Boy loses court battle over being barred from pizza party

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | April 12, 2002 | Howie Padilla

[HeadOn]

If you want to approach it from the "very core" of the amendment, we should restrict it to political speech, but I do get your point.

And don't go putting words in my mouth, either. I have never said anybody with a thin skin has any special protection.

I have said, however, that if you don't want to deal with me, don't deal with me. If I'm taking you on an outing, and you insist on the right to be rude, don't go. Like I said, this is a SMALL MATTER, and not worth getting agitated about, much less taking to court.

[chriservative]

Don't apologize Pappy! You're sexy when you're angry.

[gdani]

If you want to approach it from the "very core" of the amendment, we should restrict it to political speech, but I do get your point

Not trying to be a wise guy but -- If political speech was the only type of speech meant to be protected by the First Amendment then why doesn't the text of the amendment explicitly say so?

[latina4dubya]

come on... this is hardly about "doing what's right," or "standing up for one's beliefs..." it's about this kid and his father lacking in "social graces." try to make it into an issue of higher calling, but it isn't... who cares if one exudes rudeness as long as one's rights are the issue... some things are worth fighting for... this was plain stupid... haven't we all been told at one time or another to bite our tongue, even if what we have to say is right? there is a time a place for everything... this was not the time and place to flaunt one's team loyalty... i know, the hardcores will let me know in no uncertain terms that this was worth fighting for... i disagree...

[headsonpikes]

"The kid got a good lesson as to the way mature people act."

ROTFLMAO!!!

You mean unctuous faux politeness, and a cringing obedience to the powers that be?

Point made; you're right. That's the way adults act in the New, Sensitive, America.

Kids, most adults you meet are NOT to be admired; tolerate them you must.

Smile when you're told to smile; toss flowers as directed. Pictures and names are being taken.

[HeadOn]

Perhaps that was a poor attempt to make a point. I have always viewed the context in that light, but you are correct. (That's a whole 'nother thread, but I'm not going there.)

I just don't believe anybody ought to hide bad behaviour behind a right. In matters where it does not harm me, I don't always assert "my rights". I have a "right" to paint my house chartreuse, but it's a dumb thing to do. This is a stupid football rivalry.

[BraveMan]

[Rebelbase]

In this case, the Dad is the idiot. I would be suprised if his yard has'nt gotten rolled with purple streamers yet.

[HeadOn]

I agree with you 100%. "Social Graces" is one of the terms I left out, but probably better than the ones I've been using.

[Hacksaw]

Unless you consider what some 9-year-old wears to be "bad behavior"

Nine year olds are not adults, and do not have the full constitutional rights that adults do. Dress codes are entirely appropriate in public schools.

[FreeTally]

Neither of those (employer, frat/sorority) involve the government

Totally irrelevant. A school does not simply become "the government" because it is publicaly funded. The kids did not go to the party representing themselves or the "government". They went represnting the school.

The kid was not told by the school(or government, if thats the way you want it) that he could not speak about the Packers or wear the jersey at any other time. He was told that while representing the school at a Minnesota Vikings facility, he would not be wearing the jersey - A simple request that every other child adhered to, except this one clown who wanted attention.

[gdani]

Nine year olds are not adults, and do not have the full constitutional rights that adults do

I'll make sure to tell that to the school board the next time some teacher discplines a kid for saying grace at lunch.

By the way, which copy of the Bill of Rights do you have that carries the disclaimer "Use not intended for those under 18 years of age"?

[Wrigley]

You Vikings fans are so intolerant.

[gdani]

The kids did not go to the party representing themselves or the "government". They went represnting the school

So then you'd be OK with a kid being told to remove a confederate flag shirt, a "Jesus Saves" shirt, an "I Love George Bush" shirt, etc, etc assuming the circumstances were the same/similar?

[FreeTally]

So then you'd be OK with a kid being told to remove a confederate flag shirt, a "Jesus Saves" shirt, an "I Love George Bush" shirt, etc, etc assuming the circumstances were the same/similar?

Good Lord, whats your problem? This has nothing to do with "political slogans" or religious messages. The kid does not have the right to be DIRUPTIVE, which wearing a jersey of a rival team at the facility can only be viewed as. He was told the rules BEFORE HAND!! Show me a public school handbook that lists certain "slogans" that can not be on clothing, and I'll debate that. There have been many recent cases pertaining to this AT SCHOOL, and the schools have lost. This was stupid, and has nothing to do with "free speech". Most reasonable people see that. Why you can not is beyond me.

[chriservative]

I just don't believe anybody ought to hide bad behaviour behind a right. In matters where it does not harm me, I don't always assert "my rights". I have a "right" to paint my house chartreuse, but it's a dumb thing to do. This is a stupid football rivalry.

I agree with you in theory, but that's assuming that everyone will act according to social mores. If little rights, no matter how silly the circumstance are infringed upon, inevitably the slope will become slippery and bigger rights will follow suit.

[gdani]

Good Lord, whats your problem? This has nothing to do with "political slogans" or religious messages

My "problem" is that I know that the First Amendment protects more than political and religious speech.

Sorry you don't feel the same.

[Hacksaw]

I'll make sure to tell that to the school board the next time some teacher discplines a kid for saying grace at lunch.

Ha ha, but it is a fact. Have you heard of the word "minor"? Can a child tell his parents he doesn't have to obey the rules of the house because of the Bill of Rights?

By the way, which copy of the Bill of Rights do you have that carries the disclaimer "Use not intended for those under 18 years of age"?

I said children do not have FULL constitutional rights. They are minors. Don't try to put words in my mouth. And dress codes are entirely constitutional.

[FreeTally]

"I'm kind of proud of the youngster for standing up for what he believes in," said C. Paul Jones, professor emeritus at the William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul. "But he was interfering with what everybody else was trying to do, and what happened to him didn't interfere with what he was supposed to be getting in school."

Do you get it??

[gdani]

"I'm kind of proud of the youngster for standing up for what he believes in," said C. Paul Jones, professor emeritus at the William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul. "But he was interfering with what everybody else was trying to do, and what happened to him didn't interfere with what he was supposed to be getting in school."

Do you get it??

And other law professors and courts have found a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights that includes abortion. Your point?