The solution:





Link to the story


Questions for Debate:

1.) Is the right to free speech being violated at the High School?

2.) Are the new designs as bad as their predecessors?

3.) Is there any basis to have removed the original posters removed?

4.) Do comments made by Miss Shah reflect people's opinion that the First Amendment is being taken too far? Is she correct in saying what she said?

1.) Is the right to free speech being violated at the High School?

I take a pretty dim view of arguments that children in high school have first amendment rights being violated. It is only once you are an adult - with all the encumbent responsibilities and obligations -- that you get the same kind of protections as far as free speech and expression go. Kids just don't have the right to cause commotion in school with controversial material. Sorry. Once they are adults, then maybe they would have a better argument. But a school is a closed environment. Educators are responsible for these kids and are responsible for insuring that controversial material does not stir other children up.




3.) Is there any basis to have removed the original posters removed?

If other kids complained--- then yes, there was a basis for removing the posters. Additionally, the school is not in the business of promoting a particular political agenda. And what about the value of promoting respect for the president because of his office? We seem to have forgotten this value.

4.) Do comments made by Miss Shah reflect people's opinion that the First Amendment is being taken too far? Is she correct in saying what she said?

Again, I just don't find it persuasive when someone argues that a child has full blown first amendment rights to expression. IMO, they don't. Until they are adults and outside of a closed environment like a school, they must respect the rules of the school. It sounds like this school enforces the policy that it will not permit controversial material, particularly of a political nature, disseminated. They need to respect that.

1.) Is the right to free speech being violated at the High School?

Can you violate free speech "rights" of minors? That is the question I have here. Do minors, who are not considered incapable in they eyes of the law to be able to make reasoned choices (the eyes of the law now, not my eyes ) entitled to the freedoms of the bill of rights? the school is a government institution, so the argument could be made that the 1st amendment was violated here, whereas if this had been a parent requiring a child to remove a poster from their bedroom it would not be a violation. But the question remains, what rights are minors entitled to? I'd ber curious to learn the answers that exist in legal precident.

2.) Are the new designs as bad as their predecessors?

Well, since one of the reasons the school said they ordered the removal of the posters was that the posters promoted smoking, and the new posters still have the smoking cigar in them I would say yes, based on school policy, they are as "bad" as the first. When it comes to the political message however, I don't know that I would call it "bad".

3.) Is there any basis to have removed the original posters removed?

The school seems to have a policy against anything the promotes smoking. It likely also has a policy against anything that promotes alcohol or drug use. The schools response at least suggests that they have a policy of not promoting one ideology over another. So, I would say yes there is a basis. That basis being school policy. I am no fan of zero-tolerance Laws, rules or whatever else, but if such rules exist, the school administration is obligated to follow them.

4.) Do comments made by Miss Shah reflect people's opinion that the First Amendment is being taken too far? Is she correct in saying what she said?

I don't think so. But then that comes back to the question of whether or not these protections apply to minors.

If you're really interested in knowing how the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, I'd recommend reading this short PDF article that highlights the key cases and the reasoning behind the partial abridgement of student's first amendment rights in the school environment.

http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/membersonly/freedomspeech.pdf

Thanks for the Article. Based on this article and the courts handling of similar causes it would seem to me that the school has the right to require those posters be removed because it is a school sponsored event.

Some of the other arguments are not so clear cut. However, I think, based of past precedent, that if anyone challenged a School in court of over a policy such as the one that does not allow the promotion of smoking, the challenge would be lost IMHO. It would seem logical to me that the Supreme Courts concerns about the school, acting as an arm of society to teach children how to act civilly, would be extended to allowing for the school to teach children to act healthily. The basic idea of teaching children applies in either case.

1.) Is the right to free speech being violated at the High School?
Not really. Nobody is guaranteed the right to advertise wherever they want. It's not like an adult can walk around a school and stick up Kucinich signs everywhere. And also it's a school play, the school is in charge of advertising for its own school play.

2.) Are the new designs as bad as their predecessors?
I think there are two huge overreactions in the case. The original poster isn't too overtly political in the context of a play about American history. President Bush is an important person in American history, makes sense.

On the other side the kids are making much too big a deal about not being able to put the poster they want up. As I mentioned before, government buildings aren't every citizen's personal billboard.

3.) Is there any basis to have removed the original posters removed?
The school is in charge of the school play and the school is in charge of the school campus. That seems like a nice, solid basis. But should the school have taken down the posters? I don't think so. It's just a picture of the president in a school advertisement. It's not like any student is going to say "Look a picture of George W. Bush, activist judges must pay."

That's not a value, IMO .... unless you value monarchies and dictatorships over Democracies and Republics.

If our President is an , (no matter WHO is in office at the time) then not only should people be ABLE to say it without being told they "don't have values", but they have a DUTY to say so.

A REAL value to me is the value of expecting our Presidents to not only earn our respect, but to work to maintain it.

Questions for Debate:[/b]


The pdf document posted by Azure Citizen provides a good perspective on this issue. From reading it, it's apparent that students do have first amendment rights, as long as it does not interrupt the learning environment. The principal's "endorsing one ideology over another" quip is very amusing. The issue is not whether or not an ideology is on display, but rather, is it disrupting the learning environment?(i.e.-class time!) The principal's argument is truly laughable. Unfortunately, a lot of people in positions like that have power issues.




It really doesn't matter



Absolutely not-it's an opinion and unless it can be showed to disrupt the learning environment, it should not be removed.



Obviously, she is stating that it is somewhat of a joke in her school. It's amusing how people have these "inalienable" rights, but the two largest authoritarian systems that we possess-businesses and schools, are the last insittutions which encourage the exercise of such rights. As a matter of fact, all too often, they are antithetical to the inalienable rights that we supposedly possess no matter what.

I have a great example.

A person at my school was picking up worksheets. He said to one person, "May I have your worksheet?" And the person was like, "I don't take orders from queers." He only got suspended for two days. I think free speech should be restricted somewhat. He should have been expelled.

No, I'd be the first one angry if it was, but no, for a simple reason. This is a public high school, taxdollars fund it, and as such, there shouldn't be any overt "this guy is bad" political posters in the school anyway. Satires are fine, but if public money goes into them, they have the obligation to satrizizizize everybody.

Yes, see above. Public funds=fair and balanced, leave the overtly spun politics to Hollywood.

CP