No, I was stating simple fact.
From the Third Circuit decision:
I fail to find where this bans bringing red and green paper plates to a Christmas party or bans the presentation of candy canes with religious notes attached. Both are in their proper context according to Tinker and do not fall within the exemptions described. Plus they are fully allowable under existing court decisions.
So you point is???????? Do you find candy canes and red/green paper plates and napkins THAT intimidating?
"No, I was stating simple fact."
No , you deductively arrived at a meaning (" I am not telling the truth") of your own making from what I wrote.
"I fail to find where this bans bringing red and green paper plates to a Christmas party "
I'm going to leave this part out because 1)that is part of the DOJ complaint, not the suit and 2)because I , (and I'm willing to bet many other parents here in Plano) are in physical possession of documentary evidence proving that at least some parts of the complaint are spurious.
"or bans the presentation of candy canes with religious notes attached. "
This is relevant to our discussion. You cite Tinker, which reads, "when [they are] in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours. . . .”
It does not specifically cite the classroom, although it specifically cites the cafeteria and playing field and vaguely refers to the campus.
This case is about prosetylizing specifically inside the classroom during a structured clasroom activity. If you are familiar with the facts of the case, you would know that. The Plaintiff was offered the same venue that is offered to everyone else in the school for handing out personal messages such as his; there are free speech areas designated ON CAMPUS for exctly this purpose. But he sued for the power to prosetylize INSIDE A CLASSROOM, during a structured, board sanctioned activity.
Tinker does not address that.