LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
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.
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.
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.
The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.
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.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.
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.
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)
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.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.
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.
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)
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.
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)
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.
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.htmThat 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.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.
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.