Discussion in 'The VIP Lounge' started by Denton, Jun 27, 2007.
Read the dissenting opinion...
I've been following this but didn't post it because I thought it might get too political. Its a sad day.
I followed it some, but I think I was confused on some of the facts. I'd be completely against the ruling if it was not a school function and ok with it if it was. I always thought it was not a school function, so I expected the kid to win.
Ann excellent dissenting opinion, IMO.
I'm not OK with it either way, but this is why I didn't post it. I'd be OK with kids wearing anti-war armbands to school like the did during Vietnam too. The problem is that the courts didn't say it was illegal for him to exercise this free speech, just that the school could punish him for it. Which they did. I disagree with that but hey...
Why? I agree completely with the majority opinion. Justice Steven's interpretation of the banner's message is at odds with almost everyone else.
But the point is that advocating drug use is an exception. Even Justice Stevens recognizes this, he just doesn't believe the message in fact advocated drug use.
To amplify what Chris said, the dissenting opinion was based (in part) on the Justices' position that the message on the banner (1) was more along the lines of "silly" than actually advocating drug use, and (2) would not actually induce those reading it to use drugs.
I guess I would say that I agree with this statement from the dissenting opinion and leave it at that...
That is precisely what I was attempting to summarize.
This is a great point to make in this case. I'd be Ok with it too, but that doesn't make it illegal for the school to ban it. One of my favorite quotes from Justice Scalia was, "I don't agree with all my decisions."
You decide what the law allows, not what you deem acceptable. The courts have rules consistently that kids in school have reduced rights with regard to free speech and that the school has fairly broad control over how students behave.
Deciding if what the principle did was right is very different from deciding if he was within his rights to do it.
What bothers me most is (as far as I can tell) this was not hit for the *religion* side of things. If that sign was pushing drugs, it was pushing Jesus...
Are you seeking second opinions
as far as I can tell it's still not illegal to worship jesus.
Yeah, but I know the Pope would take a dim view of someone introducing the son of god to dope :twisted: :lol:
A popular joke in the '60s was that Jesus was a hippy - - he had long hair, a beard, and wore sandals.
Yes, but while I'm not a biblical expert, I do remember Jesus trying to prevent people from getting stoned.
Though I'm guessing he didn't bathe frequently which probably goes along with the hippie status. If only we could determine if he ate granola. Then we could KNOW...
Crap. I had to read it 3 times to get that stoned joke. Duh. I'm ready for the weekend.
Double crap. I had to read Saurav's post to get that stoned joke.
should be. :twisted:
But is not religion a "restricted" topic at schools?
Not in student speech. Only in school administration speech in certain cases.
Separate names with a comma.