Were they in a school environment? A case could be made both ways.

 

This is like the principal agreeing to excuse students to go watch the St Patricks Day parade downtown. Johnny, who never even went to school that day, shows up at the parade and joins some of his friends. They get in trouble for cursing the floats.

 

Should Johnny get a school punishment or not?

 

He should get in trouble for skipping school, but the school cannot punish him for what he is doing while skipping. He is fair game for law enforcement, though.

A few other things I was thinking about:

 

What may factor into the case is that the banner is wholly irrelevant. Can student speech be denied if it is completely meaningless? Perhaps the act, not the speech, will factor into the argument as to whether the principal's actions violated any constitutional right.

 

Since the students were out of school when they should have been in school, I'm assuming the principal has some degree of responsibility over their actions. If she felt it was causing a problem, whether the banner said "Go USA" or what it actually said, she can take it down.

 

It doesn't mention it in the article, but the reaction of the other students is important. If they were becoming raucous or unruly due to the banner, the principal has the authority, since it was the student body, to remove the banner. Did she ask him to remove the banner or did she immediately suspend him? If the students were not acting up, the removal of the banner is a purely content-based restriction.

It seems to me that this kid was trying to have it "both ways" since he skipped school so that he could have the argument that he wasn't a student attending the event but he chose to display his banner in the midst of the students. If he had real parents, he would be in so much trouble at home that he wouldn't have time to think about the Supreme Court.

 

About attending school sanctioned events, the students are supposed to be held accountable for the rules even away from the school campus--marching band in a parade, club members attending a rally, students on a school trip, etc. If this were a school sanctioned event, the students should have had to have signed permission slips from their parents with the rules clearly stated about expected behavior.

When I read this story a few weeks ago, I felt it fell under the category of "overreaction"/"much ado about nothing."

 

Who was harmed? Would this have been an issue if the banner said "Screw the Olympics" or "Skating Judges Suck"? We get our drawers in a wad because a kid mentions drugs in a silly attempt at the exercising of free speech.

 

Silly on behalf of both sides. However, one side is a kid. The other side should know better.

Were they in a school environment? A case could be made both ways.

 

This is like the principal agreeing to excuse students to go watch the St Patricks Day parade downtown. Johnny, who never even went to school that day, shows up at the parade and joins some of his friends. They get in trouble for cursing the floats.

 

Should Johnny get a school punishment or not?

I know that with Trinity...if you do something unbecoming of Trinity as a whole, there will be repercussions at the school.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that a school may censor speech in a school-sponsored student newspaper or yearbook. Therefore, I don't think student-speech is as strong an argument for the kid.

I know that with Trinity...if you do something unbecoming of Trinity as a whole, there will be repercussions at the school.

 

I agree with you and I think the fact that he buddied up with other students in the activity gives the school more teeth. They represented the school as a group, their actions reflect on the school and I personally have no problem with the school suspending them.

 

But, I can see the other side of the coin and I dont know what will hold up in court. Also if the school handed out unequal punishments to the students involved and gave this one kid a harsher punishment, they may be on the losing end.

The legal question presented is whether or not a school has the right, as part of its student policy, to punish a student for non-school conduct, particularly when that conduct involves quasi-free speech.

 

It is a rapidly evolving area of the law. Some other food for thought in relation to this question would be a school's punishment of students for items put on their MySpace accounts; whether a student's off-campus arrest for narcotics (or other offenses) poses a subsequent but imminent danger to students at the school; or punishment of a student on a school sports team for a non-school violation of team rules.

 

For example, lets say the school football team policy is "no tolerance" for a team member drinking in-season. A football team member is reported for drinking at a non-school function during the season. The coach kicks him off the team. What is the difference between that and the Bongs 4 Jesus dude? The fact that one is being suspended from school and the other just from a team?

^ I think public schools would have a harder time in court than that of a private one.

I read today that some groups considered on the "far right" are lining up with the ACLU on this one. They do not want schools limiting a student's religious expression. While they would obviously disagree with this particular message, they want the kid's right to express himself to be protected. Interesting.

What factor will monetary damages play? The appeals court who heard the case ruled that the principal was liable for damages due to her actions. I'm not sure if it was the current supreme court, but possibly a recent decision, that I believe ruled to limit damages in civil cases. I could see them ruling against the school's action, but not allowing damages to be awarded.

^ I think public schools would have a harder time in court than that of a private one.

 

Agreed.

I read today that some groups considered on the "far right" are lining up with the ACLU on this one. They do not want schools limiting a student's religious expression. While they would obviously disagree with this particular message, they want the kid's right to express himself to be protected. Interesting.

 

In light of their philosophy in this area, it would be proper for them to do so.

I am kind of divided on this one..in what I BELIEVE personally ( I find it offensive) and what I believe politically..I must admit this one has made me take a hard look at myself!!

Although someone said that free speech is not checked at the door of the school...it is.. We ask every kid in America to limit his/her 1st,2nd and 4th ammendment rights at the door...then graduate them and expect them to live in an America where those rights are present.. in the interest of harmony and safety. How long will it be before these kids are voters and decide these issues for us??

Again..I am divided on this,but my heart,as always,sides with the constitution. But will the Supreme court???

I've got a number of thoughts.

 

The banner was inappropriate in place and time. The kid should be punished for thumbing his nose at school administration.

 

Suspension from school is absolutely the most laughable punshiment that has ever been concieved by administrators. Letting a kid stay home from school IS NO PUNISHMENT, I was suspended once I speak out of experiance.

 

As far as free speech is concerned, baloney, this isn't about a view this is about attention. As a person who appreciates free speech, I'm bothered by the association of this cheap gag with what truly is one of our most important rights. By giving this clearly juvenile act credibilty we cheapen what our rights really stand for. Rights need responsibility, or we should become in danger of losing them.