Livesexchat spainish fork

We got a partial answer to that question a couple of weeks ago in Morse v.

Frederick, which seems to allow a great deal of latitude during school-sponsored events in cases of drug-related speech.

The problem is that this constitutes the very sort of speech that the First Amendment is intended to protect -- the right of citizens to make their voices heard by public officials.

That Avery Doninger then proceeded to write a blog entry some six hours after the end of the school day, using her own computer in her own home appears significant here.

"Jamfest is canceled due to the douchbags in central office.

Here is an e-mail that we sent out to a ton of people and asked them to forward to everyone in their address book to help get support for Jamfest," she wrote.

We have so much support and we really appreciate it.

No, what you have here is a pair of administrators taking personal offense at being challenged by a student, and choosing to make an example of her.

In doing so, they intruded not just upon the student's First Amendment rights, but also upon the right of her mother to to discipline (or not discipline) her for legal activities permitted (or not permitted) in the home.

Indeed, I'm reasonably confident that no action would have been taken had the young lady "flipped the bird" at a teacher in the parking lot of a local grocery store on a Saturday afternoon.

It therefore cannot be said that her lack of respect for school authorities was the basis for her punishment.

Leave a Reply