I think it means their panties are in a wad.
Posted on 09/17/2007 6:38:19 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
Last week the California Supreme Court ruled that high schools can't censor their students in school newspapers.
A former Novato High School student journalist filed a lawsuit against the government school district for censoring two columns he wrote in the paper. Here's an example of what they tried to censor. This is the student's solution to illegal immigration:
"It can't be hard to find and detain the people who can't speak English. If a person looks suspicious than just stop them and ask a few questions, and if they answer 'que?,' detain them and see if they are legal."
The ACLU, of course, got involved.
It's good to see there are some bright students in these Mexifornia high schools
"The California Supreme Court this week let stand an appeals court ruling that high schools can't censor their students in student media. Even if those students are stunningly, ridiculously stupid."
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/journos/racist_student_journo_wins_in_court_67087.asp?c=rss
By the way -- whoever can figure out what relevance that picture bears to the story, please explain it to me.
I think it means their panties are in a wad.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/original/police_state.jpg
The picture is titled police_state.jpg
(for those who do not want to look it is a cop with a tear gass gun pointed and cowering protesters)
The selection of the picture is a deliberate editorial and further proof of media bias by selection.
Children are not adults. They do not have the same rights as adults. This same sort of case was tried and retried in the 1960s and 1970s. It is always over ruled. The school, as proprietor of the paper, has the right to decide what to print and not to print. Free speech does not mean a right to a free forum to state your speech in. Yeah, but ain't it just great that there still are some kids left who will put up the good fight for sanity -- win or lose?
Then what does it mean?
I am wondering how this is racist. This is about illegal immigration. Not about race. This is about non English speaking people...not about any particular race.Since when are Mexicans a race? Or Spanish speaking people a race? I speak Spanish (somewhat)...does that put me into the Spanish race..if there is such a thing? That is like saying Americans who live in the US are a race..I have heard of white, black and oriental races..but what race are Mexicans?. Mexico was conquered by the Spanish...so I would assume most of the population would be of Spanish descent...is there a Spanish race? If the problem of illegal immigration was more focused on Canadians sneaking into the country...would it still be racist if someone wrote the same thing about Canadians?
How are Spaniards different from Italians...both have darker skin tones than say Norwegians...but the languages are different..are Italians and Spanish people different races?are they different races because the languages are different?...or are they considered “white” because they are European?
I am so tried of hearing the word racist when it comes to any issue....It is overused and it loses it’s impact when it comes to someone who is really a racist.
Just wondering on this beautiful Monday morning.......
Yep I remember a case when I was in high school in the 80’s. Our liberal teachers told us to wear black bands across our arms after we were slapped down.
“Free speech does not mean a right to a free forum to state your speech in.”
Bingo. Pretty much what I said about the “They Can’t Deport Us ALL” t-shirts some Hispanic kids were wearing. They, of course, got to wear their shirts at school.
...isn’t this the same California school system that thinks it’s okay to censor a Christian shirt saying Homosexuality is wrong?
This kid has a bunch of grammar problems too. I hope his first language is Spanish otherwise he’s embarrassing himself...
Not in the opinion of the original court, the appeals court, or the state supreme court. But hey, what do they know?
That varies from school to school. What Hazelwood ruled, in that narrow way SCOTUS loves, is that the paper in that case was used by the school as an instructional tool. But the Court left open the possibility that a student newspaper run by the students, traditionally maintained as an open community forum, coul enjoy st amendment protection (though, presumably, the school could prevent distribution on campus).
It's not the be-all, end-all, but it helps the students' case if the paper is funded by ad and subscription sales rather than by the school. The high-school paper I edited raised most of its own operating funds (though it used school facilities), and the time allotted during the school day to work on the paper was like a study hall -- stories weren't assignments for credit.
I suspect we're going to see more student newspapers shift to tighter faculty control; students who want a truly independent outlet can set up their own Web pages without asking the school for any money or class time. Also with no mentors and uneven editorial standards, so I'd expect the schools to take over fading papers and make them part of the curriculum.
It has always been my opinion that children don’t get full constitutional protections until they reach adulthood. To grant them full rights would mean that parents or custodians (read that the adults) would have none, when it came to teaching or correcting them.
Children have to be subordinated to someone. To argue otherwise is to show evidence that someone isn’t quite all there.
When a lib pushes for children to have adult rights, just agree with them and promise to go out and buy the child a gun right away. Ask if they’d like to tag along to make sure the gun is big enough.
According to the Article, California passed a law stating that California school districts couldn’t censor student speech. That’s the basis on which the case was decidied on.
Furthermore, the School District itself created a regulation that it would not censor student newspapers.
Cali & the school district were trying to engage is selective enforcement of the regulations they themselves set. The Lib’s were trying thier typical double-standard routiene.... “censorship is wrong except when applied to something we don’t like”.... for once they got shot down. Good!
Parents and private school administrators have a lot more control than public schools, for the valid reason that public school officials are representatives of the state.
I could agree with that. I do wonder how public school teachers would react to that statement though.
How would they react to being told that they have more constraints in disciplining students, up to and including throwing them out? Trust me, they know it better than you or I.
...that they are merely an extension of the state.
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.