Scotus 1-0 Free speech

[CeriseNoire]

Well, in my humble opinion, even kids (and unfortunately, morons too) have freedom of speech. I don't remember there being an age limit imposed on the First Amendment...

Schools take things too far. I have a friend whose daughter was forced to remove her necklace that had a cross on it. Who decides where to draw the line?

Thank God I homeschool my kids..

But, here's the thing, everyone feels like they have the right to interpret the Constitution their own way.. Even if I don't agree with what some moron says, I'd still respect his right to be a moron...

While I think what happened to your friend's daughter was excessive, we do (in schools) have a responsibility and need to maintain order and academic focus. That mean we do have to censor things that are generally deemed either inappropriate for that age group or a big distraction. For example, if we don't allow profanity at school, we can't allow kids to wear shirts with the same profanity on it. It's a matter of time and place.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Well, in my humble opinion, even kids (and unfortunately, morons too) have freedom of speech. I don't remember there being an age limit imposed on the First Amendment...

Schools take things too far. I have a friend whose daughter was forced to remove her necklace that had a cross on it. Who decides where to draw the line?

Thank God I homeschool my kids..

But, here's the thing, everyone feels like they have the right to interpret the Constitution their own way.. Even if I don't agree with what some moron says, I'd still respect his right to be a moron...

He was on school grounds. There is freedom of speech in the country, but the school is private property and they have rules. This kid broke the rules of his school, and was punished accordingly.

Who decides where to draw the line? Whoever is in charge at whatever moment we are talking about. That's a sad fact, but still true.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

Ok, I agree that schools have to impose certain limits.. you can't have disruptions in the classroom, for example. And, I'll go so far as to say that over the years of problems with my local school district, I have perhaps developed a rebellious attitude towards school authority in general.
But, I do believe that some school districts are way too quick to take a child's right to free speech.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Ok, I agree that schools have to impose certain limits.. you can't have disruptions in the classroom, for example. And, I'll go so far as to say that over the years of problems with my local school district, I have perhaps developed a rebellious attitude towards school authority in general.
But, I do believe that some school districts are way too quick to take a child's right to free speech.

I do agree that there are cases when school officials overreact or, worse, act on personal bias. I think that those cases need to be fought. But sometimes the school officials are simply thinking more of legal issues than of common sense, because the former is what will get them dragged into court regardless of the latter. In the eyes of the law, consistency of enforcement is an important part of the legality of any school policy, and that can place the school officials in positions in which things that are commonly accepted and non-disruptive can fall into the same category as things that could be a problem.

I'm sure that that is where the much-ballyhooed "no touching" rule came from in that middle school that's been on the news. At heart, I'm sure that no one in that school really believes that it's impossible for children to touch each other in an innocent and appropriate way. What that rule suggests to me is that the school staff are tired of having to argue every single case of inappropriate contact up and down with every individual child and parent, each of whom insists that unless there is video evidence of obvious assualt that their child cannot legally be punished on pain of them suing the school for violation of their child's rights. At the same time they need some way to deal with the parents who are insisting that child X be punished immediately and prevented from ever touching their child again on pain of them suing the school for fostering an atmosphere permissive of assault and sexual harassment.

The result: no one is allowed to touch anyone ever again. But is that because the school officials are inherently unreasonable people, or is it because the other people involved in the situation, adults and children alike, have behaved so selfishly and with so little regard for the common good and purpose of the school that, like wholly unreasonable people everywhere, they can only be dealt with in ways that strike most people as unreasonable?

Yes, we must defend our rights from people who would take them from us in order to silence and control us. But sometimes we also have to defend them from people who want to claim the privileges of our most prized rights while using them in ways that will ultimately destroy them.

 

[shereads]

Eh. If you think so little of your right to free spreech that that's the most important thing you can think of doing with it, then you're the worst enemy to free speech present in the court, whatever they decide. You're the one who will be remembered each time someone else takes a stand for the right to free speech, and you're the one who will turn people against it. Why teach the world that the most treasured right of the American people is the right to act like a jackass at public events?

