Comments on: Should A School Be Able To Punish A Student For What They Write On A Blog ?

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:05:07 +0000

Agree with Lisa. If she had been suspended, that’s one thing, but its like a football removing a “captain”. They can still participate, but just not as a leader. Is that REALLY such a bad message to send?
Or think of it this way, if the student had walked just off campus and built a billboard saying “D-Bags!”, would the school REALLY be unable to do anything about it?

By: Lisa

Lisa — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:47:27 +0000

She was not punished. Extra curricular activities are a privilege not a right. She can’t expect to bad-mouth the school and then be on Student Coucil. Judge Preska something like, “If we let kids call teachers name then chaos will erupt.” If she had been suspended or expelled there would be a case – but running for class office is not a right.

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:32:13 +0000

I see no justification for the school board to have this sort of power in the law or in ethics. Of course, that doesn't stop them from doing it, or things like it, such as leaking a kid's educational records as retribution on his parents. Tyranny comes in all levels of government, not just at the top. In fact, it often is more nasty at the local level because not enough people are paying attention to fight it.

By: Raymond

Raymond — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:31:54 +0000

If all she said was douchebag that’s pretty mild in my book.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:54:22 +0000

If we got the state out of the business of education things like this would not be a problem.

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:04:14 +0000

Kip,

You are correct, I probably should have said that Morse is the law of the land at least with respect to the limited fact issues that it dealt with.

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:02:54 +0000

Agree or disagree with the decision, and I disagree with it, that is the law of the land." No. Alito's controlling concurrence in Morse held unambiguously that the case was to be limited to: (a) speech advocating illegal drug use, and (b) exempting speech that could in any way be deemed "political." The Doninger fact pattern fails both tests. It would be plain error to apply Morse. That might not stop the judges from doing so, but it would be plain error nonetheless.