Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
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).
|
you flipped the hypo.* Ty and Fugee were talking about a school district (or officials thereof, I guess) telling a teacher not to wear one. though I'm not sure I understand Ty's reasoning that it is not a 1st Am slam dunk. Must have something to do with anti-establishment.
and now I step out of the Con Law discussion.
*MUCH less exciting than flipping the pussy.
