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

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by thomez

obviously the issue was decided wrongly because of the message

if the school came across the street and took a banner from him that said "I LOVE JESUS" and then suspended him for 10 days, I imagine a much different court ruling in this case

instead, it is a drug message...

bad metaphor. "loving jesus" isn't promoting illegal activity. you can't have drugs within a certain radius around a school or it's a much more hefty sentence... i would assume promoting drugs would go alone that line as well. and if it's in front of the school, shouting obscenities at a teacher, even if the student was on the public sidewalk off school property, they can still discipline the student for that. he's still a student playing hooky, going to an event where he knew fellow classmates and teachers would be, and intentionally causing a ruckus with that banner. i'm sure he would have gotten in trouble if the banner said Principal so-and-so takes it in the butt. he's still intentionally doing it to be seen by the school and teachers, he got what he deserves.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

bad metaphor. "loving jesus" isn't promoting illegal activity. you can't have drugs within a certain radius around a school or it's a much more hefty sentence... i would assume promoting drugs would go alone that line as well. and if it's in front of the school, shouting obscenities at a teacher, even if the student was on the public sidewalk off school property, they can still discipline the student for that. he's still a student playing hooky, going to an event where he knew fellow classmates and teachers would be, and intentionally causing a ruckus with that banner. i'm sure he would have gotten in trouble if the banner said Principal so-and-so takes it in the butt. he's still intentionally doing it to be seen by the school and teachers, he got what he deserves.

Just because a comment is unpopular or attention-seeking doesn't make it unprotected speech. The KKK often intentionally held rallies on MLK Jr. day in the same general area of town as an MLK Jr parade, because they were seeking attention. They had every right to do so, and police were forced (whether they agreed or not) to protect their right to rally. And even though what they advocated was illegal (namely, racism and destruction of blacks/jews/etc.), they had every legal right to speak about it so long as they did not actually act on it.

He was not on school grounds nor at a school sponsored event, thus as an 18 year old he had every right to display his sign. Talking about drugs is not equivalent to doing drugs, and further a bong can be used for much more than just illegal substances.

It was a poor decision by the Courts, and had everything to do with their personal beliefs and nothing to do with Constitutionality. Judicial activism ftl.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Publius

Just because a comment is unpopular or attention-seeking doesn't make it unprotected speech. The KKK often intentionally held rallies on MLK Jr. day in the same general area of town as an MLK Jr parade, because they were seeking attention. They had every right to do so, and police were forced (whether they agreed or not) to protect their right to rally. And even though what they advocated was illegal (namely, racism and destruction of blacks/jews/etc.), they had every legal right to speak about it so long as they did not actually act on it.

He was not on school grounds nor at a school sponsored event, thus as an 18 year old he had every right to display his sign. Talking about drugs is not equivalent to doing drugs, and further a bong can be used for much more than just illegal substances.

It was a poor decision by the Courts, and had everything to do with their personal beliefs and nothing to do with Constitutionality. Judicial activism ftl.

but being a highschool student subjects you to the rules and authority of the highschool. he would get in trouble IN the school for doing the same thing. being outside at an event where the school attended is the same end result.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

but being a highschool student subjects you to the rules and authority of the highschool. he would get in trouble IN the school for doing the same thing. being outside at an event where the school attended is the same end result.

But it SHOULDN'T be. The whole idea that high school students are subjected to restraints on their Constitutional rights is based on being INSIDE the school or at a specific SCHOOL function which you are attending at the behest of the school. Attending a torch ceremony on his own does not put him under the jurisdiction of the school, just because his school was also there.

Legally speaking, I could've walked up to my high school principal at the mall and told her to go fuck herself, and she couldn't do a single thing to me. If she did, it would be an abuse of power that SHOULD be struck down in Court. The ONLY reason this guy was ruled against by the Court is because the message was "pro-drug" in the eyes of the judges. They let their personal beliefs cloud their Constitutional judgment.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Publius

But it SHOULDN'T be. The whole idea that high school students are subjected to restraints on their Constitutional rights is based on being INSIDE the school or at a specific SCHOOL function which you are attending at the behest of the school. Attending a torch ceremony on his own does not put him under the jurisdiction of the school, just because his school was also there.

