A Culture of Intolerance

[LoneLaugher]

Hey TK....public schools are public places. Why not head down to your local public HS and set up a dead fetus booth in the gym? Could be fun.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In order to restrict the speech of a student, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would disrupt the operation of the school itself. Otherwise, you can't arbitrarily stop a student from expressing themselves.

 

[Luissa]

In order to restrict the speech of a student, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would disrupt the operation of the school itself. Otherwise, you can't arbitrarily stop a student from expressing themselves.

She was not punished, therefore her freedom of speech was not illegally regulated. And if you would look up Bethel and Hazelwood, which were rulings after Tinker, you would realize the principal had every right to not allow the booth.



Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.

Shelton v. Tucker 364 U.S. 479 (1960)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In order to restrict the speech of a student, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would disrupt the operation of the school itself. Otherwise, you can't arbitrarily stop a student from expressing themselves.

That is incorrect. It's not a trial, it's more like your mother saying do as I say or I'm put you over my knee right here right now and spank you into next week. We figure out whether she should have spanked you, and if it was too hard, after the fact.

And I cannot help you to understand what I and the courts have long ago accepted. Once on their property you are their kid, until you come to get them, and you may still have rights but for the most part, you're a kid so behave yourself and do as they tell you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

In order to restrict the speech of a student, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would disrupt the operation of the school itself. Otherwise, you can't arbitrarily stop a student from expressing themselves.

Yes, you can.

I once got caught singing the Billy Squire tune "The Stroke" in the hallway in Middle School. Not loud or anything. I was just in a good mood and on my way back to class from the restroom. I was going down a flight of stairs singing and our principal, Mr. Donovan was on his way up. Ooops!

He grabbed me by the shirt and walked me to his office where he proceeded to whack my ass with his paddle.

I was stopped from singing.....and speaking and told to never, ever, ever sing in the hallway again.

Should I have sued ?

 

[Luissa]

The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.

Shelton v. Tucker 364 U.S. 479 (1960)

It a booth for her club right?
"In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the circuit court.[9] Its majority opinion set a precedent that school-sponsored activities, including student newspapers and drama productions are not normally protected from administrative censorship by the First Amendment.[10]"

""A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. ... (Judicial action to protect students' rights is justified) only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose."[10]"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_v._Kuhlmeier

Expressing your views on abortion is not a valid educational tool.
The Principal had every right to not allow the booth.



Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Luissa]

In order to restrict the speech of a student, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would disrupt the operation of the school itself. Otherwise, you can't arbitrarily stop a student from expressing themselves.

Beyond a reasonable doubt? So now you are making up things up??

I really can't handle people have no concept of Freedom of Speech.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In order to restrict the speech of a student, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would disrupt the operation of the school itself. Otherwise, you can't arbitrarily stop a student from expressing themselves.

That is incorrect. It's not a trial, it's more like your mother saying do as I say or I'm put you over my knee right here right now and spank you into next week. We figure out whether she should have spanked you, and if it was too hard, after the fact.

And I cannot help you to understand what I and the courts have long ago accepted. Once on their property you are their kid, until you come to get them, and you may still have rights but for the most part, you're a kid so behave yourself and do as they tell you.

You aren't citing any case law, nor any opnion that contradicts my position.

In Hammond v. South Carolina State College, 272 F.Supp. 947 (D.C. S.C.1967), District Judge Hemphill had before him a case involving a meeting on campus of 300 students to express their views on school practices. He pointed out that a school is not like a hospital or a jail enclosure. Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966). It is a public place, and its dedication to specific uses does not imply that the constitutional rights of persons entitled to be there are to be gauged as if the premises were purely private property. Cf. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

 

[J.E.D]

/thread......or it should be. TK will continue to argue even though he has been proven wrong over and over. He can't admit when he's wrong. It's his fatal flaw.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In order to restrict the speech of a student, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would disrupt the operation of the school itself. Otherwise, you can't arbitrarily stop a student from expressing themselves.

That is incorrect. It's not a trial, it's more like your mother saying do as I say or I'm put you over my knee right here right now and spank you into next week. We figure out whether she should have spanked you, and if it was too hard, after the fact.

And I cannot help you to understand what I and the courts have long ago accepted. Once on their property you are their kid, until you come to get them, and you may still have rights but for the most part, you're a kid so behave yourself and do as they tell you.

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what you're talking about. It's also clear that the court disagrees with you here. I'm again under the impression that you think the courts are always correct in their rulings. Yet, you just told me the Supreme Court ruling on Tinker was wrong. I'd like to see where this case was overturned in any sort of way. If you have any adequate knowledge of case law, I invite you to do so.

You're insulting my intelligence, PMH.

 

[J.E.D]

 

[blackhawk]

I wonder if the school would have had the same feelings over a pro choice display set during lunch? I can't say for sure but my best guess would be no.

