Freedom of speak what you what

Originally posted by techsouth
It was at a school event while the student was under the responsibility of the school staff.

And the fact that it was "non-sensical" seems like it should be taken as irrelevant. I can say all sorts of assinine things and pretend I don't understand the meaning.

Had the SC ruled in the students favor, all sorts of complete crab could be placed on T-sh ...[text shortened]... a Ni****"? Would you suggest the first ammendment prevents the school from having any say?

No I would not personally as thats racist as far as I'm concerend

The point I was trying to make is that freedom os speech is an illuison

What did confusion me a little (and I'm not a US lawyer) is that the student has to live by the law of the land but when he enters the school, lose some of his rights ?

If I'm reading your posting correctly

Originally posted by uzless
Because he was at a school and they have their own set of rules.

I'd like to see a teenager try the freedom of speech excuse for lipping off to his father/mother. Whack!

Or at church, yell out, Jesus was a Ho!!...see how long ya last there.

In the UK, mum's and dad's are not allowed to hit children anymore, in fact the children can get away with a lot now a days (old man mode moan)...back in my day..... (insert comment)

So what your saying is that school rules over ride bill of rights ?

Originally posted by RSMA1234
In the UK, mum's and dad's are not allowed to hit children anymore, in fact the children can get away with a lot now a days (old man mode moan)...back in my day..... (insert comment)

So what your saying is that school rules over ride bill of rights ?

Well I wouldn't say "school rules over Bill of Rights", but I would say and could probably list scores of examples without hardlying thinking about it that within society we enter or participate in institutions/events all the time that temporarily reduce what rights we can invoke at that moment. I would say that "school rules may constrain rights of those under school authority while they are under school authority".

We have freedom of religion, but if I enter a Mosque and start yelling "praise Jesus" over and over I can hardly claim my rights are violated if I'm asked to leave. We have freedom of press, but if I write a newspaper article disparaging my company I can hardly appeal to the Bill of Rights if I get fired ("sacked" for the Queen's English folks). We have freedom of assembly, but if I form a motercycle gang and assembly on my dentist's front lawn, I can scarcely claim my rights are being violated if I am forced to leave.

The school is only slightly more complicated because it is a government institution. There are some rights that cannot be exercised while in school. For example, you can't set up a printing press in your Chemistry class and edit a newspaper while your teacher is giving a test. The Constitution guarantees the right to "keep and bear arms". Are you saying students should be allowed to carry guns to school? I say adults taking responsibility for children need to have a certain amount of authority and ability to dish out punishment if terms are violated. This in no way limits what can be done outside of school.

I asked about a T-shirt that says "my teacher is ni****". You said you would not support it because it is racist. Thas doesn't clearly answer the question. The question is would you judge that someone ought to be free to wear that in school and it is not clear if you're saying that you would not wear it, or if you would not think highly of someone he did wear it, or if the law should forbid anyone from wearing such a shirt in school, or if the law should forbit anyone from wearing such a shirt at any time at any place. Of course you and I would not wear such a shirt neither in school nor out. If you say, "no because it is racist", I can change the T-shirt. How about "my teacher is a ho", or "my teacher is a bit**", or "my teacher is a slut"? I personally think someone ought to be free to wear these outside of school (no matter how stupid they look), but have no problem if a school (or job, or court, or private establishment) does not allow such slogans inside. If we say that "Constitutionally" the school can not punish for "bong hits for Jesus" then that establishes case law for all these other extreme examples.

Originally posted by techsouth
Well I wouldn't say "school rules over Bill of Rights", but I would say and could probably list scores of examples without hardlying thinking about it that within society we enter or participate in institutions/events all the time that temporarily reduce what rights we can invoke at that moment. I would say that "school rules may constrain rights of those ...[text shortened]... n that establishes case law for all these other extreme examples.

Sorry for delay in reply dude, been a bit busy with stuff and not getting blown up in London

I donlt think freedom of speech exists, so while I see you point about children being looked after by adults, they comes a stage when each kid should be reponsiable for his actions.

For example, its ok for a kid (13 year old) to drive a car in the US I take it, but not to express himself how he wished when it is not rascist....so thats where I did have my confusion

Originally posted by smw6869
Say what? I thought the only thing to trump a Supreme Court Ruling was an amendment to the constitution? The Supreme Court has the final say as to what law, passed by the Legislature, is constitutional or not?

Not a lawyer, but here's my take: the Supreme Court interprets existing law but cannot make new laws.

So in this case, they are interpreting the Constitution itself, which is a broad statement. But if the legislature decides to add specifications explaining what "freedom of speech" is or isn't, I don't think the Court would (or could) rule that the new law was unconstitutional -- unless it flagantly violated the Framers original intent.

So the legislature could say, "No, students have the right of free speech on school grounds." I don't see how the court could find that law unconstitutional.

The legislature is supposed to be the most powerful branch because they are closest to "the will of the people."

Originally posted by RSMA1234
Sorry for delay in reply dude, been a bit busy with stuff and not getting blown up in London

I donlt think freedom of speech exists, so while I see you point about children being looked after by adults, they comes a stage when each kid should be reponsiable for his actions.

For example, its ok for a kid (13 year old) to drive a car in the US I take i ...[text shortened]... o express himself how he wished when it is not rascist....so thats where I did have my confusion

Congratulations for not getting blown up (presumably).

On certain theoretical grounds we can argue that freedom of speech does not exist, but I don't think that's what were talking about. There have to be at least some aspired to implications of the first ammendment that would be absent if the first ammendment were not there. Some maniac could kill you for saying the weather is nice, but that would be against the law, so that's not what we're talking about here.

What is your take on the first ammendment?

(a) Kids should be able to say "bong hits for Jesus" in school or out of school with no disciplinary action by the school officials.
(b) Kids should be able to say "bong hits for Jesus" out of school, but not in school if the school does not allow it.
(c) Kids should be able to say "bong hits for Jesus" and "my teacher is a ni****" both in school or out with no reprecussions from the school officials.

-or- some other combination.

BTW: what is your take on the second ammendment?

(a) 18 year olds should be able to carry a gun in public places, but not to school.
(b) 18 year olds should be able to carry a gun to school.
(c) there is no reason the government couldn't outlaw all guns in spite of the second ammendment.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

He had something, so he weren't free.

good enough for me and my bobby mcgee

Originally posted by RSMA1234
Sorry for delay in reply dude, been a bit busy with stuff and not getting blown up in London

I donlt think freedom of speech exists, so while I see you point about children being looked after by adults, they comes a stage when each kid should be reponsiable for his actions.

For example, its ok for a kid (13 year old) to drive a car in the US I take i ...[text shortened]... o express himself how he wished when it is not rascist....so thats where I did have my confusion

No, they have to be 15 for a learner's permit to drive with a licensed driver in the car with them (except on farms). To drive alone, they need to be 16 (and they can't drive in school hallways). It isn't a right, though, and if they used a car for criminal behavior or to advocate criminal behavior there could be consequences. Being responsible for your behavior means accepting the consequences. If he advocated illegal activity and then whined like a baby because he got in trouble for it, how mature is he? There are things you cannot say or do when you are at work that you have the right to do elsewhere. School and school functions are the same way. Even in places where the age of consent is 16 or 18, you still can't do it in the middle of the school cafeteria during lunch time.