Legally speaking, I could've walked up to my high school principal at the mall and told her to go fuck herself, and she couldn't do a single thing to me. If she did, it would be an abuse of power that SHOULD be struck down in Court. The ONLY reason this guy was ruled against by the Court is because the message was "pro-drug" in the eyes of the judges. They let their personal beliefs cloud their Constitutional judgment.

no it should. he was playing hooky. if your teachers see you playing hooky you can get in trouble by the school. he's still a student. he could have dropped out, but he was a student. he was promoting an illegal activity which students don't have a right to do.

and your teacher MOST CERTAINLY has a right to discipline you if you told her that. if you are still a student and she is your teacher, if you said that to her out of school, you would still be in trouble AT school for that.

if you had graduated, she could press charges against you legally for slander or something, but being a student, it's easier to give you detention.

if you're a student, you are subject to the rules of the school.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

no it should. he was playing hooky. if your teachers see you playing hooky you can get in trouble by the school. he's still a student. he could have dropped out, but he was a student. he was promoting an illegal activity which students don't have a right to do.

Was he actually playing hooky, or was he kept out of school that day with parental permission? I've heard both, but if it is the second he has every right to be wherever the hell he wants if his parents called the school and informed him he wouldn't be there that day.

and your teacher MOST CERTAINLY has a right to discipline you if you told her that. if you are still a student and she is your teacher, if you said that to her out of school, you would still be in trouble AT school for that.

if you had graduated, she could press charges against you legally for slander or something, but being a student, it's easier to give you detention.

if you're a student, you are subject to the rules of the school.

Note that I said LEGALLY SPEAKING they have no right to do so. Outside of school, especially if you're of legal age to no longer be considered a minor, your principal or teacher has no more legal right to treat you as a subordinate than they have the right to treat a 60 year old man as one.

Teachers and School Administrators are not police officers. Unless on a school sponsored trip their authority over students ends at the edge of the school's property.

Show me where legally a teacher is allowed to discipline you for something you do outside of school in a completely unrelated environment. And don't point to this case, because we're arguing the merits of this case right now.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Publius

Was he actually playing hooky, or was he kept out of school that day with parental permission? I've heard both, but if it is the second he has every right to be wherever the hell he wants if his parents called the school and informed him he wouldn't be there that day.

Note that I said LEGALLY SPEAKING they have no right to do so. Outside of school, especially if you're of legal age to no longer be considered a minor, your principal or teacher has no more legal right to treat you as a subordinate than they have the right to treat a 60 year old man as one.

Teachers and School Administrators are not police officers. Unless on a school sponsored trip their authority over students ends at the edge of the school's property.

Show me where legally a teacher is allowed to discipline you for something you do outside of school in a completely unrelated environment. And don't point to this case, because we're arguing the merits of this case right now.

teachers have that right over students. they deserve respect in and out of school for simply being their teachers. if a student (regardless if they're 18 or 16) disrespects a teacher to their face, in or out of school, that teacher can discipline the student. i don't have any "cases". I have experience in school. you can't say a student can give a teacher the finger outside of school and not get in trouble with the school for that.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

teachers have that right over students. they deserve respect in and out of school for simply being their teachers. if a student (regardless if they're 18 or 16) disrespects a teacher to their face, in or out of school, that teacher can discipline the student. i don't have any "cases". I have experience in school. you can't say a student can give a teacher the finger outside of school and not get in trouble with the school for that.