I agree that the issue seems to diminishes the importance of free speech. But the triviality is kind of the point here. Short of a compelling reason to deny someone the right to free expression, I prefer a hands-off approach.

This kid wasn't yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. He was just being ridiculous. And no doubt, the juxtaposition of Jesus, a pro-drug slogan, and juvenile humor were offensive to some people. So what? I'm offended by Choose Life bumper stickers - and if I'm stuck behind one while trying to leave the parking lot at this school event, my exposure to the offending message is practically forced. Again, so what? The adult response is to ignore such things; they are minor annoyances. They are not hate speech; they don't defame anyone; they don't invade anyone's field of vision or state of mind for more than the fraction of a second it takes to look away. If such trivial intrusions aren't protected under the First Amendment, then what hope do we have of protecting speech that is genuinely, seriously, deliberately controversial and provocative?

That's the legal point that I wish the court had addressed: without a compelling reason to silence someone, speech is protected. Compelling reasons are public safety, libelous and defamatory speech. Being an iconoclast, or making a clumsy bid for attention, are not.

There's another point to be made, having nothing to do with the court and everything to do with what the school hoped to accomplish by singling out this kid: boycotts and other forms of intimidation invariably accomplish the opposite of what the silencers are seeking to do. They focus attention on the very thing they want to make disasppear.

If the kid wanted attention, by God he's got it now. He's a Supreme Court case because of a silly sign.The adults whose actions brought this about - on both sides of the issue - should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shereads, I would entirely agree with your point if the child had not been on the grounds of the school at the time (as I am given to understand that he was, but I'm certainly amenable to correction on that topic). On his own time as his own person, I think that he should certainly be free to do as he likes. As a student at a school, however, he has a responsibility to behave in accordance with the goals of the institution. He also has an audience much more captive than has the person in front of you for a minute or so in traffic, and I feel that that too should be taken into account in weighing the limits of his behavior.

On the whole I tend to agree with you that the "default" position should be the freedom to speak as one likes. However, I suspect that we may differ on what constitutes a reason to limit that right. I think that instilling some manners and a sense of decorum is actually a useful function of a school and should be upheld as one of its missions. I also feel that people should have the right to hold public events without being automatically required to let anyone say anything he or she likes to the audience gathered for the event. That strikes me as going beyond the freedom to speak and entering into the freedom to hijack other people's work and planning and interrupt their activities in order to force an uninterested audience to listen to your speech.

I'm fine with bumper stickers because they don't interrupt a function (driving) that people typically expect or want to be the sole focus of their attention, but when it came, for instance, to a recent State of the Union Address, I was pleased to see an even-handed rejection of T-shirt-slogan-speech from both sides of the political spectrum. That function was not organized for the purpose of providing an audience to the wearers of the rejected items, and it was not appropriate for them to attempt to interject their political stances in that way.

By all means, I support their right to stand outside of the White House, or on street corners, or in their on front yards with signs; I support their right to print fliers or newspapers or magazines and distribute them to interested parties; I support their right to wear their T-shirts when walking about in the general public. When, however, the right to speak is turned into the right to harangue and annoy people gathered for another purpose, whether it be receiving an education or attending the funeral of a loved one, I think it goes too far. I'll agree that in the general run of things, the passing of an Olympic torch is an open and casual enough occasion that quite a lot of freedom of speech is appropriate, but adding a school into the equation does change things, at least for those tasked with getting the students re-focused on the educational portion of the school's mission.

Shanglan

 

[S-Des]

The result: no one is allowed to touch anyone ever again. But is that because the school officials are inherently unreasonable people, or is it because the other people involved in the situation, adults and children alike, have behaved so selfishly and with so little regard for the common good and purpose of the school that, like wholly unreasonable people everywhere, they can only be dealt with in ways that strike most people as unreasonable?

