Typical Boston liberals.
This is as predictable as John F. Kerry docking his yacht in RI to avoid taxes and Teddy Kennedy fighting the Nantucket Sounds Wind Farms because they would block his sailing lanes and view.
I wouldn't be surprised if Elizabeth Warren donned a Cleveland Indians hat if it would get her elected.
What's with the idiotic assumption being made by some that just because these people are from Boston they just MUST be liberal? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
By the way, you are still glossing over the fact that you completely made up the "liberal" angle that you presented.
Do you believe the rubbish you write?
I recommend you read something about the constitution and the first amendment, before you comment on it again.
It's called a hypothetical. Yo usaid that people are free to say whatever they want, but aren't free from the consequences of it. I gave you a hypothetical, and you refused to answer it. You are the one who looks foolish becuase you refuse to back up your own statements by showing you believe in them by answer a hypothetical.
Now answer the question, do you think a school could punish a teacher for saying that he support obama on twitter, given you've just stated that people can say what they want, but only if they are prepared to face the consequences.
Are you going to answer the question?
The 9th circuit's decision to uphold the school's right to restrict speech was not only about drug use.
This decision of course was reveresd by the SCOTUS."the question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school-authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly 'No.'
Judge Roberts wrote the majority decision, excepted below.
First Amendment permits schools to restrict such speech
Finally, Roberts inquired whether a principal may restrict such speech. He concluded that she can.
He began by reviewing the court’s school speech jurisprudence:
- First, Roberts recapitulated that student expression may be suppressed only if school officials reasonably conclude that it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school” -- observing however that this doctrine came from a case (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.) in which the students were engaging in "political speech” in "a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance” (wearing armbands, to express “disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them.” Id., at 514), and in which "[t]he only interest the Court discerned underlying the school’s actions was the “mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” or “an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression.” Roberts commented on this opinion with a quote from Virginia v. Black -- that political speech is “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” 538 U. S. 343, 365 (2003).
- Second, Roberts cited Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser. The jurisprudence of Fraser is controversial, but Roberts declined to apply or resolve the disputed holding of that case ("We need not resolve this debate to decide this case”); instead, he explained that "[f]or present purposes, it is enough to distill from Fraser two basic principles”: that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings” (“in light of the special characteristics of the school environment”). that the “substantial disruption” analysis prescribed by Tinker "is not absolute” (i.e. it is flexible/optional).
- Third, Roberts cited the most recent student speech case, Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier. In that case, the Court permitted a school to "exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities” (declining to publish articles in the school paper that "the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school”) ”so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Robert found that this case, though factually distinct, was "nevertheless instructive because it confirms both principles cited above.”
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278