Free Speech Quiz

[tvashtarkatena]

This is an exercise I've been giving college level immigrant students: If you were a Supreme Court Justice, would you allow or disallow the following:

 

 

T shirt worn by a high school student at school

 

 

 

Banner at an off campus high school sponsored function

 

 

 

T shirt worn by a high school student at school

Edited November 30, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[kevbone]

Allow them all.

[ivan]

i've always been a big fan of school uniforms, no gray areas, plus its kinda cute?

 

[AlpineK]

I don't care if it impinges first amendment rights these things should be outlawed

 

Not really but sort of NSFW Ick

 

 

[Jim]

As long as all "political" speech was limited I guess it would be ok to ban all - though that starts getting into gray area of what is "political" speech and do students have an inherent right.

 

The bong one strikes me as insensitive to some religious belief and the Bush one is just crass. But these seem like great conversation pieces for students.

[sobo]

I'm OK with allowing them all.

 

Cannibis T-shirt: Making a statement of personal belief/opinion. Is it hate speech? No, totally a free speech issue. Don't like it? Get over it.

 

Bong hits 4 Jesus: Off campus, so not affiliated with any institution, just a gathering of citizens. Is it hate speech? No, totally a free speech issue. I don't really know what their intended message and audience are, but so what? If it were on campus without the school's consent, maybe the institution might have something to say about it...

 

@ Jim's comment regarding religious (in)sensitivity: Is the above banner more insensitive than the Westboro Baptist Church numbskulls' banners/signs picketing against GLBTs at funerals? To me, no it's not. Although I intensely dislike and abhor what those WBC assholes do at the services of those being laid to rest (veterans or otherwise), I still find that their douchebaggery is protected under the First Amendment (so did the SCOTUS, on appeal). They're just being incredibly stupid, extremely insensitive, and downright crass to take a funeral and make it a platform from which to broadcast their (hate) message, like that's going to earn them any converts or gain them much support for their "crusade." That insensitivity and stupidity alone, in my view, diminishes whatever message they, or anyone behaving similarly, might be trying to convey.

 

GW poster: Again, making a statement of personal belief/opinion. Is it hate speech? Some might think so, but it really isn't. It's still totally a free speech issue. Although, I do agree with Jim that it's just plain crass. Everybody loves to bash Bush, for any number of reasons. The same can be said of Obama, or any other political personality. They are all subjects (nay, targets) of political cartooning ever since Gutenberg invented the modern printing press. It's all just political opinion. Don't like it? Get over it.

[sobo]

Pat,

Since I brought it up, throw this one in front of your students and tell us what they say...

 

Should this be allowed at funerals?

 

 

(FYI, the SCOTUS upheld WBC's appeal in an 8-1 decision in 2008, in Snyder v Phelps)

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm OK with allowing them all.

 

 

 

Bong hits 4 Jesus: Off campus, so not affiliated with any institution, just a gathering of citizens. I don't really know what their intended message and audience are, but so what?

 

 

 

 

School sponsored, off campus function. The banner holders are students.

[sobo]

School sponsored? Really? Was it Evergreen?

 

Seriously, if the school sponsored it, then that's their choice and right. It's still First Amendment protected free speech, no matter how you look at it.

[tvashtarkatena]

Pat,

Since I brought it up, throw this one in front of your students and tell us what they say...

 

Should this be allowed at funerals?

 

 

(FYI, the SCOTUS upheld WBC's appeal in an 8-1 decision in 2008, in Snyder v Phelps)

 

SCOTUS got this one right, I believe.

[tvashtarkatena]

School sponsored? Really? Was it Evergreen?

 

Seriously, if the school sponsored it, then that's their choice and right. It's still First Amendment protected free speech, no matter how you look at it.

 

The school banned the banner. Hence the case.

[sobo]

Pat,

Since I brought it up, throw this one in front of your students and tell us what they say...

 

Should this be allowed at funerals?

 

 

(FYI, the SCOTUS upheld WBC's appeal in an 8-1 decision in 2008, in Snyder v Phelps)

 

SCOTUS got this one right, I believe.

I believe they did, too, despite the inherent hate contained in their message. I would be interested to know what your students think of the case...

