Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by DRB, Nov 28, 2005.
Please register to disable this ad.
Doesn't really sound like a first amendment issue as much as a privacy issue, but it seems dumb to get worked up about it in the first place.
How's it a privacy issue?
Chances are the girl doesn't want her parents to know about the tattoo. I haven't exactly read the article, so I can't really make a judgment call, but that's what I'm guessing the original controversy was about, not the birth control. I can't imagine anyone but an ultraconservative school banning an article about birth control products.
Does a high school (or other private publication) fall under the first amendment?
Doesn't the freedom of the press argument start and end with the publisher and top editor?
I believe high school publications do not fall under the 1st Amendment. This is this not the first case like this to come under scrutiny, and from what I remember, the principal has control because he is "protecting" the students. Similar to a ban on offensive t-shirts or skimpy skirts.
They should. They get federal money, right?
But they don't. Fourth amendment doesn't apply either. And the second sure as hell doesn't
edit: Me being the smartass that I am, if I was on that paper I'd try to sneak in a mention of where the nearest abortion clinic is in the next issue. After all, if you're going to keep them dumb about birth control...
BTW, an external website is not under principal control.
There have been several cases where they are judged not to fall under the first amendment. Seems like this comes up every 10 years or so.
BEcause the stories aboout tattos and B.C. your all saying, the 1st/4th amendments protect there rights to print such things, but I' d be willing to bet if the controversy was about a school paper that had stories about christianity in it you'd all be singin a different tune
THAT...was a damn good point...
Although a story about a guy getting drunk and screwing his daughters would probably make a lot of Christians angry...
Another good point...
Public schools have been ruled to be exempt from bill of rights because they are acting "in loco parentis." That is, schools have not just the right, but also the responsibility, to shield students from images or messages they find harmful, just as any good parent should. Therefore any subjects not explicitly permitted or forbidden in legislature can be censored within the grounds of the school by school administration as they see fit. If locals don't like what is being cesnored, they can push through legislation explicitly permitting such subjects.
I don't personally agree with the censorship in this case, but it's perfectly legal. This one's cut and dry folks.
Get off your persecution complex. Christian newsletters are distributed freely in thousands of public highschools, and no one makes a stink. But these are letters from students to students, that they can choose to read or not. That is very different than an authority figure (e.g. teacher) speaking the same message in an inappropriate classroom setting (e.g. Spanish class or Football practice).
What scares me about this is that, especially in cases like this, we seem to be teaching our children that censorship is right. In a time when lots of high school students have a poor understanding of what the bill of rights provides them, we reinforce those misunderstandings by bypassing the rights that are provided.
You made a very logical point of why, do you think that the kids in this case were provided the samething? I'm betting that at some point it boiled down to "do it because we say to do it".
seems to me that this is a great opportunity for all schools to create a generic 'article' for newspapers that explain their responsibility to protect students and educate them about the bill of rights... just drop it in every time a school censors a story.
Whatever. Like its the schools responsibility to educate kids... You wacked out liberal, everyone knows kids need to take some personal responsibility and educate themselves, instead of sucking on the teat of society and wasting my tax-money.
mmmm teat sucking.
What would your conservative brothers say with you talking all potty mouth?
Man, I dont even go to church. I beleive in the dollar and the peach if you know what I mean. JUst pointing out the hipocracy of all you lib nut jobs. Personaly Id let the story stand. ANyone who thinks kids can be sheilde from anything these days is kidding themselves
It's a good thing you're not responsible for a group of kids since you're basically saying, "eh, why try?"
You're a product of the public school system, right?
Goddamn, I'm not getting my money's worth.
All im saying is by the time i was 12 I'd learned all seven of the words you cant say on tv. Where to stick it. Stolen my first beer. Smoked my first cig, and learned the joys of fire. There was no school papers. It was 80's Tv which by all accounts is way dumbed down compared to the standard programing of today, and kids we're by all accounts far less exposed to sex/violence than they are today. What does this mean? Unless you can find a way to censor the mouths of all your kids classmates theres nothing you can do to shelter your kids from the realities of the world. By making something taboo, all your doing is making it 10 times more appealing than it already was. Thats got to be something all you hippie crackpots can understand. Besides do you realy believe that there isn't one of those kids that cant recite word for word what that story was about without even reading the article. Come on, that sh#t was probably old news around the sandbox by the time it made it to print. All these people are doing is grandstanding to make themsaelves feel better about a situation they have no control over.
No school paper at BOCES?
If it was a comment about or to liberals, they would say, "How blessed were you, to be filled with the spirit of wisdom and truth, and the gift of the eloquent speech."
Speech is still free ain't it?