Free Speech - The Right to Rip Your Teacher

[ParanoiA]

Why should a minor have a right to free speech?

 

And if you think they do, should we also legislate that their parents aren't allowed to punish them? After all, if they haven't done anything illegal, isn't punishing them a violation of their human rights?

 

If you're replying to me, then no, I'm not arguing that a minor have a right to free speech. I'm arguing that I, the parent, have a right to allow my child to speak freely, while I accept the responsibility and consequences of that exercise. My right to do that ends at the school yard gate, as does theirs.

 

Otherwise, the teacher has more say so than I about my child's speaking rights out in public. That's entirely a sham.

 

I'm largely basing this off of the philosophical notion that the parent essentially grants rights to the child. I can let them speak, or have them shut up. I can tell them to sit down, or let them run around. I'm the authority, not the school, except when they're at school. My opinion, anyway.

[padren]

If this should be in it's own thread, feel free to split of off, but since it's on the topic of student (children) rights at school I found this to be a rather interesting article:

 

School makes 12 yr old take pregnancy test without parental consent:

 

http://www.kcra.com/news/18677330/detail.html

 

Personally I think they should have gone to her parents - but to make a 12 yr old take a pregnancy test because of rumors is pretty intrusive, imo.

[ParanoiA]

Absolutely. Again, if they're going to assume that kind of role then stop asking me for lunch money, school supplies and etc. Where's the half the grocery money? Where are they when I need to go out on a Saturday night and need someone to watch the kids? Must be nice to cherry pick what parental authority you're going to trump me on. When do I get to trump their teaching authority? Oh yeah, I don't get to. I just get to stand in line at the next parent-teacher conference and complain. How nice.

 

The more I keep hearing about these stories and blatant expansion of state authority, the more I'm dissappointed we didn't listen to Jefferson and rock this joint every couple of decades.

[bob000555]

With respect to the original post and the question of the validity of Morse v. Frederick:

 

In the field of law the summery of a Supreme Court case on Wikipedia is often not enough(gasp); had you actually read the majority opinion of the court you would find that section two states the case is only a school speech issue because it was a school sponsored event. Section four clearly states in it’s very first sentence that the question the court is ruling on is weather the school may “…restrict student speech at a school event…”. As the speech in question did not happen at a school sponsored event Morse v. Frederick is clearly not relevant precedent.

 

The majority opinion in full is available at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZO.html

 

On a side note if you read Supreme Court opinions you will find that they are almost always highly nuanced and clearly point out which specific set of circumstances they are relevant to.

[ParanoiA]

With respect to the original post and the question of the validity of Morse v. Frederick:

 

In the field of law the summery of a Supreme Court case on Wikipedia is often not enough(gasp); had you actually read the majority opinion of the court you would find that section two states the case is only a school speech issue because it was a school sponsored event. Section four clearly states in it’s very first sentence that the question the court is ruling on is weather the school may “…restrict student speech at a school event…”. As the speech in question did not happen at a school sponsored event Morse v. Frederick is clearly not relevant precedent.

 

The majority opinion in full is available at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZO.html

 

On a side note if you read Supreme Court opinions you will find that they are almost always highly nuanced and clearly point out which specific set of circumstances they are relevant to.

 

Who are you directing this to? I haven't even referenced this case. I think Pangloss and others went through that on page one. And yeah, the fact it was a school event was the contention. Well done.

[bob000555]

Who are you directing this to? I haven't even referenced this case. I think Pangloss and others went through that on page one. And yeah, the fact it was a school event was the contention. Well done.

 

The case was completely irrelevant. Had you bothered to actually read the opinion and the discussion which it was in response instead of appeasing you’re your obvious compulsion to mask your self reassuring comments(“What, no, I didn’t say something wrong your obviously addressing someone else”, if you dont think a coment is directed at you dont respond.) you would know that.

 

The reasoning the court gave for rejecting the argument that essentially boiled down to “it’s none of the school’s damn business” was as fallows

 

The event occurred during normal school hours. It was sanctioned by Principal Morse “as an approved social event or class trip' date='” App. 22–23, and the school district’s rules expressly provide that pupils in “approved social events and class trips are subject to district rules for student conduct.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a. Teachers and administrators were interspersed among the students and charged with supervising them. The high school band and cheerleaders performed. Frederick, standing among other JDHS students across the street from the school, directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, we agree with the superintendent that Frederick cannot “stand in the midst of his fellow students, during school hours, at a school-sanctioned activity and claim he is not at school.”

[/quote']

 

The case we’re discussing is some kid sitting on their computer bitching about teachers which is a different thing entirely.

 

Had the principal given kids time off school for the express porous of bloging about their teachers, given the students time off school and had a written policy that school behavioral codes would apply then the case would be relevant but that’s not what happened.

[ParanoiA]

The case was completely irrelevant. Had you bothered to actually read the opinion and the discussion which it was in response instead of appeasing you’re your obvious compulsion to mask your self reassuring comments(“What, no, I didn’t say something wrong your obviously addressing someone else”, if you dont think a coment is directed at you dont respond.) you would know that.

 

Show me where I referenced or talked about Morse v Frederick. It's absolutely irrelevant which is exactly why I never talked about it. Pangloss brought it up on page one, and several others took it up with him. I'm not one, nor ever was.

 

Had you actually bothered to read this thread you'd realize how embarrassed you ought to be at the moment. Even the people that brought it up are done with it, having also concluded it's irrelevant and for the same reason you mentioned. You're so busted for not reading...apparently anything.

 

You're a day late and a dollar short and you're trying to pretend as if there's something earth shattering about the obvious you keep bringing up - stuff they already covered. I suggest you catch up with us and start reading the thread before you accuse others of the same.

 

...if you dont think a coment is directed at you dont respond

 

Your post followed mine so I figured it was a 50% chance it was addressed to me. You didn't quote anyone, which we now know is because you didn't read the thread in order to quote anyone in the first place. I can only guess you dreamed you read it.

 

The case we’re discussing is some kid sitting on their computer bitching about teachers which is a different thing entirely.

 

Had the principal given kids time off school for the express porous of bloging about their teachers' date=' given the students time off school and had a written policy that school behavioral codes would apply then the case would be relevant but that’s not what happened.[/quote']

 

Good, now you can take that up with those who think the case is relevant. No one here does. Well, maybe Pangloss. I'm not sure if he changed his mind or not.

[Pangloss]

What I said (in post #6) is that in that case the Court ruled that a school can discipline a student for something that happened off school grounds. They decided in that case that what happened there was sufficiently related to school activities that the school had authority to act.

 

I stated later that this precedent could be extended to Web activities. Whether or not it will be extended in that manner is a matter of opinion, not fact. Certainly the point that this kid's web page wasn't paid for by the school is relevant, but it's not the only relevant factor in the case.

 

It's not very intelligent to factually state what the Supreme Court must do before it actually does it.