Since were talking about the law, not your opinion of right an wrong, it's sort of a default
Isaac Send a noteboard - 09/09/2009 05:01:08 PM
I don't think you're going to find a lot of people who think these parents were doing the right and proper thing, so debating its ethics are about as redundant and unnecessary as debating the merits of anti-semiticism, we're talking about rights.
Actually that is not how it is. Public schools do not get to make up rules about what people can or can't wear. The supreme court has ruled on this repeatedly. Neither public instituions or even private franchise have the right to ban things without question, many a lawsuit - quite a few of which have been successful - have challenged these sorts of things. Schools can limit certain rights in the name of security, disruption, etc. This isn't carte blanche, there are some pretty solid guidelines about it. It as to be reasonable and even-handed, or close to it, or the ACLU wil show up.
Bingo, it's a rule, and so long as it can't be shown to be applied in a discrimnatory fashion - banning an AC/DC concert shirt but letting someone else wear a 'Mozart Rules' short - as well as having at least some basis in reality, then by and large the school can do it. Banning eating on the second floor would be safe because they could easily rationalize it as a health issue, for instance. They be in serious trouble if the rule was instead "boys can eat in class, girls can't" or banning yawning.
Well, I appreciate how off-the-cuff remarks often get taken too seriously on account of a lack of verbal and tonal context. But even here, you're making a bad judgement. I'm a republican, I have no prob with wearing a "Canidate X for year Y" shirt, though I avoid doing so in most places because it is, well, disruptive. I also have no problem with someone wearing a shirt for the opposite candidate, but I'd be screaming holy heck if someone tried to get me to wear the other's guys shirt. It's the same as raising the flag on your lawn, perfectly legitimate expression of freedom, and making someone raise the flag on their lawn, which is basically the exact opposite of freedom and much worse then telling someone they can't raise a certain flag on their lawn. On the grand scale of oppression telling people 'no' on certain expressions is not as bad as making someone express themselves agianst their will and creed, and both are pretty f'd up.
As you pointed out, Schools make their own rules about what you can and can't do. And, they're completely within their rights to also impose consequences for breaking those rules.and, just like a workplace, schools will have rules about what you can and cannot wear, say, or do. That's just how it is.
Actually that is not how it is. Public schools do not get to make up rules about what people can or can't wear. The supreme court has ruled on this repeatedly. Neither public instituions or even private franchise have the right to ban things without question, many a lawsuit - quite a few of which have been successful - have challenged these sorts of things. Schools can limit certain rights in the name of security, disruption, etc. This isn't carte blanche, there are some pretty solid guidelines about it. It as to be reasonable and even-handed, or close to it, or the ACLU wil show up.
I agree with you this amendment argument is ridiculous. The children are being sent home for refusing to follow a school rule. In my high school, we had a rule that you weren't allowed to eat food on the second floor. If you refused to follow that rule, you could be suspended. It's really no different.
Bingo, it's a rule, and so long as it can't be shown to be applied in a discrimnatory fashion - banning an AC/DC concert shirt but letting someone else wear a 'Mozart Rules' short - as well as having at least some basis in reality, then by and large the school can do it. Banning eating on the second floor would be safe because they could easily rationalize it as a health issue, for instance. They be in serious trouble if the rule was instead "boys can eat in class, girls can't" or banning yawning.
My response to the article was somewhat off-the-cuff and not meant to be taken seriously. It was more of a response to the bit where the kids mentioned that they would be fine with a schoolmate coming to school with a shirt saying the same thing about Christianity. if they feel that way, they should have no issue wearing such a shirt in support of their peer's rights. Sort've a "put up or shut up."
Well, I appreciate how off-the-cuff remarks often get taken too seriously on account of a lack of verbal and tonal context. But even here, you're making a bad judgement. I'm a republican, I have no prob with wearing a "Canidate X for year Y" shirt, though I avoid doing so in most places because it is, well, disruptive. I also have no problem with someone wearing a shirt for the opposite candidate, but I'd be screaming holy heck if someone tried to get me to wear the other's guys shirt. It's the same as raising the flag on your lawn, perfectly legitimate expression of freedom, and making someone raise the flag on their lawn, which is basically the exact opposite of freedom and much worse then telling someone they can't raise a certain flag on their lawn. On the grand scale of oppression telling people 'no' on certain expressions is not as bad as making someone express themselves agianst their will and creed, and both are pretty f'd up.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Islam is of the Devil
06/09/2009 03:30:51 AM
- 1511 Views
This statement got me:
06/09/2009 06:30:16 AM
- 1132 Views
What you say about those places may be true
06/09/2009 02:16:30 PM
- 834 Views
Regardless...
