NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know...Scalia's pretty out there.

But the point is, the fact that he just set a precedent-His take on the case is on the legal record, and can therefore could now be used as a precedent for the further restriction of a student's free speech rights.

Thomas didn't deliver the opinion of the court any more than the dissents did. What Thomas advocated is not what the 5-4 decision decided.

Thomas didn't deliver the opinion of the court any more than the dissents did. What Thomas advocated is not what the 5-4 decision decided.

Fair enough. But the case itself still sets a precedent for further eroding of student's free speech rights.

I didn't say I agreed with either one.

So...I disagree with you...So I'm a pothead? Brilliant logic there.

Um, what's "brilliant" logic is that you think I called you a pothead. I happen to agree with one and not the other. I think drugs should be legal. I don't smoke pot.

But the point is, smoking pot harms no one but yourself in most cases, whereas stealing hurts other people. The only groups that honestly think smoking pot is worse than stealing are the government, the moral majority, and a few angry nutjobs.

Like I said, you agree with one and not the other. They are both illegal. In terms of advocating them, there really is no difference.

Fair enough. But the case itself still sets a precedent for further eroding of student's free speech rights.

This case does nothing new and didn't erode any rights. In school, you don't have a right to promote illegal activities. If was protesting he did it badly. He failed. When has the court EVER upheld that you should be permitted to advocate illegal activities? Which case?

I don't know...Scalia's pretty out there.

Yeah, but still nowhere near the lunacy of Thomas.

But the point is, the fact that he just set a precedent-His take on the case is on the legal record, and can therefore could now be used as a precedent for the further restriction of a student's free speech rights.

His take on the case in on the legal record just as all the dissents are. They are not, however, legal precedent in the same way that the official decision is.

Bear in mind that Thomas' "concurring opinion" was essentially, "I disagree with every single case used as precedent for this one because they all give rights to students." Considering how off-base he was with the decision and other concurring opinions (not to mention the cases already used as precedent), his opinion is about as useful as toilet paper as legal precedent.

Fair enough. But the case itself still sets a precedent for further eroding of student's free speech rights.

I don't see how. It was a pretty narrowly tailored decision, really. I haven't read Fraser, but I'm guessing from the discussion of it that it would have been the decision that would have seemed to be eroding students' free speech rights.

This case does nothing new and didn't erode any rights. In school, you don't have a right to promote illegal activities. If was protesting he did it badly. He failed. When has the court EVER upheld that you should be permitted to advocate illegal activities? Which case?

I assume the context of your question is students. Otherwise "Fuck the Draft" and sit-ins at segregated lunchcounters wouldn't be allowed. (In fact, protests supporting sit-ins at segregated lunchcounters would be advocating illegal activities.)

But even in the context of school this is a new ruling. Under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/393/503.html), 393 U.S. 503, 509 (1969):
"Where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden content would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school the prohibition cannot be sustained."

I agree with all 9 Justices that the principle should not be held liable for pulling down Frederick's banner.

But the majority allows anti-drug paranoia to color their analysis. Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of concrete and substantial disruption or intereference with the work of the school or the rights of other students. Id. at 514. I see no evidence in the record that Frederick's banner caused or threatened to cause a substantial disruption of the work of the school -- especially as it was not in a classroom setting.

To say that Frederick's message was pro-drugs and therefore not allowed is to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. You can't seriously argue that drug advocacy (much less Frederick's ridiculous sign) comes with the small category of speech that can be prohibited per se because of its feared consequences.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/478/675.html), 478 U.S. 675 (1986), can be seen as limiting Tinker, but Bethel did not go as far as this decision.

I'm outraged by Thomas's concurrence, but not by the majority decision. It seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction, but not a big step.


(BTW, sorry I haven't been in this thread more. RL interfered. And I may not have a chance to post more before I go on a three-week vacation tomorrow.)

To say that Frederick's message was pro-drugs and therefore not allowed is to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. You can't seriously argue that drug advocacy (much less Frederick's ridiculous sign) comes with the small category of speech that can be prohibited per se because of its feared consequences. Welcome back TCT.

but being that the sign said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and it was interpreted as promoting an illegal activity, the point behind the ruling and not that society found it offensive and dissagreed with it?

after all, would they have voted that way if Fredrick had a sign that said "Legalize Drugs 4 Jesus" which then can be argued as not promoting an illegal activity but actually rallying for new legislation on the legal status of drugs?

I assume the context of your question is students. Otherwise "Fuck the Draft" and sit-ins at segregated lunchcounters wouldn't be allowed. (In fact, protests supporting sit-ins at segregated lunchcounters would be advocating illegal activities.)

But even in the context of school this is a new ruling. Under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/393/503.html), 393 U.S. 503, 509 (1969):
"Where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden content would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school the prohibition cannot be sustained."

I agree with all 9 Justices that the principle should not be held liable for pulling down Frederick's banner.

But the majority allows anti-drug paranoia to color their analysis. Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of concrete and substantial disruption or intereference with the work of the school or the rights of other students. Id. at 514. I see no evidence in the record that Frederick's banner caused or threatened to cause a substantial disruption of the work of the school -- especially as it was not in a classroom setting.

To say that Frederick's message was pro-drugs and therefore not allowed is to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. You can't seriously argue that drug advocacy (much less Frederick's ridiculous sign) comes with the small category of speech that can be prohibited per se because of its feared consequences.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/478/675.html), 478 U.S. 675 (1986), can be seen as limiting Tinker, but Bethel did not go as far as this decision.

I'm outraged by Thomas's concurrence, but not by the majority decision. It seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction, but not a big step.


(BTW, sorry I haven't been in this thread more. RL interfered. And I may not have a chance to post more before I go on a three-week vacation tomorrow.)


Of course students. I not only think that this guy should have been permitted to display this sign if he were under school rules, but I would have encouraged him

The problem is that this activity is concretely and directly against the direction of what the school is supposed to teach, at a school function. She asked him to take it down. He refused. And he was disciplined. There is simply no reason to claim the principal was wrong.

And this isn't to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. It's to prohibit the expression of an idea IN SCHOOL because it is counter to the purpose of a school. There are many ideas that would not be appropriate for such activities. This decision only limits what you can do while under the supervision of a school.

Frankly, I would argue that a student should have been permitted to protest the law here. That's not what this student did. Well, not just I would argue, this is what the decision argues. It didn't make a political argument. It simply presented a pro-drug message.