I've been surprised at the number of people on this forum who think the Constitution doesn't protect 'minors'.That is an interesting issue. Minors are a special class that are subject to a more elastic interpretation of The Constitution than adults. For example, the 4th Amendment has been pretty much tossed out on school grounds (and rightly so). The 1st amendment is subject to constant re-interpretation (as in the instant case). School uniforms have been found to be constitutional.
All true -- but, again, not because the Constitution doesn't protect 'minors' but because they're in school. The fact that they're (mostly) not yet 18 has nothing to do with it. A senior class filled with 18-year-olds (or older) is subject to the same restrictions.
(And of course none of this is a Constitutional issue in a purely private school, because such a school doesn't count as 'the government' for Constitutional purposes.)
What is important is that if there are free speech issues that both sides of the argument be heard. It is patently wrong to allow pro-gay agenda "speech" without allowing the opposite side equal time.
I agree. In this case, the school should have either allowed both or forbidden both. My preference would be that it allow both.
Ping!