Good Example of Government trampling Liberties.

KDs...I think the official storyline now is that is was Thompson, in his capacity as chief Republican counsel to the Senate Watergate committee, who suggested the line to Baker. Guess only Baker and Thompson know for sure.

But you're right it was Baker that asked that question. Thompson's big moment was when he asked one of Nixon's aides, Alexander Butterfield, about recording devices in the White House.

 

Oh, Yeah, I remember that blockbuster! That was Thompson?

 

Yep, that was Fred...just more hair and long sideburns then!!

 

Nor were the students in school, on a school sponsored trip, on school property, or doing anything in relation to school or mentioning school work so why would they be punished as if they were? That is where the USSC failed us.

 

No, he was suspended for speaking as he was not on school property or at a school sponsored function or trip. He was seen by the principle and punished for his speech.

 

Students do not have the right to use their free speech rights to break school rules.

Calling teacher replacements "scabs" is showing blatant disrespect for the teachers, on the student's part...and should not be allowed.

I, for one, do not want a society where everything is a free for all and people expect to say whatever they want...while breaking the rules in doing so.

 

The students and staff were allowed to leave the school building to go across the street for a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event...to watch the Olympic torch pass by. The students were still under the charge of the school. An "across-the-street" field trip essentially.

The idiot who unfurled his foolish banner showed up late for school, however he walked over and joined a group of students and they then unfurled the banner, and thus he was considered to be at the time, under the charge of the school as were the other students he joined.

 

That is what the USSC ruled, but again it falls short of the "smell test" of truth. Any parade in which a school band is participating and for which class is dismissed is not always a school function in my mind. I have also seen references that the students were not required to atttend the parade, but were free to do whatever they wished during the time the classes were dismissed.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2953653&page=1

The school charges that Frederick's banner promoted drug use and had an offensive religious message. Frederick said the language, which he had seen on a snowboard, is meaningless

<snip>

Frederick was suspended for 15 days for his actions. The parade itself was not on school grounds, but Morse's lawyers argue the event was like a school-sanctioned field trip -- students were dismissed from classes, and the band and cheerleaders entertained.

Frederick's case has been taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union, which agrees the message on his banner was controversial, but he had the right to express it. The ACLU further argues that student free speech restrictions since the Tinker case do not apply: The event was not school-sponsored and Frederick was not disruptive.

 

We've been talking about free speech and armbands and such, and I applaud Grace for mentioning Fraser and Tinker.

Unless there is substantial disruption in the school caused by student protests, or shouts of "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," the school board cannot deprive the student(s) of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Students to not shed their Constitutional rights at the school door.

However, you also have to realize students also face discipline for things said or typed in cyberspace. Some legal pundits have begun calling these Internet laws "cyberTinkers," and children face the same penalties.

Remember, Fraser got suspended for giving a speech that contained several sexual innuendos but no explicit, profane language. The school just deemed it lewd, and that minors should not have been exposed to the language. Well, there was a case involving a student in Lancaster, PA, where the Pennsylvania District Court upheld the suspension of a middle school student for posting inflammatory and perverse comments about his school's principal and his Algebra teacher on MySpace. This last occurrence has happened very close to us, but I won't go into any more detail.

I do agree with Grace that there are a lot of things on the Supreme Court's plate, but as a soon-to-be teacher, I feel a lot of the precedents already in place give schools quite a bit of legal leg to stand on. Set a dress code, create an environment where kids feel safe and free to extend themselves, and realize that kids will be kids.

School districts, school boards, and courts of all levels cannot infringe upon a child's Constitutional rights, unless the students actions are deemed lewd and offensive, or riotous in nature.

The battle rages on...

Boo

 

I cannot imagine any school that allows students to leave class to attend a school-supervised event, allowing those students to "do what they wish" during that time. What hogwash. Do you honestly expect us to believe that if a school takes kids to the museum during school hours, that they are allowed to "do as they wish" until time to get back on the bus?

Having chaperoned many a school field trip, I can assure that that this does not happen. Does the word LIABILITY mean anything to you?

Allowing the students to leave class to attend the event during school hours makes it a school-sponsored event. School was not closed for the day. The kids were attending as students.

 

One doesn't have to be "disruptive" to be breaking school rules, Grace. And yes...we are talking about respect. There is a time and place...school is not the time nor place to show disrespect for teachers...those teachers who are the authority figures in that school.

Depending on what your daughter writes, she may be edited out. I hope she is responsibile with her position. She must follow the rules set out by the school.

If she wants to write about something the school does not allow, I suggest she start her own newspaper outside of school and distribute it outside of school.

 

Perhaps he should have pulled his stupid stunt alone, somewhere else, instead of joining the students under charge of the school. He was a student. He showed up at a school sponsored event and joined students under charge of the school.

You aren't looking for the First Amendment. You are looking for a free-for-all. Thank God there are still some rules at this time to prevent such a circus.

 

By helping them learn early - and school is the perfect setting - that there are rules that must be followed. And that you use your rights in a way that does not cause you to break laws and rules. Otherwise, we would have anarchy.

What about hate speech, Grace...do you place an exception on that? Should someone be allowed to walk up to someone and call them a racially hateful name in school?

 

Explain how calling someone a name is "threatening" them.

 

The issue is that that student broke the school rules. The school prohibits students from promoting or encouraging the illegall use of drugs.

