Posted on 03/19/2007 6:24:09 AM PDT by nancyvideo
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear argument in a Juneau, Alaska, case that might further define the free-speech rights of high school students.
In a 1969 case, the high court ruled that students had the right to wear black armbands during the Vietnam War, but in two others in the 1980s, the court said schools had the right to ban offensive speech, as opposed to political speech, and control the content of student newspapers.
The case scheduled for argument Monday involves Joseph Frederick, a student at Juneau-Douglas High School and his principal, Deborah Morse.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightbias.com ...
"What he did was legal, tho."
Seems the left is winning the fight to change the definition of what is right or moral to whatever's 'legal'
I can cetainly agree with this if the person is riding a school bus or otherwise on school property. However, without some sort of proof (as in a cited court decision) there is no way I can believe that school rules apply to a student driving his own car on a public street on his way to school. If he stops for breakfast at McDonalds half way in, is this covered too? How about if he gets up real early and swings by the range for some target practice on the way in (not being late for school of course.) Breaking laws here? No guns during school time, you know... So please cite something to prove me wrong.
Even if drive time is school time, students do not lose all their rights at the classroom door.
As I said above, I think it is very interesting that both the ACLU and Pat Robertson's ACLJ have taken the student's case.
Wnen government punishment is involved, you're damned right the defining term is "legal".
I do to. Makes me wonderif Pat knows something about Jesus that I don't.
(That was a joke...)
Prove your statement with a link to that law.
That's what the Supreme Court is there for, to determine what's legal. I fear the day we look to the government to arbitrate what is moral. Replace "Bong hits" with "High school students" and ask if you still support what the principal did. Both banners would be equally abhorrent to todays school orthodoxy, the second one perhaps even more so.
> Seems the left is winning the fight to change the
> definition of what is right or moral to whatever's 'legal'
The principal throwing a hysterical fit and destroying the kid's property (the sign), effectively silencing him, outside of school grounds is the immoral action to focus on here.
Jurisdiction
The following rules apply on school grounds, at school activities on and off school grounds, on school buses, and at school bus stops. These rules also apply to acts that:
- Begin on school grounds and end off school grounds; or
- Begin off school grounds and continue on school grounds; or
- Pose a likelihood of disruption of education or conduct at the school;
- Occur when the student is on the way to school or leaving school.
In addition, students may be disciplined for behavior on or off school grounds that takes place at any time if the behavior clearly has negative consequences for the welfare, safety, or morals of other students or a person employed or volunteering at the school. The District should not exercise this jurisdiction with respect to conduct that has little or no actual or likely impact on the school community.
I'd love to see the above struck down by the USSC.
Interesting - thank you for providing that. Tho' I would note that this is school policy - not law, and nothing that has been upheld by a court case. I would go so far as to argue that this part here:
"students may be disciplined for behavior on or off school grounds that takes place at any time if the behavior clearly has negative consequences for the welfare, safety, or morals of other students"
is directly being overturned by the courts so far in this case. Off school grounds - check. Negative consequences for morals of other students - I'll give that a check too. Doesn't seem to matter to the courts.
Just because the public school has a policy that says you need to obey its rules when you are going to and from school, doesn't make it so.
I looked up the law. The law does not give specifics. Actually, the law says that the policy of the local school boards should be implemented at their level. I'm no lawyer, but if the law points to the policy, then the policy is the law for that school district.
You'll have to post the actual page since it's not easily found on the main page at ACD. However, I did find this little tidbit in their survey section (which looks more like if they don't like the poll results they change the wording and go after it again until they get the response they want). Gee, making kids buy school lunches and stay on campus rather than driving around like maniacs would co$t the school. Imagine how much more they'd save if they didn't require kids to come to class. See, the "Bong" kid was merely saving the district money when he didn't arrive on time.
"Respondents were asked to consider the issue of whether high school campuses should be open or closed. With their initial opinion measured, they were then told of the estimated cost of closing campuses, $1.5 million, and asked their opinion again."
I had to track it down without any clues.
Perhaps you'd like me to butter your toast, too? :>)
I think you're likely correct there. I look forward to finding out if the Supremes side with the law or with all of the other courts that found the law (policy) to be overreaching.
During the school day (including when students are on the way to or from school), the school has the authority to regulate unacceptable behavior that is disruptive including behavior that encourages illegal activity by others.
The school principal took appropriate action within her authority to punish a student for unacceptable behavior during school hours.
Schools cannot become places where teachers and administrators cannot maintain a civil learning environment in the name of free speech.
If the student had some views that he wanted to express, he might have had better luck trying to present them without making it quite so obvious that his main goal was to be offensive and make a scene to bring attention to himself.
His sign may as well have said "Look at me! I'm a jackass! I want to offend a bunch of people an try make this public event less enjoyable for a lot of other people because I like the attention".
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.