Mexifornia

[Wrath of Dagon]

And you don't even understand what freedom of speech is, there's no point of protecting non-offensive speech. Though that's not even the issue here. The issue is people so wrapped up in their nationalistic feelings towards another country and against the US, that they find the very symbol of US offensive.

[~Di]

He definitely wouldn't be sued. My school doesn't let students wear a lot of things and guess what. They've never been sued. And you know why? Because a school isn't a place for wearing those things. If the staff doesn't want you wearing something they have the authority to either make you cover it or send you home.

 

True, schools have the absolute right to ban certain clothing items. But the ban must be universally enforced. At any rate, this school had no such ban, students had been wearing USA flag and Mexican flag T-shirts thoughout the year with no problems. The fact that only one T-shirt was banned on this specific day, and other flag T-shirts were not is the problem. If USA flag T-shirts were not going to be allowed (apparently at least one of the boys wore his shirt a couple times a week), then the administration had the obligation to tell students in advance that the rule was going to be changed for that day.

 

I'm not going to just brush aside terrible decisions by school administrators by labeling kids as baiting, when there isn't the slightest evidence that they were doing so, and significant evidence that they wore the apparel in question frequently. Two of the kids were hispanic themselves, for crying out loud.

Edited May 15, 2010 by ~Di

[Oblarg]

I'm not going to just brush aside terrible decisions by school administrators by labeling kids as baiting

 

If you had actually read our posts, you'd realize no one here is advocating that. At all.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Oblarg

[Oblarg]

And you don't even understand what freedom of speech is, there's no point of protecting non-offensive speech. Though that's not even the issue here. The issue is people so wrapped up in their nationalistic feelings towards another country and against the US, that they find the very symbol of US offensive.

 

That's a really simplistic (and incorrect) view of the situation. No, they're not reasonable, but they don't hate the US.

 

Oh yeah, and the first amendment states that congress shall pass no law limiting free speech. It's not even relevant to the situation.

[Meshugger]

But what if the students wore t-shirts of Cradle of Filth's "Jesus is a c***"? For them, the t-shirt represents the band and the music that they love. If you demand them to change t-shirts or wear them inside out, what are do you expect them to learn from that?

 

Considering it can't even get past the language filter here, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it isn't appropriate apparel for school. Feel free to wear it elsewhere.

 

Students are learning how to act in a professional environment when they attend school. While there are some jobs out there where you can wear whatever you want, many employers have expectations of a dress code. Schools are not quite as strict as a major corporation, but it isn't a free for all.

 

What kind of message do you think that teacher and the school give to the children by doing that? In what way is that beneficial for them?

 

- "You may dress differently, but not too offensive" (a lot of room here to interpret what 'offensive' means)

 

This actually goes back to free speech. Within what kind boundries are the students allow to express themselves? Where does the professional environment collide with the freedom of expression? Also, what is more important in your school-district? Critical thinking or submission, sorry, respect for authority?

[Meshugger]

But what if the students wore t-shirts of Cradle of Filth's "Jesus is a c***"? For them, the t-shirt represents the band and the music that they love. If you demand them to change t-shirts or wear them inside out, what are do you expect them to learn from that?

 

I'd send them home for having an awful taste in music.

 

So they learn that they have to adopt to the wishes of authority. In what way is that beneficial in a society based on freedom of expression?

[Oblarg]

But what if the students wore t-shirts of Cradle of Filth's "Jesus is a c***"? For them, the t-shirt represents the band and the music that they love. If you demand them to change t-shirts or wear them inside out, what are do you expect them to learn from that?

 

I'd send them home for having an awful taste in music.

 

So they learn that they have to adopt to the wishes of authority. In what way is that beneficial in a society based on freedom of expression?

 

That was a joke, you dunce.

[Meshugger]

But what if the students wore t-shirts of Cradle of Filth's "Jesus is a c***"? For them, the t-shirt represents the band and the music that they love. If you demand them to change t-shirts or wear them inside out, what are do you expect them to learn from that?

 

I'd send them home for having an awful taste in music.

 

So they learn that they have to adopt to the wishes of authority. In what way is that beneficial in a society based on freedom of expression?

 

That was a joke, you dunce.

 

Jokes that are as bad as Dane Cook are not jokes

[Oblarg]

Jokes that are as bad as Dane Cook are not jokes

 

Har har.

 

Regardless, it was (or should have been) obvious that that statement was not intended to be taken seriously.

[213374U]

Oh yeah, and the first amendment states that congress shall pass no law limiting free speech. It's not even relevant to the situation.

So only the Gov't or Congress can actually violate constitutional rights?

 

An interesting view, but I don't think that's correct.

[Oblarg]

Oh yeah, and the first amendment states that congress shall pass no law limiting free speech. It's not even relevant to the situation.

So only the Gov't or Congress can actually violate constitutional rights?

 

An interesting view, but I don't think that's correct.

 

You'd think wrong, then, because it is.

 

The purpose of the bill of rights is to protect individual rights from the government. You cannot sue an individual for violating your constitutional rights, it just doesn't work that way.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Oblarg

[Thorton_AP]

And you'd be sued for violating their first amendment rights.

 

What? Does this also mean parents can get sued for telling their kids that they are not allowed to wear a particular shirt as well?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Public schools are the government, children.

[Oblarg]

Public schools are the government, children.

 

And court cases have upheld that they can restrict what students wear, sorry bud.