[sobo]

School sponsored? Really? Was it Evergreen?

 

Seriously, if the school sponsored it, then that's their choice and right. It's still First Amendment protected free speech, no matter how you look at it.

 

The school banned the banner. Hence the case.

But the kids took the banner off-campus. School "control" ends => free speech => end of story.

[tvashtarkatena]

School sponsored? Really? Was it Evergreen?

 

Seriously, if the school sponsored it, then that's their choice and right. It's still First Amendment protected free speech, no matter how you look at it.

 

The school banned the banner. Hence the case.

But the kids took the banner off-campus. School "control" ends => free speech => end of story.

 

hee hee

[tvashtarkatena]

Pat,

Since I brought it up, throw this one in front of your students and tell us what they say...

 

Should this be allowed at funerals?

 

 

(FYI, the SCOTUS upheld WBC's appeal in an 8-1 decision in 2008, in Snyder v Phelps)

 

SCOTUS got this one right, I believe.

I believe they did, too, despite the inherent hate contained in their message. I would be interested to know what your students think of the case...

 

I'll spring this one on them next time. Also the American flag flap in CA.

[rob]

Hate is bad, m'kay? Don't talk about it.

 

Personally, I hope the bigots keep demonstrating their beliefs loudly and publicly for a long, long time. There is nothing worse than a closeted bigot. I'd like to know who they are.

[Pete_H]

Your original question is inherently flawed. Supreme Court Justices don't allow or disallow anything they affirm, remand, or vacate lower judgements; or just refuse to grant certiorari.

[sobo]

Also the American flag flap in CA.

Which flap is that? Is that the one where some Latino students at a CA high school hoisted a Mexican flag on the school's flagpole, and a bunch of American students took umbrage with it? Or are you talking about a different flap?

[sobo]

Your original question is inherently flawed. Supreme Court Justices don't allow or disallow anything they affirm, remand, or vacate lower judgements; or just refuse to grant certiorari.

Yes, technically the original question may have been flawed, but what I think everyone understood the question to be was...

"If you were a Supreme Court Justice, and this case was appealed up through the lower courts and is now before the SCOTUS for a decision, how would you rule upon it?"

[ivan]

you're asking the wrong guy at any rate - THIS is who you oughta be talking to!

[tvashtarkatena]

Thank you for your typically valuable contribution, Petey. Must be time to arrange your fingernail clipping jars now.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

hell's bells, it's an easy concept:

you're not allowed to have fun at school. ever.

if you are, you SHOULD probably be in trouble.

 

[ivan]

Thank you for your typically valuable contribution, Petey. Must be time to arrange your fingernail clipping jars now.

 

awwww, pat....he can always work on his punctuation there too

[tvashtarkatena]

A bunch of students wore American flag T shirts on Cingo de Mayo, presumably to poke the large, latino student population in the eye. The school has a history of racial tensions. The school told the students to turn their shirts inside out. So far, the courts have backed them up.

[sobo]

A bunch of students wore American flag T shirts on Cingo de Mayo, presumably to poke the large, latino student population in the eye. The school has a history of racial tensions. The school told the students to turn their shirts inside out. So far, the courts have backed them up.

"Them" being the students? Or the school?

 

Racial tensions aside, in my opinion this should be no different than allowing the WBC folks' the right to protest at funerals. This is still totally a free speech issue to me. The American-flag-wearing students should not have been forced to remove their shirts. Looks to me like the school administration kowtowed to the Latino student population in order to avoid an altercation. That's a pretty poor motivational basis, if you ask me.

 

I know that the decisions reached in Snyder v Phelps and the CA high school flap were made by two different courts, but I see a distinct lack of consistency in these two rulings as they currently stand.

 

It's OK for the WBC to drag out signs and banners and protest loudly, condemning GLBTs in a most flagrant and insensitive manner, in effect endorsing hate speech.

 

Yet, it's not OK for students to wear a T-shirt with an imprint of an American flag upon it on a day wherein another culture celebrates its national heritage.

 

The question to ask oneself here is this: "Were any Latino students who wore T-shirts espousing their national heritage also required to turn their shirts inside out?" If the answer to that question is "no", then this is a distinct case of discrimination and the court's decision is flawed.