Bong Hits For Jesus
Krampus- i think it is good the debate is in the supreme court, which is public, rather than in back-water education department board rooms. as asinine as the issue might seem, it is one of the few things on their plate that belongs their, if they are the interpreters of the constitution. it's also nice to see somthing in washington NOT going down on party lines. perhaps the constitution will make a comeback.
hey, if you yell to your belayer saying "why charles III, you are quite possibly the worst belayer ever" will he throw his tea on you?
-scott
-scott
I don't think this is so much about free speech - no one stopped him from going home, registering www.boghitsforjesus.com and posting what he wants. He was in school, and did what he did to get a reaction. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but he should be ready to face the consequences for his actions, ie, take his slap on the wrist, and go on with his life. Free of speech does not and should not be freedom from consequences from your speech. We all know that if we sent out some kinda email like that at work, we could be fired. You say some messed up things on the internet, there might be negative reactions in store for you. Every wants to make freedom of speech to be there to protect them from what they say, and while there needs to be some safeguards, esp. from the gov't, it should be a get out of jail free card to say whatever you want. You say something offensive enough to me, and there might be consequences. I think that is a big part of what is wrong with the bs on the net - back in the day, you put your ass on the line with your words. Today, not so much. More like talk trash and hide behind the keyboard, anonymously, which isn't right. If you look at the people that really fight for their freedom of speech, you will see people that say things, even though it means that they might (and in many cases have) suffer(ed) real physical, mental, and emotional pain because of it. That is what it is all about.
Oh, and what would a post by me be without a little Franti?
Oh, and what would a post by me be without a little Franti?
"Perhaps in this time when there is so much devision between nations and religious groups that maybe the freedom so speech isn't so import today as all of us exercising our freedom to listen to one another. We want freedom of speach, but we all talking at the same time"
"There is no secret ingredient"
Po, the kung fu panda
Po, the kung fu panda
Here's maybe a more full accounting from the Anchorage Daily News.
http://www.adn.com/news/government/legi ... 0806c.html
I'd been following this, so I hadn't clicked the cnn link in Krampus' post. That article, if it doesn't entice you to dig further, you're not getting much.
The guy was absent from school that day, he was not on school grounds but across the street. He was not attending a school function but observing a public one which happened to also be passing in front of the school which allowed students out to observe. The principal crossed the road and took his sign, he was suspended.
Now if the town needs ordinances for what is allowed within certain distances of schools, they need to make them. I'm just imagining how many of you still answer to your teachers off campus or would be ok with a suspension handed out for being a tool on your own time.
He was pushing buttons, he'd been wronged before (in his opinion). He's been winning these cases and I don't see him losing this, though when it's all said and done I don't think there will be much in damages.
http://www.adn.com/news/government/legi ... 0806c.html
I'd been following this, so I hadn't clicked the cnn link in Krampus' post. That article, if it doesn't entice you to dig further, you're not getting much.
The guy was absent from school that day, he was not on school grounds but across the street. He was not attending a school function but observing a public one which happened to also be passing in front of the school which allowed students out to observe. The principal crossed the road and took his sign, he was suspended.
Now if the town needs ordinances for what is allowed within certain distances of schools, they need to make them. I'm just imagining how many of you still answer to your teachers off campus or would be ok with a suspension handed out for being a tool on your own time.
He was pushing buttons, he'd been wronged before (in his opinion). He's been winning these cases and I don't see him losing this, though when it's all said and done I don't think there will be much in damages.
Frederick will certainly not personally get back what he lost, but he will definitely throw a nice left hook to the face of the administration, and hopefully send a message across the country. I remember when I was in high school, I was just off school grounds smoking a cigarette when the security guard tried to bust us, he couldn't prove anything so he sent us all home without telling our parents or anyone. of course we were 15 and loved it cus we had free reign to walk to streets, cause trouble, and smoke pot all day but wait, isn't that exactly why you don't want to send a group of 15 year old kids away without any supervision. That sort of thing is unacceptable but it happened all the time. The guy should have been fired.
How you compare may not be as important as to whom you are compared
-
danielgfolk
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:53 am
Ancorage daily news wrote:
"On the other side, lawyers argue that promoting drugs or alcohol at school events has long been banned by school policies. They contend the students were attending the torch parade DURING SCHOOL HOURS AS PART OF A SCHOOL SANCIONTED EVENT."
"School officials are especially troubled by the 9th Circuit decision to hold Morse personally liable for violating Frederick's First Amendment rights. Removing her official immunity will make it hard for officials across the country to interpret school board policies, they contend."
