No Bong Hits for Jesus....

Desh said:
No it was a community event and the school kids were allowed to take part.

It wasnt a school event was it.
Click to expand...
If the school allows the student to go to the event, then it sanctions their attendance. This makes it a school function. They are still responsible for the actions of their students while at the event. Yes, even if they showed up for class late.
 
If the school allows you to take part, it does not dismiss you from school, it becomes a school sanctioned (sponsored) event. Are you really this daft?

Ok, so imagine the kids are sitting in a classroom, discussing, say politics. If a kid brings up the issue of legalisation of cannabis, and argues that if legalisation doesn't occur, kids will do it anyway, (ie advocates use) and the school doesn't take action against the kid, they therefore take on that opinion, it becomes their own and thus they have sponsored it?

An appropriate action for the principle would be told hold a debate with the child on the nature of cannabis use. If they wanted to change the opinion of the child with the banner, they should explain why they object, not simply take sanctions against them. That just makes people defensive, something we recognise on these boards, and entrenches them into their perspective. Doing this would also negate the need for a totalitarian limitation of free speech.
 
Last edited:
the kid was NOT under school supervision and if the kid had been harmed that day instead of diciplined the school would have argued the fact to avoid repercussions.

YOU know it and I know it!
 
AnyOldIron II said:
If the school allows you to take part, it does not dismiss you from school, it becomes a school sanctioned (sponsored) event. Are you really this daft?

Ok, so imagine the kids are sitting in a classroom, discussing, say politics. If a kid brings up the issue of legalisation of cannabis, and argues that if legalisation doesn't occur, kids will do it anyway, (ie advocates use) and the school doesn't take action against the kid, they therefore take on that opinion, it becomes their own and thus they have sponsored it?

An appropriate action for the principle would be told hold a debate with the child on the nature of cannabis use. If they wanted to change the opinion of the child with the banner, they should explain why they object, not simply take sanctions against them. That just makes people defensive, something we recognise on these boards, and entrenches them into their perspective. Doing this would also negate the need for a totalitarian limitation of free speech.
Click to expand...
Again a difference. He is not promoting that people break the law as he was in the other, he is advocating a change in the law. Saying, "Kids will do it anyway" does not advocate use it predicts an outcome of inaction.

Just as my suggestion that they would either have to do something about it or a child would report the inaction to their parents who would then file a lawsuit for their advocating the use of marijuana through inaction isn't promoting that they do anything specific other than take action.

Now, if he was advocating everybody breaking the law and promoting it, oh by using something like "Jesus wants you to smoke pot" then yes the school would have a responsibility to do something about it.
 
It was a puplic event and he was there as a citizen and NOT under the schools supervision.

I dont think the principle should be sued for her actions because she made a logical assumption that he was under school supervision when she disiplined him.

I do think the young man should have NOT been suspended.

This country has a WONDERFUL tradition of freedom of speech and I think the kids at that school would have learned SO MUCH about their government if the teacher had backed off and not suspended him and held an assembly to explain the entire incident.....BUT NO.... they ran scared and were affraid of the kids instead of being willing to teach them.

Now they whole country is going to be punished for years by a shitty ass scotus who should not even exsist.
 
Desh said:
It was a puplic event and he was there as a citizen and NOT under the schools supervision.

I dont think the principle should be sued for her actions because she made a logical assumption that he was under school supervision when she disiplined him.

I do think the young man should have NOT been suspended.

This country has a WONDERFUL tradition of freedom of speech and I think the kids at that school would have learned SO MUCH about their government if the teacher had backed off and not suspended him and held an assembly to explain the entire incident.....BUT NO.... they ran scared and were affraid of the kids instead of being willing to teach them.

Now they whole country is going to be punished for years by a shitty ass scotus who should not even exsist.
Click to expand...
Every member of the SCOTUS disagreed with you on the, 'He wasn't under school supervision' and disagreed so completely that it wasn't even included in any dissenting opinion. You keep arguing this as if you are going to change their minds.

Just as if the child were injured at this event the school would be responsible, so too are they responsible to enforce their rules.
 
They could have very successfully argued he was NOT their responsibility and would have.

I will go read all the desenting oppinions.

All the lower courts who decided in his favor took into account he never signed in that day.
 
Again a difference. He is not promoting that people break the law as he was in the other, he is advocating a change in the law. Saying, "Kids will do it anyway" does not advocate use it predicts an outcome of inaction.

Ok, another way. Imagine in a classroom debate a child argues for the legalisation of cannabis, advocating its qualities and recommending it.

