Posted on 06/25/2007 7:50:31 AM PDT by PaxMacian
“And with this ruling against a student who was not on school grounds, and on his own time,...”
Are you saying he was truant? That would be the first I’ve heard of that.
Public schools need to be abandoned, they have been huge tools for total indoctrination by the far left secular humanists since the nineteen sixties.
If there were only private schools, kids who want to act like a fool would have to find themselves a school that wanted to put up with that lame act.
Students were dismissed from classes that day. I do not know if attendance at the Olympic event was mandatory. If not, then the student was on his own time.
The justices seem to think it was “a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-278_All.pdf
Oh, well, then that settles it for me.
/sarc
We all know that what the justices "think" and what the Constitution "says" are not one and the same. (Of course, public schools themselves have nothing to do with the Constitution, but I'll rant and rave about that elsewhere.)
Certainly that is true, but that was not my point. Concerning your point, the leftist National Education Assn. is a twin of the ACLU and they both applaud almost any anti-Christian, pro-vulgarity, pro-recreational drug messages.
The kid can spend all day acting like a fool while the true freedom schools ignore him.
At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse,the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she regarded as promoting illegaldrug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events,
as anyone can see it was a school event therefore subject to school rules, hence becomes on none issue
“Our Constitution gaurantees him the right to act as follish as he likes.”
What amendment is that?
Although FREEPERS are happy about this ruling (ok...most), this means that if someone is outside of school passing out anti-abortion information, then the school can intervene. Not a good rule in my opinion. Bong for Jesus is worth having if the conservatives can have there sayings too.
I would think that is a good thing.
OK, so you don’t like public schools because they’re leftist. I don’t like them because they’re “public.” Would you support them if they bring back corporal punishment, start requiring jackets and ties, mandate prayer, post the 10 commandments on every square inch of space, expel students for sneaking into R-rated films at the local theater, and teach the Bible as fact? I still would not. In fact, as a “vulgar” pro-drug-legalization atheist, I’d only oppose them even more. My problem here is with the NEA, not the ACLU (which, BTW, sided against the school in this case). I have a problem with tax dollars being used to support these virtual prisons, and the Supreme Court in turn awarding them jurisdiction over kids even when they’re not at school.
That is very clear in the decision. I wonder why the media never made it clear in any of its stories.
which I am still just starting to read, states that: Frederick’s argument that this is not a school speech case is re-jected. The event in question occurred during normal school hoursand was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with su-pervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circum-stances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school.
If they are not physically on school property, I don't know how they can claim attendance, and that the en parente loco applies... still more to read.
Accdg to the SCOTUS ruling: A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court declared, in holding that a policy prohibiting high school students from wearing antiwar armbands violated the First Amendment, that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school,”.
The banner was unfurled directly across the street from the school, and pointed in the direction of the school and students, therefore it was in the Court's opinion, a disruption of the school and it's discipline.
Why do schools have extra constitutional protection from “disruption”. Every other institution, even private homes and businesses have to put up with disruptive protests where banners are unfurled directly across the street from them, if protesters feel so inclined. What makes schools immune to protest and able to suppress freedom of speech even off of school grounds?
I'd also suggest you take 1/2 an hour and read the ruling itself, which is in depth.
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.