Show me your massive links that prove your point, it is already utterly apparent you don’t read or don’t understand what you post as your claim to being right it says in Tinker look under II halfway down…..
II
The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, [508] to hair style, or deportment. Cf. Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District, 392 F.2d 697 (1968); Pugsley v. Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247, 250 S. W. 538 (1923). It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to "pure speech."
So regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, (has already been addressed and upheld in the schools favor) to hair style (has already been addressed and upheld against the schools favor in some cases) done deal! “pure speech” where did Keenr and I get that, oh it was in Tinker and sited in NUMEROUS other cases since it was quoted in this case.
I'll try to write this more slowly so that youo can understand me!!
The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held:
1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.
2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.
3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.
The standards are set here!!!
You are quoting the opinion of a Justice. The standard set by the court is above!!!
This goes into multiple cases regarding this issue and they go into detail of what can be banned for the reading impaired I will recap they can ban anything that causes a
substantial disruption THEY CAN BAN ANYTHING THAT CAUSES A SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTION what is a “substantial disruption” well they site a case where …………………
The student drew and displayed the symbol during a math class and clearly diverted the attention of two other students. When the drawing was completed and taken to the teacher, the teacher was forced to deal with the disciplinary consequences. This is disruption of the classroom.
So it only takes two students who’s attention is diverted to by a racial motivated sigh (there description not mine) to be a “substantial disruption”
Coyote you will not win this, you keep saying this is the way it is…….. WAKE UP this is not the way it is! READ it and Study it and READ and study the cases I HAVE POSTED that deal with freedom of speech in school…………
Re: substantial disruption is EXACTLY the point!! We seem to be in agreement!!!
IF it is intended to cause racial, gender, or handicap intimidation, THEN she has no leg to stand on!!!
so the question is whether of not the girl belongs to a gang who have the intent of intimidating or bullying others.
But it's the BEHAVIOR (terroristic threats) not the clothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
And how could you post a research link in reference to school uniforms, there are no school uniform allowed anywhere because it is against the constitution therefore they entire study never happened because there are no schools that have school uniforms because they would be in violation of the constitution and the ACLU would already of sued them to stop this terrible, horrible lack of free speech! I have said it, it is fact! Believe me!
Plus I am never wrong….just ask me………………
You are not wrong in this case, you are assuming we are arguing about something. What, I don't know!
__________________
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
They wont lock a thread just for being controversial….
It makes me chuckle everytime I see this is a mustang site this doesn’t belong here………
This has come up more then once there are hundreds of threads that “don’t belong in a mustang site” but we the members are not just the sum of our mustangs, its just our common bond, and a really cool one at that. For those who don’t like these threads don’t click them………but its funny the controversy threads that get all the complaints on average are the ones that have the most views and posts…..interesting unlike but the most popular………
Boglin this is not a dig on you, its just old hat to some of us…………….
sorry for the situation you were in but it seems they did a great job of education you might not agree with there polices, but at least you intelligent enough to understand them and productively work inside them.
Now I think I will to the web site I belong to on salt water aquariums and chastise them for having a thread on the new 05 mustang How dare you talk of cars on a aquarium site!!!!!! The shame the shame…………
hey, what do boobies have to do with mustangs, anyway?
__________________
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
Hey Coyote what law says you cant have a minor indorse beer?
Yea that threw me a little too because bartenders can be under the drinking age yet serve beer (most commonally from minimally dressed females or "Beer Girls") and that's certainly more of an endorsement than a silly T-Shirt.
After reading this, my eyes are bleeding ......And I for got what I was going to say
__________________
Legend Lime, GT , Tan Leather, Side Air Bags, IUP, Shaker 1000, 5 Speed
Sequential Lights Whooo Hoooo
LL #0018
I know there are faster cars - my penis still works just fine..."
Proud Owner of the New Edelbrock Supercharger, Serial #0001 signed by Vic Edelbrock!!
~pictures in gallery~
Hey Coyote what law says you cant have a minor indorse beer?
I can find one for not possess, not to consume, not to drive under the influence not to provide to minors, but I can arrest someone for “minor endorsing an alcohol beverage”
Clear as mud……..I think this is a free speech issue CALL THE ACLU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it's illegal to endorse a product you haven't used. Look it up . . . Remember Bruce Jenner?
a minor may not possess, blah, blah, blah . . . therefore, a minor may not endorse beer to other minors, nor can he or her endorse it because he or she may never have legally tried the product.
Of course this depends on state law. In some states parents CAN supply alcohol to minors, and so can the church.
__________________
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
Yea that threw me a little too because bartenders can be under the drinking age yet serve beer (most commonally from minimally dressed females or "Beer Girls") and that's certainly more of an endorsement than a silly T-Shirt.
they can't in Nebraska . . . I have to wait an hour in the grocery line as the "of age adult" goes through to scan all the beer people are buying in every other line.
