Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong again, Fakey. There is no category for having a picture of a gun on your shirt.
yes, you are wrong again. the rules and regs were clear. the boy defied the teacher, defied the principal, defied the police. a psychiatric hospital for teenage boys who do not get it is in his future.
No, he defied what is known as the Political Correctness police. You on the other hand defy all logic. Saying that people expressing their political beliefs belong in mental institutions is pretty out of touch.
Show us where it says he can. bripat, you are so losing on this. What does your communist WHO literature of have to say about it, comrade?
Yes, it was. The neo-anarchist and libertarian faux rage here fools no one.
Wrong again, Fakey. There is no category for having a picture of a gun on your shirt.
yes, you are wrong again. the rules and regs were clear. the boy defied the teacher, defied the principal, defied the police. a psychiatric hospital for teenage boys who do not get it is in his future.
as i predicted before, this kid will not be charged and will face no time
But the school rules do not trump a student's right to free expression. You obviously would give up your liberty for love of of the written rule.
The First Amendment grandstanding would be so much more believable if it wasn't coming from people who had no problem with many of the other right eliminations in schools.
For instance? From what I've seen, libturds are behind most campaigns to eliminate student rights.
as i predicted before, this kid will not be charged and will face no time
Of course.
Also, a school can suspend you for delivering a speech filled with lewd language, per Bethel School District v. Fraser.
Show us where it says he can. bripat, you are so losing on this. What does your communist WHO literature of have to say about it, comrade?
Also, a school can suspend you for delivering a speech filled with lewd language, per Bethel School District v. Fraser.
Supporting the 2nd Amendment is lewd speech?
Show us where it says he can. bripat, you are so losing on this. What does your communist WHO literature of have to say about it, comrade?
There's no law saying you're allowed to take a shit in the woods, so according to your theory of jurist prudence that means it's illegal, right?
The First Amendment grandstanding would be so much more believable if it wasn't coming from people who had no problem with many of the other right eliminations in schools.
For instance? From what I've seen, libturds are behind most campaigns to eliminate student rights.
We can start with the search cases, which state school officials don't need probable cause to search a student. That was written by that well-known 'libturd' Rehnquest.
Or sticking to free speech cases, schools can ban pro-drug use banners. That was written by another well-known 'libturd' Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.
Also, a school can suspend you for delivering a speech filled with lewd language, per Bethel School District v. Fraser.
Supporting the 2nd Amendment is lewd speech?
That's a red herring. The issue is the GUN on the shirt.
Also, a school can suspend you for delivering a speech filled with lewd language, per Bethel School District v. Fraser.
For instance? From what I've seen, libturds are behind most campaigns to eliminate student rights.
We can start with the search cases, which state school officials don't need probable cause to search a student. That was written by that well-known 'libturd' Rehnquest.
Or sticking to free speech cases, schools can ban pro-drug use banners. That was written by another well-known 'libturd' Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.
If they can ban T-shirts that are "violent" or "sexist" then why can't they ban pro-drug use banners? The rule that schools can ban speech they don't like was approved by the court long ago.
The First Amendment grandstanding would be so much more believable if it wasn't coming from people who had no problem with many of the other right eliminations in schools.
For instance? From what I've seen, libturds are behind most campaigns to eliminate student rights.
We can start with the search cases, which state school officials don't need probable cause to search a student. That was written by that well-known 'libturd' Rehnquest.
Or sticking to free speech cases, schools can ban pro-drug use banners. That was written by another well-known 'libturd' Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.
We can start with the search cases, which state school officials don't need probable cause to search a student. That was written by that well-known 'libturd' Rehnquest.
Or sticking to free speech cases, schools can ban pro-drug use banners. That was written by another well-known 'libturd' Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.
If they can ban T-shirts that are "violent" or "sexist" then why can't they ban pro-drug use banners? The rule that schools can ban speech they don't like was approved by the court long ago.
They can ban pro-drug banners. See Morse v. Frederick.
Also, a school can suspend you for delivering a speech filled with lewd language, per Bethel School District v. Fraser.
That was approved by the Burger Court - a big right-winger there, right?
