussing... yes, we all have rights, but the LAW doesn't protect or recognize all people for all rights...

You seem to have this illusion that because someone has the abstract right to something, that in America it means they have a Legal Right to something, and sadly, they don't... When the bill of rights was written, it was implied that people had "certain inalienable rights" and that when it was put in the constitution, it was understood that even though people have rights to a lot, those rights can be taken away through legislation and popular vote, but these 10, these "inalienable rights" cannot be touched.

Your rights, my rights, my coworkers rights, can go away under legal process... it happens every day... Smokers would argue they have a right to smoke, yet law here was passed that states they DON'T have the right to smoke in public...

Right now, you have the right to BE gay, but you don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex unless you live in a state that has recognized and protected that right...

Marriage is considered a Civil Right under the law of the federal government IF that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, therfore, marriage is a civil right recognized, and protected, for people who are straight...

It would be nice if the government recognized the rights of everyone, but the reality is that it doesn't...

We agree, but you misunderstand what i am telling the community...

the community should demand equal rights, and they should do so with fire and fervor. What they shouldn't do is go to the supreme court, go to capitol hill, and one representing group stand before the lawmakers and demand for equal rights with fire and fervor, while another representing group is gather in Washington Mall dressed in outrageous outfits and making a lude spectacle of themselves, because the moment the people in capitol hill get wind of those kinds of events, they will either cement their anti-gay position, or they will reverse any progress the right group made when they demanded their case...

Do you understand the correlation that exists between a serious demand for equal rights, and the mocking gestures of people doing extreme behavior who represent the same people?

It seems to me that all this push back from people is just a giant chip on their shoulders who are not taking a legal battle serious enough to play by the rules...

Imagine this scenario and see if you are getting the picture now...

You are a tough, smart, aggressive attorney presenting a case to the court. The opposition is grim, stone-faced and just as aggressive, as you. The opposition clients are up tight, business suit, brief case, serious face types, while  most of your clients are well dressed and down to earth, except for one, who is wearing a clown suit, a strap on, and making masturbation motions with the dildo to the judge... How easy do you think your job as an attorney is going to be?

Does the clown have the same case as your other clients? Sure... do you think that judge is going to seriously consider your case? probably not...

that's my final analogy on this subject for this thread... i'm going home for the day