Quote:
Originally posted by Adder
As a fine point of constitutional law, you are probably right. But nonetheless, I'm not sure its ignorant or intolerant to suggest to a public school teacher that this might be a wise course of action to avoid potential controversy. And, frankly, I'm not sure this as a clear a question of constitutional law as you imagine.
|
Nuh-uh.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (7-2 decision finding that school officials violated the First Amendment rights of students by suspending them for wearing black armbands to school, referring to the symbolic speech act as a “nondisruptive, passive expression of a political viewpoint”);
cf. Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (high school does not offend First Amendment by punishing vulgar campaign speech; prohibiting the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse is a “highly appropriate function of public school education”).
A public school teacher who instructed a student to remove a cross “to avoid potential controversy” would be bitch-slapped by every First Amendment interest group in the country, and seven if not nine Supreme Court justices.
Followups to the Aggressive Use of Con Law Thinktank (i.e., the Politics Board).