Selfish being the key word. The problem with all of these cases is that they are rarely about protecting freedoms, they are usually a selfish person who couldn't give a shit about anyone or anything but himself and his 15 minutes of fame. I've never met a student in high school or below who had "free speech". You doubt me, ask your child (or relative or friend) to go up to their teacher and refuse to work, then say insulting things (amusingly funny types). Where did his freedom go? Girls are sent home for wearing skirts that are too short or shirts that show too much skin. As Cerise said, any article of clothing that promotes alcohol, drugs, or other activities that the school finds objectionable is reason for punishment. This is nothing new and I'm amused over the hand wringing.

This kid lied (he claimed he didn't know that people could have interpereted "Bong hits for Jesus" as a pro drug message). Now he admits he did it specifically to get punished to cause a problem for the teacher. Because of his actions (and his pathetic family's indulgence) we now have a precedent that someone will try to use someday to curtail actual speech. The school always has a right to punish for whatever reason they choose. If the parent or community disagrees, they have an avenue to address their concerns (the school board). This should have never been in a court.

 

[BlackShanglan]

If the parent or community disagrees, they have an avenue to address their concerns (the school board). This should have never been in a court.

You know, that's a good point. Ironically, the eagerness of people to leap into legal action is itself one of the greatest incentives for schools to curtail liberties. I wonder how long it will be before some school decides that a "no posters of any kind at any function" rule is the simplest and cheapest way to deal with this sort of free speech issue? I already know of at least two school districts that have "no clothing with any sort of lettering on it" rules, and of course many others have opted to simply go for uniforms in hopes that the problem might go away. It was that or spend most of their time and resources individually dealing with suits for or against the wearing of racist slogans, religious messages, exhortations to consume drugs or alcohol, celebrations of gore and violence, and so on and on and on.

Shanglan

 

[S-Des]

You know, that's a good point. Ironically, the eagerness of people to leap into legal action is itself one of the greatest incentives for schools to curtail liberties. I wonder how long it will be before some school decides that a "no posters of any kind at any function" rule is the simplest and cheapest way to deal with this sort of free speech issue? I already know of at least two school districts that have "no clothing with any sort of lettering on it" rules, and of course many others have opted to simply go for uniforms in hopes that the problem might go away. It was that or spend most of their time and resources individually dealing with suits for or against the wearing of racist slogans, religious messages, exhortations to consume drugs or alcohol, celebrations of gore and violence, and so on and on and on.

Shanglan

Which is why the people who've been most vociferously defending this kid has been the religious right. They see the possibility of schools being hostile to religion (or promotion of individual religions) and punishing anyone who makes a demonstration of their faith, no matter how innocuous. As I said earlier, if you live someplace nice, these things are more to prevent small hassles. If you live in the neighborhoods around here, schools do it to keep kids safe. We have a kid shot (or attacked) about once a week here. Just had a brave young man killed on a bus by some gang bangers who mistook him for someone from a rival gang. They stepped onto a city bus and began shooting, without any thought for the people crowded around. This 15 year-old stepped in front of a girl to protect her and died.

Schools should do whatever they feel is best and ignore "helpful advice" from people who aren't familiar with the situation. If they get out of line, there are plenty of opportunities to fix the situation that have nothing to do with lawsuits.

 

[Lone_Quixote]

Shereads, I would entirely agree with your point if the child had not been on the grounds of the school at the time (as I am given to understand that he was, but I'm certainly amenable to correction on that topic). On his own time as his own person, I think that he should certainly be free to do as he likes. . . .

Joseph Frederick was not on school property.

from CNN article (above)

Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.

From your posts, BlackShanglan, I take it that you favor the Bush Administration’s instituting the restriction of protesters to Orwellian “Free Speech Zones,” well out of view of the participants of the event being protested?

For my taste, no one has ever said it better than Aaron Sorkin in The American President:

President: America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight.

It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.

Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

 

[Remec]

He got suspended, probably for about three days, and then turned it into a court case? Nothing better to do? Idiot, should have unfurled the sign on private property while people were on the way to the event or leaving it. School officials couldn't have suspended him for it.

