Posted on 05/22/2007 3:10:28 PM PDT by republicpictures
it already cuts the other way, and has for years...
hahahahaha!
Wife and family are from Novato. We call it Muchos Vatos
What I meant was that the school's administrators may now be interested in facilitating any group that wishes to use their views to thrust the sword deeper and twist it in retaliation for this ruling.
Now that they are on notice the response to whatever they say can be just as fierce, bring it on. More free speech, not less, as has been the practice for decades.
Isn't that where Murtha wanted to "redeploy" our troops?
Nope. Murtha wanted them to re-deploy a Middle-East Quick Reaction Force to Japan(!) (Okinawa), from which they could have redeployed to Iraq "if things went bad" by flying 5,500 miles, across the heart of China, over Iran and into Baghdad.
By flying around unfriendly countries, the distance from Okinawa to Baghdad would be greater than the distance from New Jersey to Iraq. But the repeaters in the Press Corps didn't catch that because that would require applied critical thinking skills. And whether the Japanese would like to host the Middle East QRF is was not addressed. Not by Murtha, and not by his many sycophants in the Press.
I believe it will go well-my parents divorced when I was very small.
Attractive post devolve.
Thank potlatch -
Version 5.0
Violence Erupts At Novato High As Gang Of 5 Mexicans Attack Author Of Article On Immigration
It's a good thing.
Now THIS is a Marine!
THAILAND???
Court rules Novato schools violated student's rights
Nancy Isles Nation
05/23/2007
Novato school officials violated the free-speech rights of a student by condemning an opinion article he wrote in the student newspaper opposing illegal immigration, a state appellate court ruled Tuesday. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling by Marin Superior Court Judge John Sutro that favored school officials and ordered that the student, Andrew Smith, and his father pay more than $20,981 in litigation costs to the Novato Unified School District.
Smith claimed in a civil lawsuit that his speech was chilled by the school district after he expressed a "politically incorrect" viewpoint in the school newspaper.
The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco found that the Novato district correctly tried to ease the tension caused by Smith's article by holding meetings and giving students and parents an opportunity to discuss their views
"On the other hand, the district sent the clear message that no further speech similar to 'Immigration' would be tolerated," the ruling notes. "While understandable, this is not permissible."
Paul Beard II, a Pacific Legal Foundation attorney who represents Smith, said the ruling would have a far-reaching effect on school districts in the state, barring them from censoring unpopular views.
"This is a resounding victory for the speech rights of public high school students up and down California," Beard said. "California school districts are now on notice that they can't enforce a code of political correctness on their students."
Smith, who graduated in 2002, wrote both "Immigration" and "Reverse Racism" for The Buzz student newspaper while he was a senior. Controversy over "Immigration," which ran in the November 2001 edition, led to a student walkout and prompted two school forums.
His lawsuit contended district officials denied his freedom of speech by apologizing to students and parents for the first article and confiscating remaining copies of the newspaper. He said his rights were violated when the district delayed publication of the second article by requiring a counterpoint article.
Smith's case will be returned to the Marin court to enter a judgment that the article was protected speech and that his free speech rights were violated. Smith is now a corporal in the Marine Corps reserves and is training in Thailand.
The decision means that Smith will be given back litigation fees that he paid in 2005. He will be awarded nominal damages of $1.
Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, noted courts in the state have been reluctant to apply existing law as the appellate court has done.
The statute cited by the court provides greater protection for free speech in California "than the U.S. Constitution and makes it unambiguously clear that California students do not give up their rights to free speech when they walk through the school house doors," Scheer said.
"Merely because it is insensitive does not mean it's not protected," Scheer said of the high school newspaper articles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.