The school administrators don’t do what the parents of students want, what about that.
SCOTUS is the HOME of treason, judge-murder, sedition,
and has NO use for the 1st Amendment used by the
source of its future adrenochrome, sex trafficking
victim s, and their stolen children and “elections”.
I’m so confused. I read yesterday that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the foulmouthed little cheerleader. Did I wake up in an alternate universe today?
Sure. Of course. That's exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Political free speech is OK. Just so long as it props up the status quo and never leads to anything like "substantial disruption". Just don't rock the boat. /[s]
Didn’t you notice the article itself REFUTES the headline?
At one time I would have said government school administrators should have some control of students’ behavior “off campus”. I was wrong. Here’s the reason why. When we abdicate our own responsibilities to government, in this case school administrators, we no longer exercise our responsibilities. We basically get out of practice in their exercise and it bleeds over to other things. Given the majority of school administrators that exists at this time, I would not trust them to make correct choices. They fail at making the correct choices. It is best for parents to take full responsibility for their children’s action outside (and inside) school. Certainly there will be failures there, but it won’t be for children with good parents. The danger of school administrators to good students and good parents is too great. School administrators should be striped of many of their assumed responsibilities to focus on one thing: provide excellent quality education. Note: that requires control of students behavior on campus.
Read it...the headline is “clever” and doesn’t tell the true decision.
Whoever wrote this article is CONFUSED!
In their own article they say “Nonetheless, SCOTUS held for the plaintiff (8-1), stating, “her speech in this instance was not disruptive.””
The ruling was in favor of the cheerleader.
SCOTUS ruling conceded that the school has a right to regulate its brand like any company would have the right to do so. If this cheerleader said this about a place of employment she would have been fired. She has every right to say what she said, however, that right ends when it infringes on another person’s right which is the reason for “substantial disruption”. Substantial disruption infringes on the rights of other students to pursue an education. Because the cheerleader did not cause substantial disruption or infringe on the rights of other students they ruled in her favor.
There was a surprise dissenter but that is another discussion.
Some students. If a gang-banger posts a pic with a stack, a blunt and a neener, the school will ignore it.
“Supreme Court Rules for Cheerleader Punished for Vulgar Snapchat Message” NYT headline.
“RULES FOR CHEERLEADER”
“’Cussing Cheerleader’ Wins in Supreme Court” NY mag
“Supreme Court rules for Pennsylvania cheerleader in school free speech case” CNBC
thomas is our last vestige of hope...
i think.
the article was very confusing.
To paraphrase ‘Gold Hat’ speaking to Dobbs:
“We doon need no stink’n first amendment.”
The Supreme Court has given “schools” far more authority on speech by students, anywhere their speech occurs, than it has granted just about any other venue in society.
What makes “schools” privileged to refuse the freedom of speech in ways not possible in most any other venue. In particular what makes schools privileged in controlling speech that takes place outside of school when for most any other venue the idea of controlling speech that takes place outside their purview is seldom countenanced by the courts?
Why has the Supreme Court put schools on a legal pedestal?
This ping list is for the other articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. This can occasionally be a fairly high volume list. Articles pinged to the Another Reason to Homeschool List will be given the keyword of ARTH. (If I remember. If I forget, please feel free to add it yourself)
The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.
I think the SCOTUS narrowed things down considerably. That is, schools have to be able to act against tangible threats of violence or criminal acts from students made on social media.
However, non-violent expression or the use of profanity is not enough. Students cannot be punished just for expressing contempt or even hatred for others.