07/09/2009 04:34:48 AM
- 764 Views
Re: Regardless...
07/09/2009 06:10:18 AM
- 855 Views
I'm not advocating the killing of Muslims.
08/09/2009 07:11:13 PM
- 886 Views
You are free to wear offensive clothing
08/09/2009 08:13:18 PM
- 843 Views
There is a difference between hatred and truth.
09/09/2009 04:04:02 PM
- 779 Views
You do know christans have done that as well don't you?
09/09/2009 06:04:28 PM
- 842 Views
The difference is...
09/09/2009 06:16:13 PM
- 781 Views
really have you actaully read the Qur'an
09/09/2009 06:33:38 PM
- 819 Views
Acrually No I don't.
09/09/2009 07:52:19 PM
- 700 Views
Someone should have told Jesus the OT was void
09/09/2009 10:31:39 PM
- 833 Views
Jesus was the one who voided it.
10/09/2009 12:25:18 AM
- 817 Views
Logicaly, this is a stupid post.
06/09/2009 03:58:43 PM
- 856 Views
As an Englishman, why are you even posting in this thread then? *NM*
07/09/2009 02:49:22 AM
- 415 Views
Because I can.
07/09/2009 10:15:57 AM
- 849 Views
So can he.
07/09/2009 07:54:56 PM
- 755 Views
Yes
08/09/2009 05:59:24 AM
- 790 Views
It means a lot in context to the situation
08/09/2009 07:14:50 PM
- 894 Views
No, it does not.
08/09/2009 07:20:49 PM
- 829 Views
So now you can tell me what I can and can't do with my children?
08/09/2009 11:31:16 PM
- 856 Views
I can tell you what you can't make your children do in school.
08/09/2009 11:59:21 PM
- 834 Views
Re: I can tell you what you can't make your children do in school.
09/09/2009 04:10:19 PM
- 889 Views
Re: I can tell you what you can't make your children do in school.
09/09/2009 04:27:32 PM
- 922 Views
Define "disruptive".
09/09/2009 06:19:36 PM
- 804 Views
The thing I think you are missing...
06/09/2009 07:18:45 PM
- 883 Views
Wait, what?
06/09/2009 08:29:14 PM
- 845 Views
That is why America is different than those countries. Duh. *NM*
06/09/2009 07:58:53 PM
- 555 Views
I don't think I understand your basic reasoning. You can't be saying what it sounds like.
08/09/2009 01:40:42 AM
- 847 Views
Re: I don't think I understand your basic reasoning. You can't be saying what it sounds like.
08/09/2009 07:18:00 PM
- 803 Views
"Their government" is the American government. *NM*
08/09/2009 07:36:27 PM
- 349 Views
And yet I don't see CAIR..
09/09/2009 04:07:05 PM
- 749 Views
Really?
08/09/2009 08:02:42 PM
- 746 Views
Re: I don't think I understand your basic reasoning. You can't be saying what it sounds like.
08/09/2009 11:49:48 PM
- 872 Views
I'm appalled that this was even worthy of note
06/09/2009 06:46:58 AM
- 841 Views
I believe the rest of the Church has done a horrible job explaining...
06/09/2009 08:02:25 PM
- 817 Views
The appropriate punishment...
07/09/2009 06:03:25 AM
- 834 Views
Punishment for what?
07/09/2009 09:51:57 AM
- 844 Views
When did I say anything about a law?
07/09/2009 10:48:09 AM
- 808 Views
Since were talking about the law, not your opinion of right an wrong, it's sort of a default
09/09/2009 05:01:08 PM
- 781 Views
Eh... I wish you were right, but I don't think you are.
10/09/2009 03:50:18 AM
- 895 Views
Morse isn't a bad example
10/09/2009 11:23:32 AM
- 797 Views
Fair enough. I'm just a little overzealous with what I see as infringements on civil liberties.
15/09/2009 01:14:48 AM
- 1089 Views
That's the key point so many forget:
07/09/2009 11:42:12 PM
- 691 Views
It's not that they forget, they never 'get' to begin with
09/09/2009 07:18:09 PM
- 838 Views