I guess the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Principal. 


http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html


"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

Roberts added that while the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message."

Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.


If it wasn't a school-sanctioned event, would it have been a problem?  Do kids have full First Amendment rights outside of school, or are they restricted there too?


I think its a funny banner, but apparently other people didn't. 

there's gonna be a lot more scary right-wing decisions from the court before it's all over. it's just one of bush's many unpalatable legacies is gonna be an activist right-wing court.

I want Earl Warren back...Whaaaaah!!!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sad2.gif

Still, things could be worse (<- and that's in Canada)

Still, things could be worse (<- and that's in Canada)


Jebus, that sucks. 

Still, things could be worse (<- and that's in Canada)


Lunacy.  Pure tweaked-out lunacy. So often when authorities go out of their way to crack down on something minor like that it does more harm than good.  That principal was acting like the kid was building a bomb in the science lab!
::)

Last I heard from Canada they were relaxing marijuana prohibition...but I maybe that's just for possessing it in British Columbia, not talking about it in Podunk, Saskatchewan!

I guess the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Principal. 

If it wasn't a school-sanctioned event, would it have been a problem?  Do kids have full First Amendment rights outside of school, or are they restricted there too?


That is pretty much exactly what they decided.  Because it was a school sanctioned event, the school had a right to control what the kids did.  And when you think about it, it does make sense.  After all, if something happened (like a car ran over them), then the school would also have been liable.

And if the kid had held up his sign anywhere else on the course, nothing would have happened either.  However, he did hold up his sign in front of the school, where the entire student body was congregated to watch the torch pass by.  What it said is really irrelevant, it is the fact that it was during a school sanctioned event, and violated school policy.

If the sign instead said something like "Gays Must Die" or "Spics Go Home", would the school also not have the right to tear it down?  Would that not also be a student exorcising his 1st Ammendment right?  But if it said that, you can bet that a lot of people would be agreeing with the school, and not defending the kid.  I am all for "First Ammendment Rights", but the school also has a responsibility to keep things found to be "objectionable" away from kids.  And when there is a strict anti-drug policy in place, that means signs that can be seen as promoting drugs.

That is pretty much exactly what they decided.  Because it was a school sanctioned event, the school had a right to control what the kids did.  And when you think about it, it does make sense.  After all, if something happened (like a car ran over them), then the school would also have been liable.

And if the kid had held up his sign anywhere else on the course, nothing would have happened either.  However, he did hold up his sign in front of the school, where the entire student body was congregated to watch the torch pass by.  What it said is really irrelevant, it is the fact that it was during a school sanctioned event, and violated school policy.

If the sign instead said something like "Gays Must Die" or "Spics Go Home", would the school also not have the right to tear it down?  Would that not also be a student exorcising his 1st Ammendment right?  But if it said that, you can bet that a lot of people would be agreeing with the school, and not defending the kid.  I am all for "First Ammendment Rights", but the school also has a responsibility to keep things found to be "objectionable" away from kids.  And when there is a strict anti-drug policy in place, that means signs that can be seen as promoting drugs.


I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the decision, just thought I would see what everyone else thought about the ruling.  What you said definitely puts it in perspective though. 

Bong Hits 4 Satan!!!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/teufel.gif

Bong Hits 4 Satan!!!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/teufel.gif

Now there's a 1st amendment right that would definitely need exorcising ;)

Bong Hits 4 Satan!!!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/teufel.gif


How about this:

Bong Hits For Quasimodo

http://www.north2southdiscounttrading.co.uk/hunchback.jpg

HOW 2B POPULAR:

"BONG HITS FOR EVERYBODY!!!!"