Bill proposed to allow students to have free speech at home

[Dredly]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...uth-blog-case/

[Coops]

Any school administrator who students think is not a "douche bag" is not doing their job. They should be happy the girl can spell and use words in the proper context.

And since when do we need a BILL to allow free speech. It is a guaranteed right in the constitution. Infringing on that right is what needs to be remedied.

[MichaelJ]

Any school administrator who students think is not a "douche bag" is not doing their job. They should be happy the girl can spell and use words in the proper context.

And since when do we need a BILL to allow free speech. It is a guaranteed right in the constitution. Infringing on that right is what needs to be remedied.

We already infringe on their other rights by making it illegal for children to be certain places at certain times (curfew and truancy). So are kids fully covered by the constitution or not?

[phillyd2]

We already infringe on their other rights by making it illegal for children to be certain places at certain times (curfew and truancy). So are kids fully covered by the constitution or not?

Not.......

[Whiskey Delta]

Not.......

Correct.

The constitution is written for adults.

That being said, I would ask the little girl why she would want to work in a system governed by 'douchebags'.

I don't think I'd be proud of my kid for using that kid of language to refer to an adult.

Any REAL complaint regarding the performance of adults in this child's life should go back up the chain of command "ie the parents".

Free speech isn't free, if you mean "Free of any and all consequence"...

[LittleRedToyota]

the age qualification can be found in article MCMXII of the constitution which clearly states "this right guarantees in this constitution are only applicable to those who are age 18 or older...the government is hereby granted unlimited authority to do whatever it wants when dealing with those under age 18."

it's right after article MCMXI which states "as used in this document, the term 'shall not be' shall mean 'is allowed to be'".

and right before article MCMXIII which states "as used in this document, the term 'among the several states' shall mean 'entirely within a single state'".

yep...

er, um, wait...

nevermind.

[phillyd2]

lol but if memory serves me correctly (rare these days I admit) did not the Supremes rule on this some time ago? I’ll go out on a limb and say it was a 4th. Amendment issue about searching their lockers or something. Or maybe that was that it was school property.

All off the top of my head so one of you will need to correct me here.

[Coops]

I just read the Constitution again, and I can find no mention anywhere that restricts rights by age except pertaining to holding national office, and the 26th amendment that gives everyone over 18 the right to vote. The Constitution applies to all US citizens, not just adults. Citizenship is granted at birth.

In particular the first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It does not say you have to be 18 to have this right.

While we are not talking about laws per se but rules from a local school board, their influence ends at the school property line. To draw an analogy that might hit closer to home... What if the local school board refused to allow students whose parents owned a gun to work on the school newspaper?
Is that OK? How about if they proclaim that no Muslim students can play football?

I firmly agree that discipline belongs to the parents and that free speech does not guarantee freedom of consequences. But no threats were issued and there is no slander if there is truth to the statement. The fact that the school board took action against a 16 year old for speaking her mind while in her own home is proof enough that they are indeed douche bags.

I also do not think that another law is required to enforce the right to free speech. This is a tort case between the parents/student and the school board. If a court finds for the plaintiff, then the school board is libel for damages and a precedent is set.

[Coops]

lol but if memory serves me correctly (rare these days I admit) did not the Supremes rule on this some time ago? I’ll go out on a limb and say it was a 4th. Amendment issue about searching their lockers or something. Or maybe that was that it was school property.

All off the top of my head so one of you will need to correct me here.

Sorry for the double post.

Searching lockers is not in violation of the 4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It says nothing about personal effects kept in a box that belongs to somebody else. Also, the word "unreasonable" is open to wide interpretation.
As far as I can tell, the US Supreme Court has never ruled on school locker searches. Many State courts have ruled and I believe all have found that school lockers can be searched legally.

Just to be clear here, I am not a lawyer nor am I a trained constitutional scholar. These are just my own interpretations of the US constitution.

[LittleRedToyota]

lol but if memory serves me correctly (rare these days I admit) did not the Supremes rule on this some time ago?

yes, they did.

SCOTUS has ruled many times that the constitution says things it does not say...and does not asy things it does say.

in spite of their rulings, though, the actual words of the constitution do not change (outside of it being amended)...and, thus, the *legitimate* authority (and the limitations on that authority) of the federal government does not change.

the practical, but illegitimate, authority of the government, on the other hand...