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 ...
He'd probably just sit down with the kid, laugh his ass off, and share bong hits with him. :)
I think the school district will win if they emphasize the pro-drug message in the sign. If they argue that the sign was religiously insensitive, then they lose.
The sign clearly is pro-drug, and it is easy to argue, based on the above policy, that it is disruptive.
http://www.asdk12.org/School_Board/policy/policy_appa.asp
Shucks...it's Monday....might as well be nice.
:>)
> The sign clearly is pro-drug,...
And if the sign was off school property and not at a school sponsored event, what authority does the school have in that case?
The 9th Circuit decision is here, btw:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf?openelement
Please, and strawberry jam, too.
I still think the school is only wasting tax dollars by pursusing this. They've already lost in the lower courts and likely will at the SC. I also think after this next loss they'll be busy revising anything that deals with kids off school property and not at school sponsored functions.
It's simply not within their power to dictate what happens to a child who isn't under their supervision. As it stands, where do they think their power begins? When little Susie's alarm goes off and she's getting ready to go off to school? Or when she closes the front door of her house? Or when she starts the ignition? Or after she picks up Debbie, Billy, and Dexter and does it cover the stop at the park for a quickie, or after they drive through Starbucks?
"Often the bowl is just big enough for one pinch -- also called a hit."
That's a "One-Hitter." C'mon, get up to speed on drug phrases, will ya?
However, the true nature of your opinion comes out later in your post. It's not about maintaining order for you--it's about the message:
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".
So you're choosing to punish based on the content of the message rather than maintaining order. What is implicit in your post is that if the sign would have had a different message, you might agree with the student. You say:
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.
As another poster brought up before, would you take the same approach if his sign said "High school students 4 Jesus?" What would you have said then if everything had played out exactly the same?
I thought that was called a bat?
"That's a "One-Hitter." C'mon, get up to speed on drug phrases, will ya?"
Ok, ok, but you know, folks I saw smoking pot (noit me, of course) usually put just one hit at a time in the bongs. Used less that way.
See #33
See http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf?openelement where those concerns are discussed.
The fact is that the government has to demonstrate the school had a reasonable and good faith belief that the students' actions would harm the good order of the school. On the basis of what else the school was allowing to go on that day, the court expressed extreme skepticism that the school's efforts were either reasonable or in good faith.
Actually, that is the issue. Truancy Laws and Mandatory Attendance Laws in Alaska place the child under the jurisdiction of the state for attendance at school.
Additionally, laws about "minors" have a legal impact, I would think. There is so such thing as a minor under his own supervision. He is either under the jurisdiction of his parents, some loco parentis, or of the state. That's what it means to be a minor.
Since the truancy laws and mandatory attendance laws take him out of the jurisdiction of his parents for attendance at school, then the school board's policies make perfect sense. They have simply accepted that the child has left the supervision of the parent for a mandatory state institution.
It is impossible that a minor is under his/her own supervision. (Which raises the age of the students in question as an issue; and also the state allowance of students over 18 to finish their education, but under the jurisdiction of the school.)
The military is a very strong parallel institution. When on leave, a soldier is still under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.
Post #33 is applicable.
"I fear the day we look to the government to arbitrate what is moral."
That day is already here. According to the left, if it's legal, it's moral.
See #52.
On my part, however, the students are under someone's jurisdiciton at that time. They are involved in a school activity that involves moving the scholastic focus to a different location....that of the passing Olympic Torch. During that event, students unveiled a pro-drug banner and disobeyed a directive from the controlling authority.
They are entirely wrong. The principal is entirely right. .....So long as they stay away from a religious sensitivity argument, and focus on the disruption caused by the pro-drug message.
I'm not sure if they can introduce new arguments when it gets to the Supreme Court level, or if they can only improve on their original avenues of persuasion.
They cannot. The facts of a case, when one reaches the SC, are as established by the lower courts. The SC rules on the previous ruling, not on the case itself. They can uphold the ruling, overturn it, or remand it back with clarifying instructions for the lower court.
> On my part, however, the students are under someone's
> jurisdiciton at that time. They are involved in a school
> activity that involves moving the scholastic focus to a
> different location....
The evidence indicated that the students were unsupervised, or at most very loosely supervised, during the activity. That students engaged in snowball fights, throwing of promotional beverages supplied by Coca-Cola, absented themselves entirely, and various other disorderly goings on.
> and focus on the disruption caused by the pro-drug message.
The court found there was no reasonable basis, at the time, to consider the banner "disruptive" in the context of the event.
I appreciate your point of view. The undermining of all lawful authority is a large source of the problems in current society. But I'm not nearly as confident as you regarding the reasons the Supremes took this case.
Reading through the files, it seems there are 3 competing, and on some level confusing, precedents controlling the decision. Maybe their goal is to simplify the existing mess, if they can.
Yes, you SHOULD be able to say that. I do wonder what the result of a court case over a sign like that would be, however.
"They can uphold the ruling, overturn it, or remand it back with clarifying instructions for the lower court."
Can they also narrow, or clarify, the ruling to only apply within certain parameters?
If so I could see them taking that approach, trying to give the school some leeway but protect the student's rights.
I think that falls under remanding it back to the lower court, but could be wrong.
There's more than baseball in the air!
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.