Quote:
|
Originally Posted by countymounty Once again coyote is only partially right (although I’m sure to here a correction and reassignment of the definition of “unreasonable” or something else) you do have an expectation of privacy although it is limited (like in a vehicle but more so in a school setting) schools work off of “reasonable suspicion” as we have to work off of “probable cause”. Reasonable suspicion is much less and gives them a broad stroke to enforce school rules (just like the courts give them a broad stroke to enforce school rules on dress codes right coyote!)
And as stated the courts have ruled that you don’t leave your civil right at the door of the school, but you also don’t enjoy those rights without restriction in the school setting. |
Switch to the other thread! This is confusing!
There are no limitations to dress, except it cannot disrupt classroom activites, threaten, intimidate, or otherwise limit other students' learning.
Experimentation with dress codes has occurred in several different communities. However, there is no benefit to having or enforcing dress codes. The onus is on the school district to prove the activity was disruptive, or meant to intimidate: Hence the principal's assertion it was GANG-RELATED!!!
Without evidence of any membership in a gang, the girl has every right to protest, and her mother has every right to protect her own rights as a parent, and her child's right to freedom of expression.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17