The principal abosultly did the right thing. The courts of this country are unified in this goal: to elimianate a school's right to maintain a positive environment. This means: to make it so that school officials are afraid to enforce school rules.
Almost every pricipal in this country gets taken to court every year, because a parent does not agree with the school rules. The pricipal did the right thing: she enforced her school's policies, which were agreed upon by the school board, and by the community. While I do not see the student's actions as horrible, this happened during the school day, right in front of the school, which means the school is responsible for the kids, meaning that the teacher are responsible for enforcing school rules. Also, don't forget that this kid did this for the sole purpose of getting a reaction, and drawing attention to himesf.
As a teacher, there are rules I do not like, yet it is my job to enforce them. To enforce them selectivly is to tell the students that the boundaries are flexible, and open to negotiation. This leads to a bad classroom environtment, disrespect, and a poor learning environment. School rules cannot be flexible or they are no good.
While I do not understand how arrests got involved, IF the facts are as they stand in that article, it is an embaressment to our country that this made it to the supreme court.
Think about all the cases that are turned down, where someone may have been seriously wronged. I'm sorry, but being suspended a couple times in school is nothing compared to what people with real problems have to go through. That the principal is being held for violating civil rights, that is so wrong it makes my skin crawl. Why do our schools suck? 1) We are not allowed to enforce the rules in most communities, 2) Fear of litigation drives many good teachers away 3) To be a teacher means that you are painted as a villan in the press. (there are morem of course)
After reading what acutally happend, there must have been something else, something serious that is not in that article. If that is not the case I am embarresed to call myself an American Citizen.
Why are they hearing this case? I'm not sure. But I do know this- that pricipal's life will be ruined because some punk kid decided to push her buttons, provoked her to do her job, and sued her for it.
Nice. No good deed goes unpunished.
"On the other side, lawyers argue that promoting drugs or alcohol at school events has long been banned by school policies. They contend the students were attending the torch parade DURING SCHOOL HOURS AS PART OF A SCHOOL SANCIONTED EVENT."
"School officials are especially troubled by the 9th Circuit decision to hold Morse personally liable for violating Frederick's First Amendment rights. Removing her official immunity will make it hard for officials across the country to interpret school board policies, they contend."
The principal abosultly did the right thing. The courts of this country are unified in this goal: to elimianate a school's right to maintain a positive environment. This means: to make it so that school officials are afraid to enforce school rules.
Almost every pricipal in this country gets taken to court every year, because a parent does not agree with the school rules. The pricipal did the right thing: she enforced her school's policies, which were agreed upon by the school board, and by the community. While I do not see the student's actions as horrible, this happened during the school day, right in front of the school, which means the school is responsible for the kids, meaning that the teacher are responsible for enforcing school rules. Also, don't forget that this kid did this for the sole purpose of getting a reaction, and drawing attention to himesf.
As a teacher, there are rules I do not like, yet it is my job to enforce them. To enforce them selectivly is to tell the students that the boundaries are flexible, and open to negotiation. This leads to a bad classroom environtment, disrespect, and a poor learning environment. School rules cannot be flexible or they are no good.
While I do not understand how arrests got involved, IF the facts are as they stand in that article, it is an embaressment to our country that this made it to the supreme court.
Think about all the cases that are turned down, where someone may have been seriously wronged. I'm sorry, but being suspended a couple times in school is nothing compared to what people with real problems have to go through. That the principal is being held for violating civil rights, that is so wrong it makes my skin crawl. Why do our schools suck? 1) We are not allowed to enforce the rules in most communities, 2) Fear of litigation drives many good teachers away 3) To be a teacher means that you are painted as a villan in the press. (there are morem of course)
After reading what acutally happend, there must have been something else, something serious that is not in that article. If that is not the case I am embarresed to call myself an American Citizen.
Why are they hearing this case? I'm not sure. But I do know this- that pricipal's life will be ruined because some punk kid decided to push her buttons, provoked her to do her job, and sued her for it.
Nice. No good deed goes unpunished.
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."
Other than maybe truency, are you comfortable policing what absentee students do off school grounds?Huggybone wrote: As a teacher, there are rules I do not like, yet it is my job to enforce them.
The Ninth Cicuit Court reversed the earlier decission and stated that his student's speech rights were violated. I don't necessarily agree with that, but neither did the school board. They are the one who asked for Supreme Court reveiw. I just don't see how it got that far since it occured beyond what I would consider the schools jurisdiction or responsibility.