__________________
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
I don't mind, but it's as off topic as politics . . .
Once you get as old as I am, it takes something, uh, extraordinary to get attention . ..
__________________
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
mah cousin/ niece/ daughter is waerun a reel tite Skin thong to sko0l and the teEchuR is mad and stuFf cuz the fellahz cant do no lurnun what with all the distrakshuNz and what not. Now her father/ cousin/ uncle/ brother sez she looks real purty with all that corn fed beef hanging out all over the plAce so I am fixing to Allow hur ta wear it and stuFf when I aint happenin to be wearIn it toO. Now I ask yall fur yallz supporT to my dilemina, if'n she can slop the hawgs and fEed the chikunz in it, why the sam hill cant she do no book lurhnun in it? Any who, I wont to bEe on yer show to git alL thIs of muh chesT in frunt of the TeEVee camruh and what not.
sined,
DaiseE DukE
__________________
C&L CAI with MAF, Steeda UP's, FR 4.10's, Predator "C&L-MAF" Tune, Borla 3" tip catbacks, Kooks LT/ Catted X-pipe, Nitto 255/45/18(F) 285/40/18(R), Steeda Springs, Tri-Ax, Adj Pan Hard, Camber plates, Cowel Hood, Tokico Adj Dampers.
dyno; 315 RWHP/ 320 RWTQ
mah cousin/ niece/ daughter is waerun a reel tite Skin thong to sko0l and the teEchuR is mad and stuFf cuz the fellahz cant do no lurnun what with all the distrakshuNz and what not. Now her father/ cousin/ uncle/ brother sez she looks real purty with all that corn fed beef hanging out all over the plAce so I am fixing to Allow hur ta wear it and stuFf when I aint happenin to be wearIn it toO. Now I ask yall fur yallz supporT to my dilemina, if'n she can slop the hawgs and fEed the chikunz in it, why the sam hill cant she do no book lurhnun in it? Any who, I wont to bEe on yer show to git alL thIs of muh chesT in frunt of the TeEVee camruh and what not.
sined,
DaiseE DukE
!!LMAO!!
*Boglin slowly backs away from the powder keg thread never to return*
mah cousin/ niece/ daughter is waerun a reel tite Skin thong to sko0l and the teEchuR is mad and stuFf cuz the fellahz cant do no lurnun what with all the distrakshuNz and what not. Now her father/ cousin/ uncle/ brother sez she looks real purty with all that corn fed beef hanging out all over the plAce so I am fixing to Allow hur ta wear it and stuFf when I aint happenin to be wearIn it toO. Now I ask yall fur yallz supporT to my dilemina, if'n she can slop the hawgs and fEed the chikunz in it, why the sam hill cant she do no book lurhnun in it? Any who, I wont to bEe on yer show to git alL thIs of muh chesT in frunt of the TeEVee camruh and what not.
sined,
DaiseE DukE
And thank you! Once again my point is proven!
__________________
So , let me get this straight…..your Honda has 1.6 liters, whereas my bottle of Mountain Dew has 2?
Change…..it’s what is left after taxes.
- Shaken....Not Stirred 2003 Mach I Auto Torch Red - Sold
-1988 Ford Mustang GT Convertible, 331 Trick Flow Stroker with a Tremec 3550....oh yea and a 1.6 liter V-TECH motor to work the convertible top.
- 1966 Inline 6……..the pile of parts car!
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
Which has been interpreted to mean that "length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style or deportment" is NOT regulated.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, WRONG!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
What you're trying to say is that the political anti-war expression which was highly contentious is fine, while everything else is not! So the ONLY freedom students have is the MOST likely to cause uproar -That makes no sense!!!
Look out below you are starting to Learn something!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held:
1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.
If you read the post earlier then you know they are talking about “pure speech” there it come up again and this is what they are talking about, you need to have it spelled out for you look at the opinion of a Justice who helped draft what you are sitting What they state in there opinion is why in there OPINION they ruled the way they did!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507..
SUBJECT TO APPLICATION IN LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCHOOL ENVIROMENT
School is not your home you cant send your daughter to school in a thong and a pushup bra and nothing else and expect her to be able top attend!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514. ..
PROHIBITION WHAT PROHIBITION you finally seeing the point there are PROHIBITIONS! Praise the lord he is seeing the light!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
Re: substantial disruption is EXACTLY the point!! We seem to be in agreement!!!