That is what he did. The sign was unfurled along a public street off of school property and the principal physically took it down and tore it up, according to the first accounts of the incident that I read.

The argument was that because the school was sponsoring the event, the school officials had authority over displays of any sort.

I think I'm alright with that, but not with sanctions imposed on the kid within school. (Well, maybe a denial of the privilege to participate in extra-curricular activities, but that would still be stretching it, IMHO.)

 

[Remec]

This kid lied (he claimed he didn't know that people could have interpereted "Bong hits for Jesus" as a pro drug message). Now he admits he did it specifically to get punished to cause a problem for the teacher. Because of his actions (and his pathetic family's indulgence) we now have a precedent that someone will try to use someday to curtail actual speech. The school always has a right to punish for whatever reason they choose. If the parent or community disagrees, they have an avenue to address their concerns (the school board). This should have never been in a court.

It's a chain of command. He went to the school board, they either didn't hear him or they sided with the principal; so he went beyond them. That's how things work, otherwise we'd never have had the rulings that do exist from the Vietnam era (although a fat lot of good they seem to be having these days).

 

[rgraham666]

From your posts, BlackShanglan, I take it that you favor the Bush Administration’s instituting the restriction of protesters to Orwellian “Free Speech Zones,” well out of view of the participants of the event being protested?

Uhm, no he doesn't, Lone. Shang finds the Bush administration quite revolting.

He's just saying there are nuances involved.

 

[Liar]

You know I hardly ever find your points in threads anything but brilliant, Liar. But I'd say, here, something similar in return. If the end goal of our constitution was to guarantee immature children the right to publically annoy their schoolmasters on the school's property in the middle of a completely unrelated event, what indeed was it worth?

Side effect, not end goal. Of course not end goal. And if you try to limit the side effect, you end up risking limits to the end goal. And that, we can't have.

 

[impressive]

SCOTUS sounds like part of the male anatomy.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Uhm, no he doesn't, Lone. Shang finds the Bush administration quite revolting.

He's just saying there are nuances involved.

Thank you, Rob. That's very much appreciated.

Thank you as well, Lone, for the correction on the location of the student. However, if he was there as part of a school function, I would still cede to the school the right to set boundaries on his behavior, just as I would to any teacher taking a class on a field trip. While recognizing the student's right to free speech, I also recognize the school's right and need to regulate the behavior of its students at school functions, and I think that that right was justly upheld in the verdict.

To be clear, I say that not because of *what* the student said; I find it silly rather than offensive, and really if he'd held up a banner saying something I quite agree with, like "Free the Hoofed Brethren from the Yoke of Servitude," for instance, I would still agree with the school. If the school was at that time responsible for him (as they are for all students during all school functions), it had the right to restrict his behavior in order to prevent disruption of the event or of the student body.

Side effect, not end goal. Of course not end goal. And if you try to limit the side effect, you end up risking limits to the end goal. And that, we can't have.

I realize that this is a popular argument on the topic of free speech, but it's not actually one that I agree with. I believe that if one's interpretation of the right to free speech is so wide-ranging, absolute, and rigid that behavior that the vast majority of people regard as highly offensive, unfairly disruptive, or pointlessly sophomoric must be upheld, the right to free speech will not be capable of preservation - because it will become the right to be offensive, disruptive, and sophomoric, and the majority will turn against it. It is very difficult to convince people to value and defend a thing that appears to them to be used primarily to make their lives less pleasant, and every time we ask them to do that we erode their valuation of the right itself. If we use it for worthless things, it will become, by definition, a worthless right.

While I think it very important to uphold the right to free speech by challenging attempts to restrict it when it is used appropriately, I think that there is another duty to take up in its defense as well, and that is the duty to deny criminal, destructive, disruptive, and wantonly malevolent use of that right. When we ignore that duty, we place the right itself in peril, and more so each time that we ask people to ignore all common sense and decency in its defense.

