RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


West Virginia girl vs. school board suit... rediculous....(12 posts)

West Virginia girl vs. school board suit... rediculous....stinkfoot247
May 23, 2003 1:19 PM
I've been watching court tv all day long, because that's how disgusted I am. Basically what it is about is a girl who responsibly and maturely tries to establish an after school anarchy club. The definition of the club clearly and many times states it will not accept racism or violence. Clearly states that the purpose of the club is to discuss and learn about anarchy politics peacefully. Her principal never gave her a chance and on a later date suspended her for wearing a t-shirt expressing her political views. They played a tape of the school board hearing, and every one of the school board members proved how close minded and ignorant they were about anarchy. I wish you guys could how rediculous it was. I am eagerly waiting for what the jury has to say, and I will swallow 3 toaster ovens and jump in front of a car if she loses this suit. I'm not 100% sure, but I think she is seuing for a whole dollar. no joke, if my eyes saw right. Please practice open-mindedness folks.
I hope you like the taste of toaster ovens.czardonic
May 23, 2003 1:47 PM
IIRC, minors are routinely denied their constitutional rights, especially at school.

(Just waiting for a bunch of pro-school-prayer types to jump on the "irony" of a "liberal" lamenting this.)
Soak the toasters in milk first so they're not so chewey. nmsn69
May 23, 2003 1:55 PM
could have been a content neutral school regulationDougSloan
May 23, 2003 1:59 PM
The school can deny children to wear shirts with anything on them -- content neutral. If so, she can't wear the shirt. However, if they allow someone to wear "I Love America" and deny "Support Anarchy," then they have a problem.

Not sure how the club meeting thing will come out. Need more facts.

Doug
psDougSloan
May 23, 2003 2:07 PM


psSpoiler
May 23, 2003 3:14 PM
But who's going to run the country while I'm watching American Idol?
Nice, Doug:)- nmJon Billheimer
May 26, 2003 8:41 AM
Why is it so hard to solve WV murders?jesse1
May 23, 2003 3:24 PM
1 - All the DNA is the same.
2 - There are no dental records.
LOL...LOL.. LOL ...nmasphalt assault
May 25, 2003 7:37 PM
Suing for "a whole dollar"jtolleson
May 25, 2003 9:04 PM
is pretty common in civil rights actions, where the relief requested is "equitable"... ie., a request for injunctive relief merely seeking an order for the government to do XYZ (in this case, allow the t-shirt).

You didn't say what the t-shirt said, but I disagree with Doug's analysis (I represent a lot of school districts). A t-shirt reflecting non-disruptive (don't get me started, that's a long analysis) political speech is plainly permitted under Tinker v. Des Moines.

The creation of an extra-curricular "anarchy club," however, does involve analysis of what, if any, other extracurricular clubs are permitted. The Equal Access Act (which is kind of an unnecessary codification of the First Amendment but has helped school districts not be clueless) makes clear that if a school district creates a "limited open forum," it cannot engage in "viewpoint discrimination" between clubs except under limited circumstances (racism and violence qualify).
TinkerDougSloan
May 26, 2003 8:18 AM
Tinker did note this:

"It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol--black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation's involvement [511] in Vietnam--was singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible."

That's why I said that a content neutral banning of anything on tshirts might be permissible; don't know if that is the case here, though, or if they are singling out this particular statement. Tinker was a singling out.

Doug
Tinkerjtolleson
May 26, 2003 5:52 PM
Well, the case law beyond Tinker, but most importantly the adoption of the Equal Access Act (a supposed codification of the First Amendment... though that is a bit of a misnomer) makes clear that it isn't about "singling out." Even though the EAA is about clubs, its underlying principles make clear (consistent with current case law) that once a limited open forum is created, suppressing expressive activities can be curtailed only on the grounds of disruption.

Trust me. I represent a lot of school districts.