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).
|
How is this any different from a child wanting to bring all several "moms" from a religion based polygamist family to PTA, but being told there won't be enough banana bread for all 5. I still haven't heard one good argument?