Personally, I look at what we've done with freedom of the press as a cautionary example. We have a press that enjoys more freedoms than perhaps any in the world - and we have some of the most worthless, idiotic, and ignorant news media in the world as well. We bought from them the argument that they had the absolute right to pry into the private lives of celebrities and entertainers as a matter of public interest, and that any resistence would lead to a terrible clampdown on the vital freedoms of the press that our forefathers fought and died for. And what has it led to? Nonstop covereage of Paris Hilton's ass while in Darfur, the genocide progresses with hardly a word.

Our rights are what we allow them to become.

Shanglan

 

[Picodiribibi]

[everything BS said on this thread]

Shanglan

Damn. Well said.

I think I'm going to stop commenting on political threads and stick to writing bad poetry. If I'm going to be pretentious and incomprehensible, at least I can be pretentious and incomprehensible with style.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Damn. Well said.

I think I'm going to stop commenting on political threads and stick to writing bad poetry. If I'm going to be pretentious and incomprehensible, at least I can be pretentious and incomprehensible with style.

*laugh* Much better said! I make that vow about once a week, but the devil is in me and I end up posting again. The SO just gives me a roll of the eyes and shake of the head.

 

[shereads]

... the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.

Good ol' Aaron Sorkin. I agree, absolutely, that as long as no one is endangered or libeled - or an event disrupted, to a far greater extent that can be done by someone holding a sign or wearing a t-shirt - free speech should be inviolate.

Bill Maher uses the marijuana-versus-beer conundrum to illustrate his belief that we are not a free country; we are a paternalistic country that grants to the majority of participating citizens whatever freedoms they hold dear enough to defend, as a voting bloc. The minority are allowed the same freedoms, to the degree they can afford them; certain freedoms that are unique to a powerless minority of people - the way marijuana was once unique to the Jazz culture and African Americans - can be taken away without offending anyone who matters. In doing so, those in power and their constituents reassert the social hierarchy. The freedoms that are lost or weakened don't concern the majority, because they aren't freedoms they expect to use.

Things change, though, and the freedoms we take away from people who don't matter eventually may come back to haunt us.

For decades, America's white men could happily drink a toast to the sentencing of pot-smoking Negros and hippies. Now that a majority of America's middle class are or have been pot smokers themselves, the drug laws are archaic and embarrassing - but the anti-drug message is so deeply engrained in our culture, no politician wants to touch the issue of legalization. Not even if he and his constituents are users themselves, in the privacy of their homes.

This stuff turns us into a nation of liars and hypocrites. Smart-ass high-school students do so much less harm.

 

[shereads]

I just have to ask: If the person with the offensive sign had been an adult, and not subject to the whims of a school board, should some other punative action have been taken? What if the person was making an unpopular statement about the event itself - maybe protesting the commercial and political aspects of the Olympics, the expense to taxpayers, etcetera? There are valid objections to the institution of the Olympics. Should protests of that nature be banned, as well, because most of the crowd wouldn't want to be exposed to them?

 

[S-Des]

What if the person was making an unpopular statement about the event itself - maybe protesting the commercial and political aspects of the Olympics, the expense to taxpayers, etcetera? There are valid objections to the institution of the Olympics. Should protests of that nature be banned, as well, because most of the crowd wouldn't want to be exposed to them?

Except the court made sure to note that this decision only covered the endorsement of illegal activity. If the kid had a sign that said, "Legalize pot!" or any other type of political or social commentary, the ruling would be in favor of him. BTW, it was not that the court thought his sign encouraged drug use, only that it was reasonable that the principle could have interpereted it that way. This ruling is so narrow, it's amazing that people have gotten so worked up over it. The questions asked have nothing to do with what happened or what was decided.

Another thing I heard tonight that I didn't know before, he did not originally plan to sue. The ACLU approached him and offered to represent him for free. Gee, arguing a case in multiple courts, taking time away from busy case loads to protest a one week suspension? Once again, lawyers fucking up everything.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I just have to ask: If the person with the offensive sign had been an adult, and not subject to the whims of a school board, should some other punative action have been taken? What if the person was making an unpopular statement about the event itself - maybe protesting the commercial and political aspects of the Olympics, the expense to taxpayers, etcetera? There are valid objections to the institution of the Olympics. Should protests of that nature be banned, as well, because most of the crowd wouldn't want to be exposed to them?

