Posted on 05/29/2009 6:35:48 AM PDT by meandog
President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has yet another tie to Connecticut. She sided against a student in the infamous “douche bag” case, and that has upset some free-speech advocates.
In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.
Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as "douche bags" because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcconnecticut.com ...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sotomayor must think it's okay for school board officials to moderate free speech — after all, they're not Congress...
I agree entirely.
Oh! Well now. This clears things up for me. Totally.
I now SUPPORT Sotomayor.
She has experience in ruling against douche-bags.
She will certainly have her hands full in our nations capital.
I would agree had she made the blog on a school's computer...which is not clear here. If, however, she wrote it from home then I vehemently disagree. She has every right to express her opinion under the First Amendment--even as a minor.
> In their opinion, the judges said they were “sympathetic” to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledged her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.”
Wrong call. The punishment did fit the crime. Children calling school superintendents “douche bags” is disrespectful. She has a right to Free Speech, but also a matching responsibility to show Respect for school authorities — or any adult, for that matter. Shame on her mom for enabling her rude behavior.
The school was right to bar this brat from running for Senior Class Secretary. Maybe next time she will keep a civil tongue in her head and show Respect for her elders.
So not only did Judge Sotomeyer get the Free Speech issue wrong, but she also got the answer right for all the wrong reasons — which is even worse!
I agree, tho’ I think Sotomeyer got the answer right, but for all the wrong reasons. It should have gone something like this:
“Young lady, please rise. I am dismissing your case because you should show Respect to your elders. You were very rude to call the School Superintendent a Douche Bag, and I insist you apologize to them immediately, or face Contempt of Court charges forthwith.”
“Ma’am, as Mother of this child you have a responsibility to raise her properly. Instead you have taught her to have a nasty, spiteful temperament and a filthy tongue. And you have dared to darken my Court with this ridiculous case, which I am dismissing. It is wrong for you to enable bad behavior, and this Court refuses to be party to it. Finding is for the Defense, with all costs to be borne by the Plaintiff. Dismissed!”
In this case the School failed. Sometimes the insult does correctly identifies the target.
In school, where officials have authority under a in loco parentis philosophy, I concur. If out of school, no way! You should have the right to call your teacher, your principal, your school board president whatever you want among your peers on a home computer.
If Sotomayor feels this way about teens expressing their opinion about school officials, there is no telling what she'd do if a case came before her in which a citizen was expressing his or her opinion about Lady Pelosi on the street or a certain talk radio personality fuming on the air about Hussein Obama!
>First of all this girl was way out of line calling the administrators “douche bags”.
Really? Respect is a two-way street and let’s face it; positional authority is the weakest sort of authority there is, in that those that [soly] rely on that tend to demand ‘respect’ without giving any of their own.
>She could have expressed her opposition in a more civil manner.
True, but then so could the DHS in it’s Right-Wing extremism report... which was put out by an authority.
>The girl is a minor and as such is and should be subject to the rules set down by school authorities governing student behaviour.
I agree, though with one caveat, and that is that the rules should be enforced AND punished uniformly IN ADDITION TO being carried out in a timely manner.
>Imagine if any kid in school could call their teacher a “douche bag” and get away with it under guise of free speech.
Actually they CAN, technically.My view on this though, is: don’t let your mouth write checks your face can’t cash. {IOW, if you say something, be prepared to pay the consequences.}
>School is about teaching kids respect for authority.
Really? I thought it was about gaining knowledge, understanding, and [hopefully] some wisdom. In my experience, if authority wants respect then it should behave in a respectable manner. {Don’t take this out of context, I’m not saying God is wrong in saying that you should honor your parents.}
>She was clearly in the Wrong and I have no sympathy for her.
That is your prerogative. However, soldiers might “be in the wrong” to, for example, say ‘God, my platoon leader was such an asshat’ after getting off duty (or, let’s say, changing units) but how often does it happen? And how often is it more of a “blowing off steam” than wishing any harm on the guy?
>Sotomayor was right to put this little brat in her place
Again, I am not sure of that... in the end, the student posted this on her blog outside of school, to rule against something like that is analogous to ruling that a government employee may not, in off hours, write about how screwed-up his organization is or on politics without a form or reprisal.
And yes, government agencies usually have, somewhere, the same sort of ‘behavioral codes’ that schools have.
should we start protesting her with douche bag parties?
By your logic, the authorities could bar you from running for political office based on you calling an elected official, or an opponent, a D-Bag on FreeRepublic, or your personal blog ...because, in the eyes of Sotomayer, and here cohorts, your speech could cause “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” in the local government. Then, of course since this is the case, why not go one further, you said something mean spirited/lowbrow/uncivil down at the local shop/bar/rally that could disrupt the peace you should pay the price.
The kid was out of line. It is not the schools responsibility to discipline her when the action takes place away from school ground, or when she is not under school supervision. The schools jurisdiction stops once my kids steps through my door at the very least; if not once they step off school grounds/property. IF she posted it at school, or called them a bad name at school, then they would be within their rights; not in this case, though.
Both of you are dead wrong about this; it is government intrusion pure and simple.
LOL! Can see them hanging from the trees around the SC in DC now...
> You should have the right to call your teacher, your principal, your school board president whatever you want among your peers on a home computer.
Even given the very public nature of computers? It’s not like the Internet is private.
I guess there also remains the question of whether juveniles should have respect for adults by default — particularly those who are in positions of authority, like teachers, like police, like parents. My answer would be “yes” — and I would certainly expect that from my children.
Juveniles are not equals with Adults. That is why they are Juveniles. Adults deserve a modicum of Respect merely by dint of the fact that they are Adults.
Respect costs nothing, and everybody is entitled to Respect at least on some level. Everybody, and I don’t care who. Even Pelosi, even Obama. That doesn’t mean we have to like them, it certainly doesn’t mean we have to defer to them or bow down to them or do as they say. But it does mean that labels like “douche-bag” are probably out-of-line.
It is still quite possible — easy in fact — to use our good manners and still thoroughly dislike and abominate and hold in abject contempt our enemies. Liberals never use their good manners; Conservatives ought to at all times.
(I don’t always, but I should).
No disrespect intended, but your philosophy goes to the very heart of the debate over abortion, IMO. Infants in the womb are not adults therefore have no equal protection right under the law? I fully realize that minors are not adults when it comes to certain privileges (driving, alcohol, tobacco) and are treated differently under courts of law (in most but not all cases as persons as young as 15 have been tried as adults in some states) but they certainly would seem to be treated with the same standards of law when it comes to rights.
If this girl posted from off campus, on a public blog/website, then this ruling is way out of bounds.
I’ve seen other attempts by schools to regulate childrens afterschool/off campus behavior and that should be the parents and law enforcements responsibility. This ruling sounds like another case of slippery slope encroachment.
Could she have called any other citizen a d-bag on her blog and still have run for office?
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.