Dammit Travis

[oldtimer]

It wasn't that bad.  We were just getting to an understanding of what free speech really means.  

[Travis In Austin]

I think not.

[oldtimer]

Of course it was where the conversation was leading.

 

[oldtimer]

At any rate, maybe this episode will be a lesson, for those capable of learning.

 

[Travis In Austin]

Perhaps in 8 or 9 pages maybe.  

 

The trail of carnage was long enough as it was.  

 

If they want to understand free speech they only need to go to this link and read the merits briefs and all of the amicus briefs.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccullen-v-coakley/

 

 

[oldtimer]

Lets hope they do.

 

[oldtimer]

Here's more.

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

[oldtimer]

None of it focuses on the crux.  Free speech is the right to criticize the government, without retribution from the government.  That's it.  Those who whine that their free speech rights are infringed in any other context are blowing wind out their backsides.  Say whatever you will, and your employer fires you for it.  Your free speech rights were not infringed.  Get shouted down while trying to say something, your free speech rights were not infringed.  There is a lot of nonsense to the contrary.  Perhaps they are wussified.  And hypocrites.

[Travis In Austin]

4 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

None of it focuses on the crux.  Free speech is the right to criticize the government, without retribution from the government.  That's it.  Those who whine that their free speech rights are infringed in any other context are blowing wind out their backsides.  Say whatever you will, and your employer fires you for it.  Your free speech rights were not infringed.  Get shouted down while trying to say something, your free speech rights were not infringed.  There is a lot of nonsense to the contrary.

Well pretty close. You can demonstrate  against and picket a non-governmental entity from public sidewalks.  That is what the McCullen case was about (abortion clinic, a 35' barrier was unconstitutional).

 

An employer cannot limit an employee's speech related to union activities under federal law and Texas law.

 

A.school cannot limit a student's non-verbal expression as long as it is not disruptive. 

 

And many other examples.in private sector.

[USNRET]

2 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

as long as it is not disruptive

that might be a little subjective..........

 

[oldtimer]

Scapegoating.  It's the teachers.  It's the athletes.  It's the press, wait, a free press is in the first amendment.  Is there any reason a free press is in the very first amendment?  Nah, that's just a coincidence.  But now we know they are the enemy of the people. Now that is something for Hitler to be proud of.  As long as it is someone else, we are not to blame.

[Travis In Austin]

Just now, USNRET said:

that might be a little subjective..........

 

It is, but that's the test.  The school would have to prove that it disrupted other student's ability to learn.

 

It's from a case called Tinker v. Des.Moines ISD. 

n December 1965, at a meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, adults and students discussed how they could publicize their objections to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The students decided that they would wear black armbands to school to show their sorrow for those on both sides who had died in the war and their support for a proposed truce. When the principals of their schools became aware of the students’ plan to wear the armbands, they adopted a policy that any student joining the protest would be asked to remove the armband and that any student who refused to do so would be suspended until he or she returned to school without the armband. The students were aware of this newly adopted policy.    

On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker, a 13-year-old junior high student, and Christopher Eckhardt, a student at Roosevelt High School, wore two-inch-wide black armbands to their schools. On December 17, Mary Beth Tinker’s 15-year-old brother, John Tinker, a student at North High School, and several other high school students did the same. The armbands caused some comments and warnings, and some students poked fun at the demonstrating students. One teacher indicated that his lesson was “wrecked” because of the demonstration and that the armbands diverted students’ minds from their regular lessons. However, no disturbances on school premises occurred. The demonstrating students merely went to their classes wearing the black armbands. Mary Beth and five high school students, including John and Christopher, were sent home and told that they could come back to school if they removed the armbands.

The students’ parents filed a complaint in a U.S. District Court and asked for an injunction to restrain school officials from disciplining the students. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that the action taken by school officials was a reasonable response to prevent possible disturbance of the public school environment. The parents appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This court was equally divided, thus allowing the District Court's decision to stand. The parents then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

 

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." — Justice Abe Fortas

 

[Travis In Austin]

[Travis In Austin]

Immigration marches by Round Rock youths lead to 50 court cases

• Austin American-Statesman
• 3 Nov 2006
• By Katie Humphrey

 

On Thursday, Round Rock Municipal Court opened the first jury trial of a student charged with class disruption, a Class C misdemeanor, in connection with the daytime protests.

Prosecutors argued that the actions of the students, including 15year-old defendant Irvin DeLuna,

to the were so distracting that classes couldn’t proceed as normal. Defense attorneys countered that students have a right to free speech.

“What’s on trial here is whether joining a march with other students is a crime that Irvin should be punished for,” defense attorney Travis Williamson told the six-person jury in his opening statement.

But City Prosecutor Susan CampLee said the protests caused major disruptions for two days.