Obviously having a LOT of fun seeing just how far they can bend the rules.
Normal stuff for little hooligans of their ilk.
Who thought the Supremes would judge.
Posted on 06/26/2007 10:16:44 AM PDT by skeptoid
“Somehow the SCOTUS has determined ... that they had transported themselves to the school zone”
It’s the new trend, don’t worry soon we’ll all have transported to the “police state” zone where we won’t have to worry about all this freedom foolishness.
“Who gets to decide who is a pretentious, self-important little jerk?”
Ummmm....me? LOL!!
Agreed
Obviously having a LOT of fun seeing just how far they can bend the rules.
Normal stuff for little hooligans of their ilk.
Who thought the Supremes would judge.
The significance of this case is that while school administrators have traditionally been able to control student speech on campus, this power has now been extended to certain places off campus. There will now be years of legal articles, political rants, and lower court decisions over just what certain places are now in this extended boundary, and under what circumstances. This is what keeps lawyers in business.
I'm sure that's what he meant.
I was of the understanding that school was in session, and the students were given the green light to go and take part in the torch passing.
Did I get that wrong?
Because if they were not in school or wards of the school (on school time) at that time, and if they were not on school property, then they CAN say or do anything they like as long as it does not break any law.
The questions I have are:
1.) Was school in session?
2.) Were the students allowed to take time from their classes to participate?
3.) Is a student who is supposed to be at school the responsibility of the school?
4.) Does a student have the unfettered right to free speech if the answers to questions 1 through 3 are “yes”?
In my opinion, if the answers to questions 1 through 3 ARE “Yes”, the the answer to question 4 is decidedly “NO”.
If a student goes on a field trip as part of a school sponsored activity (which this apparently was) they cannot conduct themselves in any fasion they see fit. I view this the same way.
Being allowed outside for the torch passing is like a school trip, recess, or lunch break, and the school doesn't relinquish their guardian responsibilities during those times, even if the student leaves school grounds without the school knowing. And as students were merely across the street (I'll bet other students were across the street, not participating in the "Bong hits for Jesus" display) I suppose there's enough precedent law out there to make a good case they were still "in school" and subject to school discipline.
Actually, I have decided to drop all pretense and dispense with the legalese.
I think they should all be horsewhipped just for being arrogant little liberal snots.
There. That should simplify things...:)
Well, in my earlier day, I may have been standing there with them... but I’m cool with that. It’s merely the hair-splitting that I’m amused by in the discussion.
You were never a arrogant little liberal snot.
Never.
And neither was I.
But that never stopped us from having a good time now, did it?
Schools are already trying to control the behavior of students while off-campus and not engaged in a school activity. This is another addition to that. Pretty soon the schools will own our children 24/7 if this keeps going.
Heck no... ours were much more artistic!
This was from the Washington Post article at:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/06/bong_hits_4_jesus_the_supreme.html
“...When high school senior Joseph Frederick unfurled a 14-foot banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” during a class trip, he did it to get attention — and it worked...”
The key words here are “CLASS TRIP”. This was on a school sanctioned class trip, even if it was only across the street.
So, unless someone can invalidate my observation that this was indeed an activity that was condoned by school officials and in no way freed those kids from the normal constraints of school behavior, then I will stand by everything I say next.
As a society, we have made the choice in the past to restrict the rights of children to engage in various activities and speech. This is undeniable fact. We restrict the right of a child to tell teachers they are “F***ing A**holes”. If anyone wants to argue this point, I am all ears.
We do this in the best interests of children, since they are often neither equipped nor able to make judgements. We do not give them the right to vote until a certain age. So it is not an item of negotiation that we have (for many years and for good reasons)indeed restricted the rights of children for various societal reasons.
That said, it is clear this falls into that category of acceptable restriction of rights.
If we want to change our minds, give 6 year olds the right to vote, drink, do whatever they wish including NOT going to school where their precious rights of free speech are impinged upon because they are prevented or punished for holding up a sign that clearly is NOT something most parents would appreciate seeing their kids brandishing during school hours where they should be learning.
Make all the arguments you want about whether public schools are good or bad for children, but please spare all of us the “slippery slope of muzzling kids is being expanded outside the school to other things” type of hysteria.
This is nothing new. And it is as it should be. If you think school time should be used to have your kid holding up signs advocating drug use, then by all means, remove your kid from public school and let them practice their free speech. Nobody would stop you.
Meaning the ACLU was not abel to collect attorneys fees so they need to find another option.
It was a school authorized event and on school time by a school student. The purpose was to watch an Olypic Torch runner pass by, so OF COURSE they had to be out of the school, and some would naturally be on different sides of the road.
In Alaska a kid is under school control from the moment he leaves his house for school or a school event until the moment he returns to it or to another authority. Basically, a minor is always under someone’s jurisdiction.
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.