I'd argue that all of the above should be allowed. While your choice of the word "whim" seems intended to slight the desires of the school, so long as the student is at a school-sponsored event, I think that the school has a reasonable right to limit his behavior in pursuit of the school's goals. If he hadn't been there as part of a school function - whatever his age - then I think that his banner would be perfectly legal. Silly and pointless, perhaps, but perfectly legal.

 

[BlackShanglan]

In doing so, those in power and their constituents reassert the social hierarchy. The freedoms that are lost or weakened don't concern the majority, because they aren't freedoms they expect to use.

I see difficulties with this interpretation when looking at history. Prohibition, for instance, disproportionately limited urban and typically more wealthy people as compared to rural dwellers who could much more easily build their own stills and secure their own supplies of alcohol. But even if we set that aside, it was still a ban on the drug of choice of the wealthiest people of the country. The same is true of the ban on cocaine. And hashish and opium, while available to lower socio-economic groups, also had many users at higher levels as well.

Looking more broadly than just bans, there's the heavy additional tax - I'm thinking it was something like 20%, but I have a terrible memory for numbers - on boats over a certain footage that was brought in some years ago in order specifically to tax just the yachts of the wealthy. At last call there was a hue and cry for it to be repealed, but not by the wealthy - instead, by the craftsmen who made those boats and saw their orders collapse. That seems to be a fairly clear case of the rich having less control than the poor.

History is cheeringly full of cases of the powerful ceding rights to the powerless. Men, after all, passed the laws that gave women the vote. Adults passed laws securing the rights of children. Humans passed laws granting rights to animals. At the moment, any number of U. S. citizens are struggling to pass laws to grant rights to people who are not currently citizens.

Yes, sometimes the powerful abuse their power. Sometimes pretty much anyone abuses power, however little he or she may have. But I think you're oversimplifying to suggest that the entire history of controlled substances represents solely the desire of the wealthy to stop other people from having fun.

 

[shereads]

I'd question whether America's most powerful and influential families suffered the effects of Prohibition. French brandy was said to be readily available in finer English households during the Napoleonic wars. Where there's a need, there is always a blackmarket profiteer in the wings, who can fill it if the price is right.

As will happen when abortion is eventually criminalized in the U.S., people of means will simply acquire what they need and want from non-U.S. sources.

So yes, i think it's valid to presume that the distinction between marijuana and alcohol is not that one is a drug and one is not, but that marijuana at the time it was criminalized, was the drug of America's urban poor and particularly of black Americans. There's no logic to the law.

As a member of the ACLU (I joined the day after 9/11, fearing that it would be used as an excuse to attack our civil liberties) I don't support every action it undertakes. But I would prefer that the ACLU err on the side of free expression, even when a particular case seems trivial. Why? Because attacks on freedom are rarely frontal attacks, of the kind that are likely to generate massive oppposition. Incidents like this one have to meet opposition - or every small-time zealot with a modicum of power will be taking it upon himself to decide what is and is not allowable speech on a public street.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That the rich suffer less of the consequences of pretty much everything is true. I don't think that that means that it's the motive behind most laws. I think it was Victor Hugo who pointed out the inherent "fairness" of a legal system that prohibits the rich man and the poor man alike from stealing bread when starving, but surely there the root of the problem is the disparity of resources available to the people, and not the decision to make theft illegal.

But with that said, I would humbly like to point out that I stifled my free speech and didn't tell our latest newbie that I would love to respond to the request "I need help!! Did anyone read this?!?!?!" but simply needed a bit more punctuation to really indicate urgency to me. Perhaps our poster is more wealthy in punctuation than I, but I don't begrudge him/her that privilege.

Shanglan