But for there to be a restriction there must be a substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Making this any clearer to you. Why cant you wear hats in most schools………because a student can tilt their head and staff cannot tell if they are sleeping, that is a example of a “substantial interference” and so would wearing appeal that is known to be the “mark” or “sigh” that someone is in a gang which brings violence, drugs and predigest with it that is all a substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. There is no need to prove they actually are involved in a gang, if I were a nazi uniform to school, there is a population of Jewish students, the school doesn’t have to prove I am a Nazi, just I caused a substantial interference, in a previous case listed the “substantial interference” was two student stopped studying to watch the special, 2 student wow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
IF it is intended to cause racial, gender, or handicap intimidation, THEN she has no leg to stand on!!!
so the question is whether of not the girl belongs to a gang who have the intent of intimidating or bullying others.
But it's the BEHAVIOR (terrorist threats) not the clothing.
Nope it just flew right over your head….as usual……………..
The school doesn’t have to prove anything, as stated in the previous case where 2 students were distracted, did the school have to prove the southern flag was a sigh of racism or that the student was himself a racist, made they should how do you know either are true, but all the school has to say is if it could cause substantial interference its good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
it's illegal to endorse a product you haven't used. Look it up . . . Remember Bruce Jenner?
a minor may not possess, blah, blah, blah . . . therefore, a minor may not endorse beer to other minors, nor can he or her endorse it because he or she may never have legally tried the product.
Of course this depends on state law. In some states parents CAN supply alcohol to minors, and so can the church.
So again I ask where can I find a law that says I can arrest a minor for indorsing an alcoholic beverage??? How do you prove that if someone wears a shirt that says Bush Beer that that person drinks alcohol?
If someone wears a DARE shirt how do I prove that person dos not drink or smoke, are police officers allowed to smoke and drink if they are DARE officers can they be arrested if the do and they are DARE officers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscoyote
Wearing a jacket isn't an illegal act..
What if the jacket is worn by a minor and had a alcoholic logo on it? What if the jacket has a alcoholic logo on it and I go to a AA meeting, is it legal or illegal? What if the AA meeting is being held in a public school after hours……you are the expert after all!
Its really convenient you cant find Wilkins v. Penns Grove Crneys Point Regional School District and R.B. v. Fort Thomas which prove you are so far wrong and out of wack with this whole conversation in place well here is a link http://www.educationlaw.org/samples/April05SLR.pdf
To recap again they had a very strict policy similar to the private school I send my daughter two color choices pants and shirt with collar not much else, the woman sued to try to get a religious clause to opt out of the dress code (which cant exits because you have so much case law to prove its against the law right?) she lost her case because she was atheist as was just trying to push atheist rights, and it was ruled she didn’t have a real religious beliefs that would conflict with the dress code, so the court made her 1. Move her kids out of the school, or 2. Made them attend in uniform - now why would the court allow the horrible school to inflict this suppression of her freedom by making her submit to a dress code, maybe you should have been there with all your case law to show them judges who’s right!
Also interesting enough there was also a dress code on this same link about true speech, (dam those words just keep popping up, weird isn’t it) the kid wore a t-shirt that that claimed Bush was a draft dodger and a drug user, the shirt depicted pictures of beer bottles, and cocaine. , they made him turn the t-shirt inside out, then again changed and just made him put tape over the depiction and references to drugs and alcohol. There was a suite and the court ruled the school could make him cover the references to drugs and alcohol as it was clearly established against the dress code (which are illegal according to you) the school did lose on the grounds the couldn’t make him turn the shirt inside out as this violated his right to express political views, true speech…………….
R.B. v. Fort Thomas link you only have to read down to the first page under opinion, it stated in clear black and white the parent challenged the constitutionality of the dress code claiming it was a violation of the first amendment rights, due process right “to wear clothes of her choosing” and parents right to due process to control the dress of his child.
Sounds a lot like the arguments Coyote has been using right one sentence…….”the district court found no constitutional violation and neither do we.”
Coyote here is your plate of crow, chew on it while you try to find your massive links to prove the opposite or when trying to argue the definition of NO in “no constitutional violation” but I’m sure you know more then judges in a court of appeals, or the attorney and writers of school law bulletins
You need a cold beer to wash that down with?
__________________
So , let me get this straight…..your Honda has 1.6 liters, whereas my bottle of Mountain Dew has 2?
Change…..it’s what is left after taxes.
- Shaken....Not Stirred 2003 Mach I Auto Torch Red - Sold
-1988 Ford Mustang GT Convertible, 331 Trick Flow Stroker with a Tremec 3550....oh yea and a 1.6 liter V-TECH motor to work the convertible top.
- 1966 Inline 6……..the pile of parts car!
say that while looking at the mirror, and you'd finally be right!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
If you read the post earlier then you know they are talking about “pure speech” there it come up again and this is what they are talking about, you need to have it spelled out for you look at the opinion of a Justice who helped draft what you are sitting What they state in there opinion is why in there OPINION they ruled the way they did!
:
the opinions inform the decision, but Bush V Gore should tell you Justices arrive at their decisions by different means.