Has the school then taken on and thus sanctioned that opinion if it doesn't take punative action against the child?

If I were to stand in my local high street with a banner advocating cannabis use, then I am entitled to. It is my freedom of speech, provided it cannot be demonstrated that direct harm to others has arisen. (indirect doesn't fall under the Harm Principle as anything can be easily demonstrated to have indirect harm)

Why should we not extend that right to children? Because they are in training to be adults? Should they not be training to exercise those faculties adult use, such as free expression of speech?
 
AnyOldIron II said:
Again a difference. He is not promoting that people break the law as he was in the other, he is advocating a change in the law. Saying, "Kids will do it anyway" does not advocate use it predicts an outcome of inaction.

Ok, another way. Imagine in a classroom debate a child argues for the legalisation of cannabis, advocating its qualities and recommending it.

Has the school then taken on and thus sanctioned that opinion if it doesn't take punative action against the child?

If I were to stand in my local high street with a banner advocating cannabis use, then I am entitled to. It is my freedom of speech, provided it cannot be demonstrated that direct harm to others has arisen. (indirect doesn't fall under the Harm Principle as anything can be easily demonstrated to have indirect harm)

Why should we not extend that right to children? Because they are in training to be adults? Should they not be training to exercise those faculties adult use, such as free expression of speech?
Click to expand...
However, it is legal to advocate a change in the law. It is even legal to change the law. Promoting the use while it is still illegal is not a stance the school should take, nor arguing the advocacy of such an action.

If a student advocates a change in the law he is advocating a legal action. If he is advocating illegal activity he is not advocating a legal action.
 
The principal and the Juneau School Board insist that Frederick was taking part in a school-sponsored event – the students were let out of school to attend the torch-passing rally, and school cheerleaders and pep band took part; the students were closely supervised; school system money was spent to bus students in from other schools; the event occurred during school hours, and four students were torch-bearers. Frederick with equal fervor insists that this was a public event in a public forum (a sidewalk next to a public street), he was not on school property at the time, he was an 18-year-old adult, and he had not even gone to class that morning so was not among students released to go to the rally.


This is from the given link, the students lawyer did agrue he was not under school supervision the Scotus just ignored it.
 
retard.... Scotus did NOT ignore it... they rejected it. It was clearly (as you have noted) argued before the lower courts. Do you think the Supreme's review a case WITHOUT reviewing the arguments made to the lower courts? They knew this was an argument previously used. They rejected that argument... completely. As Damo has tried to drill into your ever so small mind... not even the dissenters in the case thought that was a legitimate argument.
 
Desh said:
The principal and the Juneau School Board insist that Frederick was taking part in a school-sponsored event – the students were let out of school to attend the torch-passing rally, and school cheerleaders and pep band took part; the students were closely supervised; school system money was spent to bus students in from other schools; the event occurred during school hours, and four students were torch-bearers. Frederick with equal fervor insists that this was a public event in a public forum (a sidewalk next to a public street), he was not on school property at the time, he was an 18-year-old adult, and he had not even gone to class that morning so was not among students released to go to the rally.


This is from the given link, the students lawyer did agrue he was not under school supervision the Scotus just ignored it.
Click to expand...
As SF says, they heard it and rejected so wholly that it isn't even included in the dissenting opinion. All of them rejected it.
 
They ignored the impact on a womans health in the Partial birth case.

This is what helps make them bad decisions assbite.
 
Desh said:
They ignored the impact on a womans health in the Partial birth case.

This is what helps make them bad decisions assbite.
Click to expand...
They didn't ignore it there, they took testimony from doctors on both sides of that issue and disagreed with those that take your side. Somehow you believe that they just "don't hear" this? Of course they do. Your vision of this court is simplified to an extreme level.
 
Desh said:
They ignored that the young man was 18 and a private citizen at the time WOW thats great!
Click to expand...
You are always a "private citizen" even when you are under the supervision of the school. They didn't "ignore" it they rejected the idea that he wasn't under their responsibility at the time for the reasons I have outlined above.
 
"They ignored that the young man was 18 and a private citizen at the time WOW thats great!"

His age has nothing to do with this issue retard. As Damo stated, he (like the rest of us) is ALWAYS a private citizen. That does not alter at all the fact that the school was responsible for him.

You can try and act as though this was a "conservative courts" decision... but even the liberal judges rejected your dumbass argument. No matter how many times you repeat your idiotic beliefs... ALL NINE SUPREMES disagree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top