 

[LoneLaugher]

In order to restrict the speech of a student, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would disrupt the operation of the school itself. Otherwise, you can't arbitrarily stop a student from expressing themselves.

That is incorrect. It's not a trial, it's more like your mother saying do as I say or I'm put you over my knee right here right now and spank you into next week. We figure out whether she should have spanked you, and if it was too hard, after the fact.

And I cannot help you to understand what I and the courts have long ago accepted. Once on their property you are their kid, until you come to get them, and you may still have rights but for the most part, you're a kid so behave yourself and do as they tell you.

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what you're talking about. It's also clear that the court disagrees with you here. I'm again under the impression that you think the courts are always correct in their rulings. Yet, you just told me the Supreme Court ruling on Tinker was wrong. I'd like to see where this case was overturned in any sort of way. If you have any adequate knowledge of case law, I invite you to do so.

You're insulting my intelligence, PMH.

You insult your own intelligence. Every day.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder if the school would have had the same feelings over a pro choice display set during lunch? I can't say for sure but my best guess would be no.

I am shocked. Two idiots came up with the same dopey thought. That NEVER happens here.

 

[Luissa]

I wonder if the school would have had the same feelings over a pro choice display set during lunch? I can't say for sure but my best guess would be no.

They probably would. Do you see planned parenthood showing up at schools? Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And given the slew of trolling right now, the insult to intelligence lies in the fact that people can't argue my points. Lack of intelligence exists when you have nothing for which to base a cogent argument upon.

 

[Luissa]

In order to restrict the speech of a student, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would disrupt the operation of the school itself. Otherwise, you can't arbitrarily stop a student from expressing themselves.

That is incorrect. It's not a trial, it's more like your mother saying do as I say or I'm put you over my knee right here right now and spank you into next week. We figure out whether she should have spanked you, and if it was too hard, after the fact.



And I cannot help you to understand what I and the courts have long ago accepted. Once on their property you are their kid, until you come to get them, and you may still have rights but for the most part, you're a kid so behave yourself and do as they tell you.

You aren't citing any case law, nor any opnion that contradicts my position.

In Hammond v. South Carolina State College, 272 F.Supp. 947 (D.C. S.C.1967), District Judge Hemphill had before him a case involving a meeting on campus of 300 students to express their views on school practices. He pointed out that a school is not like a hospital or a jail enclosure. Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966). It is a public place, and its dedication to specific uses does not imply that the constitutional rights of persons entitled to be there are to be gauged as if the premises were purely private property. Cf. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

I did, though. And you of course didn't respond. I posted two rulings that came after Tinker that are on the side of the principal.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And given the slew of trolling right now, the insult to intelligence lies in the fact that people can't argue my points. Lack of intelligence exists when you have nothing for which to base a cogent argument upon.

Your "points" have been destroyed. But....being the idiot that you are, you will soon claim victory.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In order to restrict the speech of a student, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it would disrupt the operation of the school itself. Otherwise, you can't arbitrarily stop a student from expressing themselves.

That is incorrect. It's not a trial, it's more like your mother saying do as I say or I'm put you over my knee right here right now and spank you into next week. We figure out whether she should have spanked you, and if it was too hard, after the fact.

And I cannot help you to understand what I and the courts have long ago accepted. Once on their property you are their kid, until you come to get them, and you may still have rights but for the most part, you're a kid so behave yourself and do as they tell you.

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what you're talking about. It's also clear that the court disagrees with you here. I'm again under the impression that you think the courts are always correct in their rulings. Yet, you just told me the Supreme Court ruling on Tinker was wrong. I'd like to see where this case was overturned in any sort of way. If you have any adequate knowledge of case law, I invite you to do so.

You're insulting my intelligence, PMH.

Tinker was fine and I said no such thing. It was found not to be disruptive but that was After The Fact. That is how it works. Maybe this will help you see how the courts view the power of the school authorities? Maybe not. In Loco Parentis: http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/interactive_constitution/scc/scc17.htm

Ingraham v. Wright, 1977

This case decided if corporal punishment at school constituted cruel and unusual punishment or if it was necessary to maintain order.

Case Summary

Two Florida students who were paddled in school brought suit in federal court arguing that the paddling was "cruel and unusual punishment" and that students should have a right to be heard before physical punishment is given. They lost in the trial court and at the Court of Appeals, and then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court's Decision

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that public school students could be paddled without first receiving a hearing.

Justice Lewis Powell wrote the majority opinion. He pointed out that the 8th Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" had always been applied to punishment of convicted criminals. The Court therefore did not apply the ban to noncriminal contexts, such as school discipline. Finally, Powell wrote that "In view of the low incidence of abuse, the openness of our schools, and the common law safeguards that already exist, the risk of error that may result in violation of a school child's substantive rights can only be regarded as minimal. Imposing additional administrative safeguards as a constitutional requirement might reduce that risk marginally, but would also entail a significant intrusion into an area of primary educational responsibility."