I'd like to add that the prinicpal is being sued for violating the first amendment which means that eventhough there was no law created that violated the first amendment the person is said to have infridged on the 1st amendment rights of another and thus can be punished via cash $$$.

There are many key facts in this case that might change your thoughts.

The student was with other students holding the banner also the student attended class after the event. The event was across the street but the students were not restricted to school grounds for the event.

Also, the student is not challenging the "at the heat of the moment" taking down the banner but after learning the facts the principal should have known that she couldn't do that.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

I'd like to add that the prinicpal is being sued for violating the first amendment which means that eventhough there was no law created that violated the first amendment the person is said to have infridged on the 1st amendment rights of another and thus can be punished via cash $$$.

There are many key facts in this case that might change your thoughts.

The student was with other students holding the banner also the student attended class after the event. The event was across the street but the students were not restricted to school grounds for the event.

Also, the student is not challenging the "at the heat of the moment" taking down the banner but after learning the facts the principal should have known that she couldn't do that.

I hope the student wins. I have many people I want to sue for cash.

Originally Posted by Matthew S

I hope the student wins. I have many people I want to sue for cash.

As usual, you can't stay on topic. Perhaps you didn't read the poll question before you voted.

I heard a little about this case on TV this AM. On a cursory look, I'd say the principal overstepped her bounds if the student was NOT on school property. But, that's a little tricky because it might be argued that they were "technically" on a field trip, in which case, school rules would still apply......Ahhhh!!!

Is free speech applicable to under aged individuals under the tuteledge and care of educators entrusted with their welfare and behavior? If so, why? They don't pay taxes, the add nothing to the GDP. Who cares what they have to say?

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

I heard a little about this case on TV this AM. On a cursory look, I'd say the principal overstepped her bounds if the student was NOT on school property. But, that's a little tricky because it might be argued that they were "technically" on a field trip, in which case, school rules would still apply......Ahhhh!!!

I don't see how his not being on school property matters in this case. Suppose his location did not count as the school function. Then neither was the principal on school property or at a school function when she told him to take the sign down. So where would the first amendment violation be?

Originally Posted by Phyllis

As usual, you can't stay on topic. Perhaps you didn't read the poll question before you voted.

Ok here goes.

The students were on a public street in the public right of way they have the right to say what they want. They were not creating a disturbance. So yes the principal, as a public official, violated the constitutional rights of the student.

Furthermore if they win the case it would give other groups the legal stnding to sue.

Originally Posted by Matthew S

Ok here goes.

The students were on a public street in the public right of way they have the right to say what they want. They were not creating a disturbance. So yes the principal, as a public official, violated the constitutional rights of the student.

Furthermore if they win the case it would give other groups the legal stnding to sue.

I often wonder where "congress shall make no law" became "ANY government employee shall not stop..."

Seems like if you water meter man came by and ripped down the sign that you'd still think the government could be sued.

What if this were a private school? All of a sudden no leg to stand on? Could you sue the private school? Do you even know the underlying law regarding this case Matthew?

Like normal it seems many of you just say "hey, I dont' want my signs being ripped down...this must be unconstitutional" but you never stop to think what that means or if it really is. Perhaps it was wrong for the teacher to tear down the sign...but that doesn't make it a 1st amendment violation. Perhaps it was wrong because there was no authority to do so. This would make it the same offense as if you or I ripped down the sign: Destruction of property.

Originally Posted by Matthew S

Ok here goes.

The students were on a public street in the public right of way they have the right to say what they want. They were not creating a disturbance. So yes the principal, as a public official, violated the constitutional rights of the student.

Furthermore if they win the case it would give other groups the legal stnding to sue.

If the rule is that because the student was on a public street, then he is no longer acting in his capacity as a student, then it would also be the case that because the principal was on a public street when she confiscated the sign, then she was no longer acting in her official capacity as a public official.

If follows from you suggestion that a public official in fact did not violate the constitutional rights of a student, a public citizen ripped up the sign of another public citizen. Call that what you may, but it is not a first amendment violation.

Originally Posted by Phyllis

I don't see how his not being on school property matters in this case. Suppose his location did not count as the school function. Then neither was the principal on school property or at a school function when she told him to take the sign down. So where would the first amendment violation be?

Neither were on school property, but the principal punished the student through the arm of the school.

Personally I think the student is an idiot, but I also believe they have a right to be an idiot

Originally Posted by gman

Is free speech applicable to under aged individuals under the tuteledge and care of educators entrusted with their welfare and behavior? If so, why? They don't pay taxes, the add nothing to the GDP. Who cares what they have to say?

Hum......if paying taxes and adding to the GDP were necessary to get constitutional protection then we'd have a whole lot of poor people that shouldn't be voting in the US.

Originally Posted by gman

Is free speech applicable to under aged individuals under the tuteledge and care of educators entrusted with their welfare and behavior? If so, why? They don't pay taxes, the add nothing to the GDP. Who cares what they have to say?

Uh....becuase it si a fundamental right, which means that under our system of government is is considered pre-existing...a right that every human being has simply by existing. It is not a reward given by the government for your constribution to society.

People like you make me SERIOUSLY worry about the future of this country. Do you have any concept of "freedom" at all?

Originally Posted by daewoo

Uh....becuase it si a fundamental right, which means that under our system of government is is considered pre-existing...a right that every human being has simply by existing. It is not a reward given by the government for your constribution to society.

People like you make me SERIOUSLY worry about the future of this country. Do you have any concept of "freedom" at all?

Well that would then presuppose that ye come out of the womb with all pre-existing rights. If that is the case, how might a parent legally get the little creature to shaddap at the local Fridays? Can the parent prevent Junior from bearing arms? Frankly, the idea that a minor is in any way capable of exercising or understanding the marriage of freedom and responsibility is absurd.

If ye concede that the parent may exercise control over the rights of the minor, ye must locgically accept that said parent may appoint an agent to do same. The educator is in the position of acting as the parent's agent to provide the little heads of mush with an education sufficient for them to grow up and function. That which aids that goal is good. That which detracts from that goal, as indicated by the SCOTUS characterization of disruptive or undermining speech is bad. The pinhead's right to espress "bong hits for Jesus" is trumped by the greater good of the other 29 students in the class who are trying to get an already substandard education. This balance is not changed when the one disruptive student turns 18.

The fact that this incident occured off school property is irrelevant. The incident occured at a gathering of students overseen by the school officials. Nit wit had ample opportunity to unfurl his banner along the 10-mile stretch of road and yet he chose the patch of land opposite the school and the TV camera. By so doing, his banner was in direct opposition to the school's anti-drug policy. Moreover, his proximity to other students and school officials would amount to tacit acceptance of his message if no action were taken.

The Yute is seeking compensatory damages from the school official. It would be a poor precedent indeed to accept the judgment of the minor over the adult as to what constitutes a disruption in class.

As to your concern about the future of the country, I am more concerned with folks who do not have any concept of responsibility. Every action (freedom) has a reaction (responsibility).

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

Hum......if paying taxes and adding to the GDP were necessary to get constitutional protection then we'd have a whole lot of poor people that shouldn't be voting in the US.

This is difficult. I think I like the citizen v. citizen angle. I think the Principal overstepped her bounds as a school official, and she could be reprimanded by the administration (though I don't think she should be), but that's as far as it should go. I understand where she's coming from, though. I can't say that if I were in her place I wouldn't have done the same thing. Stupid kid.