That may be what actually happens, but legally speaking there are NO grounds for teachers/administrators to assert dominance over a student outside of school/school sponsored events. If a student with deep enough pockets actually challenged a disciplinary action for something that occurred somewhere completely outside of school or a school related event (i.e., got a suspension for telling the principal to fuck off at the mall over the weekend), the courts would have to rule in favor of the student in order to be consistent with our current laws.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Publius

That may be what actually happens, but legally speaking there are NO grounds for teachers/administrators to assert dominance over a student outside of school/school sponsored events. If a student with deep enough pockets actually challenged a disciplinary action for something that occurred somewhere completely outside of school or a school related event (i.e., got a suspension for telling the principal to fuck off at the mall over the weekend), the courts would have to rule in favor of the student in order to be consistent with our current laws.

disagreed. it's a respect issue. common sense. telling someone to fuck off is not legally protected as it can be considered a threat or slander.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Publius

That may be what actually happens, but legally speaking there are NO grounds for teachers/administrators to assert dominance over a student outside of school/school sponsored events. If a student with deep enough pockets actually challenged a disciplinary action for something that occurred somewhere completely outside of school or a school related event (i.e., got a suspension for telling the principal to fuck off at the mall over the weekend), the courts would have to rule in favor of the student in order to be consistent with our current laws.

I agree with Linzyhop in everything she has been saying. You are making arguments based on a non-existent never/never land scenario. You keep saying "legally" but the Supreme Court disagrees with you as well, so your "legal" arguments fall short. Maybe you can say "ideally" instead of "legally" and, though I would still disagree with you, your language would be more correct.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

disagreed. it's a respect issue. common sense. telling someone to fuck off is not legally protected as it can be considered a threat or slander.

"fuck off" is not a threat or slander

by the way you are using the word slander, it leads me to believe you do not know what it really means

slan·der /ˈslændər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slan-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
–verb (used with object)
4. to utter slander against; defame.
–verb (used without object)
5. to utter or circulate slander.

to slander someone is to say something that is not true about them, like spreading a rumor that John McCain has children with black women... that is slander

telling someone to fuck off is most certainly not slander... it is not an untrue statement about someone

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I agree with Linzyhop in everything she has been saying. You are making arguments based on a non-existent never/never land scenario. You keep saying "legally" but the Supreme Court disagrees with you as well, so your "legal" arguments fall short. Maybe you can say "ideally" instead of "legally" and, though I would still disagree with you, your language would be more correct.

the Supreme Court has often been wrong as well, keep that in mind

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by thomez

the Supreme Court has often been wrong as well, keep that in mind

You gotta remember, they are only wrong when I don't agree with their decision

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I agree with Linzyhop in everything she has been saying. You are making arguments based on a non-existent never/never land scenario. You keep saying "legally" but the Supreme Court disagrees with you as well, so your "legal" arguments fall short. Maybe you can say "ideally" instead of "legally" and, though I would still disagree with you, your language would be more correct.

Actually according to Justice Abe Fortas, writing the opinion for the majority rulng in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" and ". . . In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views."

Further, in Cohen v. California Justin Harlan, writing for the majority, stated that:

"[A]bsent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions" [...] "the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."

and further, famously:

"One man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

Given that this kid was not a minor, nor on school property at the time of the "incident" he is protected by non-school related free speech rights as well, even though Tinker v. Des Moines should protect his decision anyway.

The Supreme Court dropped the ball on this case, and has reversed several precedents set by prior courts in both school free speech cases and general free speech cases. They allowed their personal opinions regarding drugs override case law precedent as well as Constitutionality in order to make this decision.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You gotta remember, they are only wrong when I don't agree with their decision

Well, I think that holds true for the both of us

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by thomez

Well, I think that holds true for the both of us

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by thomez

"fuck off" is not a threat or slander

if you say it in a threatening manor, it can certainly be a threat.

by the way you are using the word slander, it leads me to believe you do not know what it really means

i know exactly what it means. if you get into name calling, and they call you something, that is slander. in the instance of saying Fuck off, it's usually followed with more choice words.

telling someone to fuck off is most certainly not slander... it is not an untrue statement about someone

if it's said in a malicious threatening way it can be legal reprehensible. or if you said something true about someone and that led to them getting paid less or getting less work than before and it could be proven, that's also slander.....