Supreme Court busy today *no bong hits for jesus* *+1 for free speech* *-1 atheists*

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by motivez

Speech is protected by the Constitution and the school has no authority to exercise control of what people can and can't say when they're not on school grounds and not in charge of the person.

By agreeing with the ruling, you're saying it's okay for the government to censor speech it doesn't like, because that's what the justices did. They didn't like that he had a pro-drug message and said, well, we're not going to protect it.

It's like a principal coming up to you and your friends at the mall and
suspending you because you are violating school dress code..

not at all. he came to a school event that they had to fill out parental consent forms to go to. Regardless if he came on his own will, he was a student, came to the event promoted by the school and therefore was under school jurisdiction. promoting illegal behavior regarding drugs isn't tolerated on school grounds or during events. I agree with the ruling.

[motivez]

Uh, he went to a public event on public property that the school decided it would send students to. He did not go to class, was not on school property, was legally an adult at 18, and had every right to be there and exercise his constitutionally protected rights.

If you or I go to a public park because I feel like it and a school happens to be there, the teacher, principal, etc, do not get to tell us what we can and can't do, say, wear, or protest at that park simply because they happen to be there.

Much like in that situation, he was not under school jurisdiction because he never went to class and did not attend the event under the supervision of his classroom teacher.

Again, he wasn't on school grounds, and it wasn't a school event, it was a public event: an olympic torch relay, held on public property.

You can agree with it all you want, but you're essentially agreeing with the government having the right to limit whatever speech they find unacceptable for whatever reason they want to find it unacceptable for.

[hsmith]

Any limitation in free speech by the gov't is unconstitutional. End of story.

[IminWonderland]

That whole thing just reeks. It was harmless for that kid to do that, and he wasn't breaking any laws. I am telling you, we need a sticker campaign for this.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

not at all. he came to a school event that they had to fill out parental consent forms to go to. Regardless if he came on his own will, he was a student, came to the event promoted by the school and therefore was under school jurisdiction. promoting illegal behavior regarding drugs isn't tolerated on school grounds or during events. I agree with the ruling.

an Olympic torch relay on public property is not a school event no matter if the entire school population attends

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by motivez

If you or I go to a public park because I feel like it and a school happens to be there, the teacher, principal, etc, do not get to tell us what we can and can't do, say, wear, or protest at that park simply because they happen to be there.

if you come over to the kids in said park, even if you're a student playing "hooky" and promote illegal behavior, you're damned right the school has the right to do something about it.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

if you come over to the kids in said park, even if you're a student playing "hooky" and promote illegal behavior, you're damned right the school has the right to do something about it.

lessons learned today:

Linzy is an authoritarian

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by thomez

lessons learned today:

Linzy is an authoritarian

don't you forget it!

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Uh, he went to a public event on public property that the school decided it would send students to. He did not go to class, was not on school property, was legally an adult at 18, and had every right to be there and exercise his constitutionally protected rights.

If you or I go to a public park because I feel like it and a school happens to be there, the teacher, principal, etc, do not get to tell us what we can and can't do, say, wear, or protest at that park simply because they happen to be there.

Much like in that situation, he was not under school jurisdiction because he never went to class and did not attend the event under the supervision of his classroom teacher.

Again, he wasn't on school grounds, and it wasn't a school event, it was a public event: an olympic torch relay, held on public property.

You can agree with it all you want, but you're essentially agreeing with the government having the right to limit whatever speech they find unacceptable for whatever reason they want to find it unacceptable for.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Any limitation in free speech by the gov't is unconstitutional. End of story.

so you think that students should be allowed to say whatever whenever in schools?

or how about if you try to protest inside a courtroom and the judge has you removed?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes, schools would cease to operate if there were no restrictions on free speech.

Much like you don't have free speech rights in government buildings. They are also places of business and need to operate

Oh, what clause is this or is it just implied? Regardless in this case I am totally opposed to the actions of the school (as I am apposed to almost all censorship)

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

not at all. he came to a school event that they had to fill out parental consent forms to go to. Regardless if he came on his own will, he was a student, came to the event promoted by the school and therefore was under school jurisdiction. promoting illegal behavior regarding drugs isn't tolerated on school grounds or during events. I agree with the ruling.

He did not go in an offical capacity, they school should have no say over what he does when not being supervised. This akin to punishing someone for having a differnet opinion, and is IMO, morally wrong.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

Uh, he went to a public event on public property that the school decided it would send students to. He did not go to class, was not on school property, was legally an adult at 18, and had every right to be there and exercise his constitutionally protected rights.

If you or I go to a public park because I feel like it and a school happens to be there, the teacher, principal, etc, do not get to tell us what we can and can't do, say, wear, or protest at that park simply because they happen to be there.

Much like in that situation, he was not under school jurisdiction because he never went to class and did not attend the event under the supervision of his classroom teacher.

Again, he wasn't on school grounds, and it wasn't a school event, it was a public event: an olympic torch relay, held on public property.

You can agree with it all you want, but you're essentially agreeing with the government having the right to limit whatever speech they find unacceptable for whatever reason they want to find it unacceptable for.

I am going to go with Motivez again on this one. The issue was not the proper legal right of schools to restrict free speech. This instance was beyond a reasonable interpretation of that right. I don't see why it even went to court?

[6SpeedTA95]

CNN has basically said that much of what has been mentioned as "fact" in this thread was incorrect.

According to CNN the kid was ON school property. In which case I would agree with the supreme court. If he is NOT on school property then I do not...

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

CNN has basically said that much of what has been mentioned as "fact" in this thread was incorrect.

According to CNN the kid was ON school property. In which case I would agree with the supreme court. If he is NOT on school property then I do not...

Uh, what? The CNN article linked earlier in the thread says this:

'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case limits student rights - CNN.com

Originally Posted by CNN

Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.

[Kytro]

I'd still like to see where the constitution allows public institutions to restrict free speech because they disagree with the message.

[thomez]

I believe he was across the street from the school, everything I have read has said such.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Uh, what? The CNN article linked earlier in the thread says this:

'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case limits student rights - CNN.com

CNN on one of their shows at just after 7:30 last night said it was on school property.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

CNN on one of their shows at just after 7:30 last night said it was on school property.

well, I think it is safe to say that they are wrong because no other source says that