Boy loses court battle over being barred from pizza party

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

[gdani]

Can a child tell his parents he doesn't have to obey the rules of the house because of the Bill of Rights?

He can try but the Bill of Rights does not apply in way to how a parent disciplines or raises their children. It limits Government, not private entities.

[FreeTally]

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

No, the first Amendment does not protect a "right" of a MINOR to disrupt events. That would infringe on EVERY OTHER PERSON'S right to enjoy the event. This is not speech. This is an obnoxious kid and his obnoxious jerk of a father being put in their place. I'd be embarassed as hell if my father thought he was owed money(from the tax payers) because I wasn't allowed to be an ass hole durring a school function.

Not being allowed to wear a SPECIFIC shirt on a SPECIFIC day is not an infringement of any right.

[gdani]

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

So, basically, you're picking which parts of the First Amendment do (religion) and don't (speech) apply to minors. Convenient.

[FreeTally]

Your point?

You are making the point yourself - you are a dufus. A kid just wants attention, and you call it a violation of free specch. Your claim speaks for itself.

[Shooter 2.5]

The Minnesota Vikings had to get their feelings protected from a fourth grader? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

[HeadOn]

Yes, yes. I do understand the "slippery slope", but this is pretty much dry, level ground controlled by civility, and not fit to be elevated to the level of a "Federal Case".

Our problem is, that somewhere, somehow, somebody is almost always stupid enough to take a tiny little issue to the Supreme Court if they are so inclined.

I'd prefer to go back to when people were ashamed to do certain things. Now there is no shame, and usually no perspective. In my opinion, it's these kinds of things that separate the adults from the children. A sensible adult would have explained it to his son. Gotta go - the weekend calls. Thanks for the dialogue.

[-YYZ-]

I agree. This is just stupid. Some people take professional team sports waaay to seriously. And any member of the Vikings who would have taken any real offense to this one kid wearing an opposing team's jersey needs to grow up and get a clue (a lot to ask of many professional athletes, I'll admit).

[Osinski]

So when your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, you call the guy a "dufus"? Were't you just talking about this being an issues of social graces? Your argument and presntation are so lame as to be laughable. Can't really laugh about it though...you have a major problem with the right of the kid to wear the jacket of the team of his choice.

[pragmatic]

Exactly! Thanks. It's interesting, since it's harder to get riled up about these sort of must not offend corporate interest issues over political free speech in schools, but in some ways, they are even creepier.

[Hacksaw]

So, basically, you're picking which parts of the First Amendment do (religion) and don't (speech) apply to minors. Convenient.

Nope. You do not understand the difference between minors and adults. Being in a public school has nothing to do with freedom from a dress code.

[sultan88]

Gosh, I always wear my A's cap and jacket to the Baltimore Orioles games. And I do take a verbal pounding from the left field Bird fans.