 

Even so, no one here is advocating the forced removal of the clothing, I'm convinced by this point that you're either intentionally strawmanning or simply reading what you want to read and not what's written.

[Thorton_AP]

Public schools are the government, children.

 

 

Ah. So accosting a teacher, or speaking out against the curriculum in an attempts to disrupt the class is still A-OK, because children (deemed minors, and hence of limited rights and privileges) are fully protected under the first amendment, right?

 

If children are not deemed capable enough to vote, why are they fully protected under rights that they presumably (through the fact that they are a minor) don't fully understand.

[Hurlshort]

Public schools are the government, children.

 

That isn't quite right. Schools are in the same category as fire and police departments and hospitals. The government pays the school districts to perform a service.

 

The reason I think it is important to understand the difference is that when a school does very poorly, the government can intervene and take over operations. This is considered about the worst thing that can happen to a school. It was part of the No Child Left Behind act.

 

It has also proven ineffective, as the schools taken over have yet to show any improvement and struggle to attract employees.

[Volourn]

"And court cases have upheld that they can restrict what students wear, sorry bud."

 

To a point. They still have to follow the rule of law. They can't show racism, bigotry, biasness, etc. They can't have one rule for one sect of students and another rule for another. They have to be consistent, and alw still trumps the school.

 

 

"Ah. So accosting a teacher, or speaking out against the curriculum in an attempts to disrupt the class is still A-OK, because children (deemed minors, and hence of limited rights and privileges) are fully protected under the first amendment, right?

 

If children are not deemed capable enough to vote, why are they fully protected under rights that they presumably (through the fact that they are a minor) don't fully understand."

 

The law supposedly exists to protect those who can't protect themselves so yeah the law most definitely is there to protect children espicially. Let's not forget, nowadays more and more the public wnat children to be treated as adults. Afterall, everytime a child commits a heinous crime how many times do we hear they should be tried as an adult?

 

 

"What? Does this also mean parents can get sued for telling their kids that they are not allowed to wear a particular shirt as well?"

 

Don't be silly. The law gies parents more leeway to deal with the special relationship between parent and child. This is why it tends to be illegal to physically discipline a child unless you are the parent (unless the aprent goes toof ar and it becomes abuse). So, the law allows the parent to decide what their child wears. Of coruse, the parent has more responsibilities in regards to the child due to their special relationship - providing them free room and board, etc.

 

Schools, are also deemed to have a special relationship with their students hence why they are allowed to have dress codes and rules of conduct. But, they still have to follow the rule of law.

 

 

 

That's why the school in this case was wrong. Plain, and simple. The school board even agrees with my assessment here. They know the school screwed up, and overstepped.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Public schools are the government, children.

 

That isn't quite right. Schools are in the same category as fire and police departments and hospitals. The government pays the school districts to perform a service.

 

The reason I think it is important to understand the difference is that when a school does very poorly, the government can intervene and take over operations. This is considered about the worst thing that can happen to a school. It was part of the No Child Left Behind act.

 

It has also proven ineffective, as the schools taken over have yet to show any improvement and struggle to attract employees.

All of those are the government, including hospitals if they're public. There are different levels of government, and the examples you gave are generally at the local level.

 

As far as First Amendment rights of students, they exist, but not to the same extent as for others. The reason being a) These are minors b) School is compulsory, so all the students are required to be there. So the school can typically regulate threatening or hostile material, but not material that is merely politically offensive.

[Hurlshort]

Public schools are the government, children.

 

That isn't quite right. Schools are in the same category as fire and police departments and hospitals. The government pays the school districts to perform a service.

 

All of those are the government, including hospitals if they're public. There are different levels of government, and the examples you gave are generally at the local level.

 

 

You are quite wrong on this, down to the condescending child remark.

 

By your line of reasoning, a plumber who fixes a toilet in a government building is now the government.

[Wrath of Dagon]

If he's a government employee, then yes. Normally the government doesn't employ plumbers though.

[213374U]

Oh yeah, and the first amendment states that congress shall pass no law limiting free speech. It's not even relevant to the situation.

So only the Gov't or Congress can actually violate constitutional rights?

 

An interesting view, but I don't think that's correct.

 

You'd think wrong, then, because it is.

 

The purpose of the bill of rights is to protect individual rights from the government. You cannot sue an individual for violating your constitutional rights, it just doesn't work that way.

Nobody said anything about suing individuals. However you can very well sue the school as an organism, the NYPD, etc. Those aren't "the government" per se, they are services provided by the state, but not part of the executive branch of the administration.

 

You're going to give constitutional law lessons too, now? This thread sure is going places.

[Hurlshort]

Actually the very school district in question here lost a major civil case a few years back over gay and lesbian student treatment. Some students had lodged complaints about the way they were treated by both classmates and school staff, and they took it to court and won.

[Hurlshort]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100527/us_time/08599199179700

 

OMG, teh first amendment has been violated!

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2010/05/20/sch...e-gang-related/

[Oblarg]

http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2010/05/20/sch...e-gang-related/

 

To be honest, it depends on if there's actually a gang that wears rosary beads as a sign of membership.

 

If there is, this could be in the interest of his safety, as absurd as it may be. That would be a reasonably action to take. Of course, action would also have to be taken to remove the actual gang members from the school environment if they were violent enough to attack someone over rosary beads.

 

I don't think that article gives enough information to fully condemn the actions of the school.