OsoCoreyell said:
Frank Galvin said:
cowboycwr said:
ScottS said:
cowboycwr said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Maybe this belongs on the political humor thread
How is this not a ln extension of first amendment rights? Like people that wore peace armbands or similar?
Well the judge says it's "demeaning". So your 1st amendment rights are cancelled by a judge if that speech is offensive to someone.
That isn't how the first amendment works. I can think of a few cases where people won that their speech was protected by the first amendment even though it was "offensive" speech.
Not that I agree with the ruling, but the Supreme Court has long held that in some school situations, schools can prohibit offensive speech.
The Supreme Court has held that schools are a limited public forum, meaning that there CAN be some restrictions on speech that would normally not be permitted in a public forum. But in Tinker v. Des Moines ISD the court held that the school could not prohibit students from wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam war. So the present case would seem to be completely covered by Tinker, even if it were the students themselves wearing the arm bands. Since the school is attempting to silence criticism of state policy by the FATHERS of students seems to make the school's position even more shaky. An organization like FIRE or ADF will reverse dunk on this school district.
The sad thing is that this was precisely the kind of case the ACLU would take on behalf of the fathers. That organization's shame and lack of principles is a cautionary tale.
First, I said I didn't agree with the decision.
Second, the distinction this court saw as against Tinker was the expression was aimed at a student and was therefore bullying of the type the school could legally prohibit.
I disagree with that conclusion, but if you accept it there is a constitutional prohibition available.,