The opinions inform, but the decision is the only statement of agreement, and law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
SUBJECT TO APPLICATION IN LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCHOOL ENVIROMENT
School is not your home you cant send your daughter to school in a thong and a pushup bra and nothing else and expect her to be able top attend!
No, that would be disruptive! A sweatshirt and/or jacket are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
PROHIBITION WHAT PROHIBITION you finally seeing the point there are PROHIBITIONS! Praise the lord he is seeing the light!!!!!!
Pleae read the accumulated posts. Threatening, hateful, or speech meant to intimidate are subject to sanction. But there is no evidence of this here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
But for there to be a restriction there must be a substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Making this any clearer to you. Why cant you wear hats in most schools………because a student can tilt their head and staff cannot tell if they are sleeping, that is a example of a “substantial interference” and so would wearing appeal that is known to be the “mark” or “sigh” that someone is in a gang which brings violence, drugs and predigest with it that is all a substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. There is no need to prove they actually are involved in a gang, if I were a nazi uniform to school, there is a population of Jewish students, the school doesn’t have to prove I am a Nazi, just I caused a substantial interference, in a previous case listed the “substantial interference” was two student stopped studying to watch the special, 2 student wow.
Agreement, again. I've never heard of "skin" clothing being used for gang activity. If the girl is IN a gang, then that behavior should be sanctioned.
But the accusation has not been proven. The girl doesn't have a criminal record, and there is no evidence of any gang activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
Nope it just flew right over your head….as usual……………..
The school doesn’t have to prove anything, as stated in the previous case where 2 students were distracted, did the school have to prove the southern flag was a sigh of racism or that the student was himself a racist, made they should how do you know either are true, but all the school has to say is if it could cause substantial interference its good enough.
you really aren't that naive, are you? from my reading, there wasn't enough context to say whaqt happened. Your post was a decision arrived at by a Kansas Administrator. Not the Supreme Court/
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
So again I ask where can I find a law that says I can arrest a minor for indorsing an alcoholic beverage??? How do you prove that if someone wears a shirt that says Bush Beer that that person drinks alcohol?
If someone wears a DARE shirt how do I prove that person dos not drink or smoke, are police officers allowed to smoke and drink if they are DARE officers can they be arrested if the do and they are DARE officers?
Here you seem to be arguing against yourself!!!
And it's Busch!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
What if the jacket is worn by a minor and had a alcoholic logo on it? What if the jacket has a alcoholic logo on it and I go to a AA meeting, is it legal or illegal? What if the AA meeting is being held in a public school after hours……you are the expert after all!
Its really convenient you cant find Wilkins v. Penns Grove Crneys Point Regional School District and R.B. v. Fort Thomas which prove you are so far wrong and out of wack with this whole conversation in place well here is a link http://www.educationlaw.org/samples/April05SLR.pdf
I'll look at it later . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
To recap again they had a very strict policy similar to the private school I send my daughter two color choices pants and shirt with collar not much else, the woman sued to try to get a religious clause to opt out of the dress code (which cant exits because you have so much case law to prove its against the law right?) she lost her case because she was atheist as was just trying to push atheist rights, and it was ruled she didn’t have a real religious beliefs that would conflict with the dress code, so the court made her 1. Move her kids out of the school, or 2. Made them attend in uniform - now why would the court allow the horrible school to inflict this suppression of her freedom by making her submit to a dress code, maybe you should have been there with all your case law to show them judges who’s right!
Private Schools are not regulated, as they are not compulsory, and involve contract between two parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
Also interesting enough there was also a dress code on this same link about true speech, (dam those words just keep popping up, weird isn’t it) the kid wore a t-shirt that that claimed Bush was a draft dodger and a drug user, the shirt depicted pictures of beer bottles, and cocaine. , they made him turn the t-shirt inside out, then again changed and just made him put tape over the depiction and references to drugs and alcohol. There was a suite and the court ruled the school could make him cover the references to drugs and alcohol as it was clearly established against the dress code (which are illegal according to you) the school did lose on the grounds the couldn’t make him turn the shirt inside out as this violated his right to express political views, true speech…………….
Please read again.
That's exactly correct, and what I would assume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countymounty
R.B. v. Fort Thomas link you only have to read down to the first page under opinion, it stated in clear black and white the parent challenged the constitutionality of the dress code claiming it was a violation of the first amendment rights, due process right “to wear clothes of her choosing” and parents right to due process to control the dress of his child.
Sounds a lot like the arguments Coyote has been using right one sentence…….”the district court found no constitutional violation and neither do we.”
Coyote here is your plate of crow, chew on it while you try to find your massive links to prove the opposite or when trying to argue the definition of NO in “no constitutional violation” but I’m sure you know more then judges in a court of appeals, or the attorney and writers of school law bulletins
You need a cold beer to wash that down with?
I'll look at the link . . . tomorrow! But so far you've shown me nothing new.
__________________
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
