Student suspended Over 'Anti-Gun Control' Class Project

Status
Not open for further replies.
At any rate, the mother is doing what she needs to do with respect to hiring an attorney to deal with this.

Since we aren't going to hear from the state's side (i.e., the school officials and child protective agency), we aren't going to hear any other side to the story. So we aren't likely to get anything else to speculate on unless this goes to court.

Even if we did...it'd still be a bunch of "he said/she said" stuff.
 
You should prolly read "tinker" and then get back to us.
I took an entire class in school law (I'm a teacher) so I have read Tinker. I can promise you that students aren't allowed to say inflammatory things. The SC was very explicit in saying that student free speech can't disrupt the educational process.

And prolly isn't a word.

Maybe this thread should be moved to Legal?
 
Didn't say anything about Tinker allowing "Inflammatory" statements or comments. In fact I said just the opposite.

See here.

Free Speech doesn't allow anyone to use that speech anyway they wish.

But for a public school to limit that speech they must have valid reasons.

See.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tink...chool_District

The court's 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[4] Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was "based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam." The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."[5] The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

Nowhere did I post anything even remotely saying Tinker allows "Inflammatory" speech.
 
Whatever, guy. None of these statements would be protected speech in a school, public or not:

Jews smell funny.
Sally is ugly.
I wish you would all die.


And that's what I'm getting at. We don't know what is going on with this young man, but there is no reason to believe that the existence of his project is the problem. So if it is related to speech, it is unlikely to be the political position but how it was made. Or something completely different on the thumb drive.
No what you're doing is backpedaling from an unsupportable comment.
 
You should prolly read "tinker" and then get back to us.
You should get some perspective on how much Constitutional law needs to come out of the woodwork every time an unsubstantiated half-story pops up.
 
Those opposed to that for which the Constitution stands generally, at best, view it as an annoyance.


I really doubt that anyone here that owns a gun, is opposed to what the Constitution stands for. Folks are jumping to conclusions and belittling fellow gun owners over something we basically know nuttin' about. I think before we trash any more of our fellow gun owners, we need to take a lesson from Paul Harvey........
 
I really doubt that anyone here that owns a gun, is opposed to what the Constitution stands for. Folks are jumping to conclusions and belittling fellow gun owners over something we basically know nuttin' about. I think before we trash any more of our fellow gun owners, we need to take a lesson from Paul Harvey........
We've had supposed "gun owners" here call for everything from "universal background checks" (REGISTRATION) to "assault weapon" bans.

In case you missed it, VP candidate Tim Kaine called himself a "2nd Amendment supporter"... THIS WEEK.

I can call myself the king of Romania. That doesn't mean you have to believe it.
 
I can call myself the king of Romania. That doesn't mean you have to believe it.

Give me irrefutable proof and I will believe it. Same goes for what the kid that quit school says. I need more info before I jump in with both feet. You believe him without proof because you want to. I suspect it's because you believe that schools are all run by liberals with anti-gun agendas. It would be nice to know what else is on that thumbdrive.
 
Give me irrefutable proof and I will believe it. Same goes for what the kid that quit school says. I need more info before I jump in with both feet. You believe him without proof because you want to. I suspect it's because you believe that schools are all run by liberals with anti-gun agendas. It would be nice to know what else is on that thumbdrive.
A VERBATIM quote of myself:

If things are as claimed, follow up the withdrawal from public school with a lawsuit and a campaign to destroy the reputations and livelihoods of the perpetrators.
 
As I said previously, you're trying to backpedal away from an unsupportable statement. This doesn't help your case.

Learning about the 14th Amendment and incorporation might at least give you a credible argument...
I don't need to "make a case". This isn't a Constitutional crisis, it's half a story generated by a teenager. Get some perspective.
 
I don't need to "make a case". This isn't a Constitutional crisis, it's half a story generated by a teenager. Get some perspective.
And a good thing too, given your inability so far to make a factual and coherent statement about the 1st and 14th Amendments or incorporation.
 
Well, it is a story generated by a teenager, and his mom, who went to the press. By their own version, the boy gave his talk on a paper similar to other students, got an A, and all was right with the world until somebody found his thumb drive in the library. Then there was trouble. The only thing linking the presentation to the suspension is that a copy of the presentation was on the thumb drive.

So they would have us believe that even though other people gave similar talks on the issue, that he was singled out. That just doesn't make sense. So is this really a civil rights case as Frank Harvey and his mother would have use believe or something else?

Interestingly, there has been no follow-up in the press on this story. You would think after stating she was looking for a lawyer for this purported civil rights violation of her boy, that the mother and her lawyer would be in the press again talking about how they want a pound of flesh from the school, but this hasn't happened. Getting a lawyer for such a case isn't a problem, assuming there is a valid case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top