June 27, 2007
IN LOCO, NOT LOCO:
Bong goes the court in free-speech ruling (Seattle Times, 6/27/06)
The U.S. Supreme Court needlessly chipped away at First Amendment free-speech guarantees with a ruling elevating a high-school prank to a dangerous promotion of drug use.The 6-3 ruling miscast the case before the court as about drugs. But it was about a student's right to speech.
Children don't have rights. Parents do.
Of course, all you have to do to see the Editorialists reverse field here is ask if the kids have the right to bear arms too.
Posted by Orrin Judd at June 27, 2007 8:41 AMParents and Kids don't have rights, governments do.
First, I agree with the decision.
With that out of the way, Parents can't sue schools for failing to educate, Black Parents can't sue under the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause for obscene spending disparities. Parents can't control the content of their kids class, and are increasingly not even able to be informed of "opt out" clauses for gay rights and abortion rights indoctrination, not to mention 'sodomy training' (sex ed).
"In loco parentis" is being carried to men in place of parents ALL THE TIME.
Forget importing a "foreign culture" immigrant bashers! You are, in effect, exporting your kids to a "transnationalist," "rationalist," and "Darwinist/secular humanist" culture every time you drop your kid off at the Bus Stop.
We won't reach "the end of history" until this public education model is destroyed.
Posted by: Bruno at June 27, 2007 9:42 AMYour psychosis demands that public schools be at all times in all places woirking against parents and recruiting children for things like the drug culture,. with the careful connivance of the rest of the apparatus of state.
Yet when the schools act in the manner you desire and are upheld by the Court you see further evidence that you are right.
That is a sign of mental illness.
Posted by: oj at June 27, 2007 9:53 AM... obscene spending disparities ... You are being sarcastic, aren't you? Because you must know that the most money is spent on predominately black schools.
Posted by: erp at June 27, 2007 10:23 AMApparently the punk who displayed the sign was later arrested in college for dealing pot. Making light of drugs is not some harmless "prank" and anyone who would pretend so objectively abets drug abuse and destroys lives.
Posted by: b at June 27, 2007 10:48 AMThe critics miss the point of the decision, which was about second-guessing the Principal by substituting the court's judgment for her judgment.
Posted by: Ibid at June 27, 2007 11:43 AM"Black Parents can't sue under the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause for obscene spending disparities. "
Then what were all those lawsuits asking for, and receiving in some cases, equal funding about, Bruno?
Posted by: Brad S at June 27, 2007 1:37 PMFor today's class we review just how clueless you have to be to write op-eds for the Seattle Times:
The 6-3 ruling miscast the case before the court as about drugs. But it was about a student's right to speech. Five years ago, high-school senior Joseph Frederick stood across the street from his school and unfurled a 14-foot banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." [...]Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 27, 2007 6:34 PMFrederick's sign was ambiguous. Was the 18-year-old supporting drugs or Christianity?