Quote :

"mommy and daddy are parroting back what the kid tells them to say?"

try again

8/31/2006 3:43:18 PM

Quote :

"mommy and daddy are parroting back what the kid tells them to say?"

You know what he meant. Kids say the opposite of what their parents say.

8/31/2006 3:43:55 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: By disrupting the activities you are infringing on the rights of others to have their education."

By disallowing political content on t-shirts, you're infringing on the rights of others to free expression--a far older, and more foundational compelling interest of the state. Also, unlike the "right to an education," which I'm still think exists, free speech is specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights.

By whispering to your neighbor, leaning over exposing cleavage, and screaming in the middle of class, you'd be infringing on their rights to an education. You rarely see the local police force called over the matter, though.

It's a tough situation, and nothing you can move one way on without pulling away from the other. It's terribly frustrating in this aspect.

Nonetheless, why resort to a blanket denial of free speech as a solution?

I can appreciate the interests of fairness and all, it just seems a little too robotic to me.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: This is especialy easy to argue as more schools impliment "hostile environment" speech policies (where by any speech or action deemed to create a hostile environment for a student is forbidden)."

"Hostile environment" speech sounds suspiciously like "hate speech" or "threat."

The latter is a well-defined limitation of free speech that applies inside and out of the classroom. The former has to do with personal safety.

I'd firmly agree that pro-Nazi propaganda (read: not a swastika alone) on a t-shirt is rather inappropriate because I could see how a reasonable student of Jewish descent could feel very threatened in that classroom, and unable to concentrate on his or her studies well enough to call it a fair education.

That's fundamentally different, and you seem to partially agree, than wearing something with a message other people disagree with, though.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: That said, I would also argue that the disruption has to be a real disruption."

Before we go any further, a disruption of what exactly?

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: It didn't. But it did cause some girl to whine to a teacher, who talked to a department head who went to the principal who decided it created a "hostile environment"."

I wish whoever it was would've at least tried to sue the school. I doubt that's a legally tenable argument, but I'm definitely not a lawyer. Problem is, who has the time, money, and doesn't mind the spectacle?

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: To a degree, it seems to depend on which right of the student we're talking about. For example, as far as I can recall (and I admit it's been a while since I read up on the cases) searches of student property were considerably easier to justify in school (though I don't remember whether blanket authority was granted to search book bags or not)."

Back in my legal class (c. '03), our prof taught us that each protection afforded by Bill of Rights isn't treated equally by the court system. They have a lengthy history of granting broader protections of speech--especially political speech--than protections from search and seizure, as per your example.

The reasoning he gave was that free speech been a central founding principle of our nation, which had been established many times over via jurispudence. I haven't read every precedent back to the founding, but forgive me for taking his word on it.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ...]

8/31/2006 3:56:03 PM

Quote :

" What extends the absolute authority over the rights of a student to the state?"

Minors dont know what is in their best interest, they are not adults yet and should not hold the same rights. They must listen to their parents or school at all times unless those authorities are breaking legislated law or asking them to do so.

Everyone recognizes this when it applies to whether a child can choose to have sex, choose not to go to school, choose to run away from home, etc. If a child does not have any of these basic rights that all adults have, how is it determined that they have any type of freedom of speech?

It is important that schools, to a certain extent, have many of the same powers as parents, so that they can maintain order and foster good behaviour in children. If they abuse their authority then it is on the school board or elected officials to step in, not the court by applying the constitution.

Now should the school allow a student to express certain political opinions? In most cases yes, but they should not have a right to do so.

Furthermore, I think there are very good reasons why a school should ban certain forms of non-disruptive political speech:

It should be the responsibility of our public school system to help make an informed and educated democratic citizenry. This, I think, would entail steering them away from the stupid emotionalism found in political t-shirts and toward a more civilized understanding and debate of politics.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/31/2006 4:16:30 PM

damn parents, if you dont like a classmates shirt you punch them in the face
no reason to get anyone involved

8/31/2006 4:32:34 PM

^^ You've conflated two issues. The question wasn't "why don't students have the same rights as adults," it was "what extends the absolute authority over the rights of a student to the state?"

8/31/2006 5:02:31 PM

^I dont think I did.

I said that the state and parents have to determine what is best for a child because a child does not have the capicity to determine that for themselves. They both have to play some role in trying to ensure that the child becomes a behaved, law-abiding, and productive citizen. To acheive these goals, that authority is needed.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ]

8/31/2006 5:15:03 PM

Quote :

"I dont think I did."

Quote :

"Minors dont know what is in their best interest, they are not adults yet and should not hold the same rights."

Uhm...

8/31/2006 5:37:39 PM

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 5:57 PM. Reason : decided I dont care]

8/31/2006 5:51:51 PM