The same place the Supreme Court ruled that free speech doesn't protect a person's right to insult another, or shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre, or in general use freedom of speech to act belligenrently.
I'm not saying the kid should be prosecuted. I'm saying that the principal was right to suspend him.
"Supreme Court ruled that free speech doesn't protect a person's right to insult another"
When was that? Comedians are going to have a tough time.
Oh! and I guess those publishers of the Mo... cartoons, too.
"the principal was right to suspend him"
The principal overstepped her authority by
violating the civil rights of a citizen and
then compounding that violation with further
punishment potentially damaging to the citizen's
future prospects for which she had no grounds.
This kind of fascism by state authority should
be met with the greatest possible opposition by
all who reckognize the workings of tyranny.
When did the Supreme Court rule either of those things? I think you've at best ridiculously overstated the breadth of existing exceptions.