Your defense of this kid's delinquent behavior is a prime example of why we have problems in our schools and with kids today. Adults who are so anxious to "fight" for the kid's rights...instead of considering the importance of teaching kids right from wrong, right place from wrong place, right time from wrong time. You guys are so anxious to find a reason to whine about being "oppressed" that you fail to remember how important is it to teach kids that there are consequences of using your free speech rights like a water-balloon thrown at random out a window.

And in fact, this kid is a prime example. He is a trouble-maker, an instigator. This is not the first time he's pulled crap like this...he's a little attention whore. Read up on his history.

Maybe, this time the kid will learn - albeit the hard way - that free speech does not make one immune to rules, and that there are consequences to using your free speech rights in the wrong place at the wrong time. God knows people like you and his parents aren't teaching him anything useful regarding living in a civil society that has rules.

 

Because it's gotten out of hand.

Children are children. Children, by virtue of their age, immaturity and lack of experience, lack the ability to process information in an ordered fashion...to form stable beliefs and to appreciate the significance of their actions. That's why adults make the rules. That's why we tell a 7-year old that they cannot stay up until 3:00am on a school night. The 7-year old isn't capable of fathoming that lack of sleep is unhealthy and detrimental to learning. It's why we tell the 10 year-old they cannot eat chocolate cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The 10-year old isn't capable of understanding that such eating habits are unhealthy. It's why we tell the 13 year-old girl she cannot go out on a date with a 23 year-old man. She is incapable of understanding the inappropriateness of that.

And it's why children are bound by the rules of the school not to promote or encourage the illegal use of drugs. To these kids, drugs are mystical, fun...something that makes you feel good. They don't accept that drugs can affect your body and mind to the point that something irrevocable happens. They are thinking of their fun and their rebellion...not the consequences.

The boundaries set since inception, on how and when children are allowed to exercise rights has worked well for some time in our American society. Children grew up gradually being allowed by parents, teachers and other adult authority figures to exercise their rights as they displayed the appropriate decision making skills and sense of responsibility that need to accompany those rights.

But the ACLU and other liberal factions, have been working mighty hard to undue that valuable method of raising kids over the past 10-15 years. And the Supreme Court needed to step in, because that breaking down of those child/adult barriers is wrecking havoc in our society.

It is the work of the ACLU and other liberals in this area that has caused us to now deal with children who argue with and curse a teacher in class, because that kid thinks they are on the same level as the teacher. It's this sentiment that causes kids to think that they can smart-mouth at law enforcement and parents, because they think they have a "right" to say what they want. It's a total break-down of the acceptance of authority and it's causing our nation to raise a generation of disrespectful, selfish, foul-mouthed, rude, law-breaking little heathens.

What did you expect a conservative President to put on the Supreme court, Grace? Did you expect him to put liberal activists on the court to further erode our morals and our society? Liberals on the bench have already made it legal to kill babies, but illegal to display something as positive and as basic as faith in our schools and courthhouses. And they are working hard to erode the value and significance of marriage between a man and a woman. Is that not enough for you guys?

If the justices don't make a decision that is liberal...then it's not objective?!?! That's certainly a liberal point of view. In fact, I was reading a liberal blog this morning and the moonbats on there are calling for "impeachment" of the justices because they ruled against the liberal view. LOL! Figures.

I know...I've been watching closely. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

That would be part of the reason the claim of this being a "school-supervised event" was contested.

No, which is why there was disagreement presented on this being a school supervised event. When my children were taken on such trips I had to sign a release form and permission slip, neither of which were required in this case.

Thus, the need for the missing required documents that would indicate a school sponsored event.

So, when my high school allowed students to be absent with a parental note to go deer hunting that was actually a school sponsored event?

 

Nope...this kid wasn't trying to do anything other than whore attention and create disruption. Sounds like he has a history of being disruptive at school.

And I can't believe you see a correlation between a child speaking out against abusive child labor...and a kid promoting foolish drug use.

Here's a hint: One has a positive premise...one has a negative premise.

 

What would be? If kids are chaperoned by school staff at another location for an event for which the student's presence was planned by the school during school hours...you think that they are not at a school-sponsored event because they aren't physically in the classrom?!??

That's more than likely because they had to either walk a distance or ride a distance in a bus, van, or other parent's car. A slip wasn't necessary here because they were just going across the street.

When my daughter was attending school downtown, she had to cross the street to catch a shuttle to the location of her bus, to catch the school bus. The kids were under charge of the school at that time, until they got off the school bus at their pick-up location somewhere else in town.

Guess what...they didn't catch the shuttle on school grounds, and I never had to sign a spermission slip. There were no "required" documents.

You're kidding here...right?

Were there school chaperones there? Did the school promote it? Did the school plan classes around it?

I doubt they did...so no, Wayne...your analogy doesn't even begin to fit.

The school didn't "allow" your child to be absent for that - YOU allowed your child to be absent for that. You excused them from school with your note...the school didn't excuse them. The minute the child walked out the door at the time you allowed him to be excused...he was no longer under charge of the school, Wayne. Geesh...pay attention.

 

I can't believe there is so much discussion on this issue. Its a no-brainer. The schools have the authority to set rules against things like Jack Daniels T-shirts and short-shorts, so why not a banner that reads "bong hits for Jesus"?

If the government would just give me control of the tax money I pay for public education (and it will happen someday), I'd send my kids to private school and you could send your kids to public school naked and drunk for all I care.