Author Topic: Freedom Of Speech Overturned (Read 2563 times)

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #45 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:24:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
He was NOT IN SCHOOL. What part of that is hard to understand? The position the majority took was the procecutions assessment that anytime during school hours your children are property of the school and subject to any and all whims of the district whether in class or not.

The school is now a police force with unlimited jurisdiction.

The word is "prosecution".

And by the way, in many states, your child, who is enrolled in the school system, IS under the control of the school system during school hours. If he/she is absent without excuse, they can send the truant officer to pick him/her up, and if you interfere, or allow him/her to skip school, they can pick you up too. Been that way for a good 50+ years around here, and in many other states. So yeah, if he skipped school, and then violated school policy as well, he can be punished for BOTH offenses.

And the truth is, if he'd skipped school, and then went out in front of the building next door to the school and held up a sign saying "Pray, God is Great!", and the school busted him, half the liberals wouldn't give a **** about it.

Oh, and "free speech experiment" my ass. He likes pot, and got busted for it. He thought it would be cool to hold up his pot head slogan and get on TV, and got busted. The "free speech experiment" crap came later, after he got his stupid bellybutton busted.

rpm · « **Reply #46 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:29:58 PM »

Thank you, Virgil. You prove my point for me.

If it had been a PC message he was displaying it would have been just fine. It was the "thought" behind the message that made it illegal.

Watch for freedom of the press to be the next casualty.

DYNAMITE · « **Reply #47 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:30:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by myelo
RPM, read the court's decision , get back with me and we'll talk.

I take it that you've read it then?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #48 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:41:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Thank you, Virgil. You prove my point for me.

If it had been a PC message he was displaying it would have been just fine. It was the "thought" behind the message that made it illegal.

Watch for freedom of the press to be the next casualty.

And at this particular school sanctioned activity, during school hours, the faculty used its responsibility as charged by its legal control and charge of the child in lieu of and as a substitute for the parent.

We are not talking of full citizen rights here; we are talking of children in custody of parents and the parents agents (the school). Parents are fully within their rights for correcting behavior of their children, and when that right is transferred to the school, the school is within the parental right umbrella.

rpm · « **Reply #49 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:44:45 PM »

He did not go to school that day, at all. M'kay??

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #50 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:51:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
He did not go to school that day, at all. M'kay??

Well then he should have been sanctioned for truancy... the brat.

He is a student at that school, showed at a school sponsored activity. The school had authority under their assumed guardianship to do what they did.

I think they did not go far enough. They should have wrestled the brat into class and made him learn some algebra.

rpm · « **Reply #51 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:54:50 PM »

He was on a public street off campus not while in class attendence. You support the unlimited jurisdiction theory, I see.

Xargos · « **Reply #52 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:58:53 PM »

Would it be alright to prevent the students from displaying a banner that stated Man Made Global Warming is a Hoax?

rpm · « **Reply #53 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:58:58 PM »

I can't wait to hear you guys howl when the school dictates what you can feed your kids at home. One local district already refuses to let kids take "homemade" lunches to school. However, "Lunchables" are acceptable.

rpm · « **Reply #54 on:** June 25, 2007, 11:00:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Xargos
Would it be alright to prevent the students from displaying a banner that stated Man Made Global Warming is a Hoax?

That is disruptive and may cause free thought and discussion. ILLEGAL!!!

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #55 on:** June 25, 2007, 11:01:10 PM »

I support the school asserting parental authority. As they have the legal right and responsibility to do.

The parallel I drew about the prom at the hotel ballroom comes back into play here.

If some kid shows up at the prom (the bong kid showed up at a school sanctioned activity) the faculty has the right and responsibility to control the situation the way a parent would.

If some kid shows up at the field trip to the museum, (the bong kid showed up at a school sanctioned activity) the faculty has the right and responsibility to control the situation the way a parent would.

If some kid shows up at the championship basketball game held at the local civic center, (the bong kid showed up at a school sanctioned activity) the faculty has the right and responsibility to control the situation the way a parent would.

Unlimited police power is not what the school has, the school has parental authority.

Shuckins · « **Reply #56 on:** June 25, 2007, 11:04:09 PM »

While the laws regulating behavior at schools undoubtedly vary from state to state, they all follow a general pattern. If a child is absent from school without a plausible excuse he is considered truant. If that is the case, he is technically still considered to be under the care and authority of school officials.

Being truant is a violation of the law. If a truant student were to show up at a field trip or other school function under supervision of school officials, they are empowered to have him reported to authorities and picked up.

The location of the incident is of no consequence. The students standing with the spoiled brat were participating in a school function. The student body was standing on both sides of the street to see the olympic flame pass. Some of its members helped him hold the banner.

His refusal to comply with the principal's direction to take down the banner can be construed as an attempt to incite other students to flout school authority. Whether absent or not, when he stepped into the group of his fellow students, he was technically under school authority. Being truant would make the offense even worse.

I've had students who were excluded from one of my field trips because of personal misconduct skip school and try to intercept the group I was sponsoring. Some of them have given me some sass because I wouldn't let them on the bus....evidently thinking that since they weren't in school, I couldn't do anything about it.

Wrong. They've got to come back to school eventually or be in violation of state law. When they do, I march them to the office with a smile on my face.

The punk was still under school authority, whether he wants to admit it or not.

rpm · « **Reply #57 on:** June 25, 2007, 11:08:18 PM »

The school has become the Nanny, Jr.

It enforces state sponsored thought and punishes free speech.

Quote

“This decision seems to create a drug exception to First Amendment with respect to student speech without any real justification about why the student free speech can be censored..."

Quote

“t is one thing to restrict speech that advocates drug use,” Stevens wrote. “It is another thing entirely to prohibit an obscure message with a drug theme that a third party subjectively — and not very reasonably — thinks is tantamount to express advocacy.”

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #58 on:** June 25, 2007, 11:11:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
He did not go to school that day, at all. M'kay??

It doesn't matter if he went to school that day. Don't you get the fact that if he's supposed to be at school, and his absence is not excused, the school has jurisdiction over him? (of course not, that little fact doesn't fit your agenda so you conveniently ignore it) If he was supposed to be at school, and the school allowed the other students out for the torch deal, and he interacted with other students, he's even further in the wrong.

And the only thing I proved in the other post is that you'd take the bait. You did. Try spitting the hook.

It doesn't matter what his message was, he was in violation of school policy, on several levels, and got busted. His sad attempt to drag "free speech" into it AFTER the fact just makes him stupid, and anyone that falls for it just as stupid.

rpm · « **Reply #59 on:** June 25, 2007, 11:12:55 PM »

Shuckins, I completely agree with refusing to let them on the bus. They are not in class. However if the kid was across the street from the site of the trip wearing a "Bong hits 4 Jesus" shirt he is exempt from your, the principal or school administrations authority.

This is just another right urinated upon by Bush and his "comrades".