This opinion only looks to whether she had a “a clear likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment claim.” Since it is 100% clear that she’s got a loser of an argument on school grounds, it’s at best a close question whether she *might* win with internet speech *designed* to reach onto school grounds.

That’s a long, long way from determining that she’s got a substantially likelihood of success on such a close question. It is also hugely far from establishing the precedent for the proposition you cite.

It’s all about the procedural posture and the standard of review, professor.

DON’T FORGET ABOUT THE TRIAL
In U.S. District Court, New Haven,
For Suppression & Seizure Of Free Speech T-Shirts

GO GET ‘EM, GARY!

http://cooljustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/go-get-em-gary.html

The best place for such comments is either a diary, or private IM session. On the internet adults have sometimes lost their composure when getting involved in flame wars. Quality content is lost in the heat of the moment.

Now the Administrators did not send her to detention cuz there was no “crime” committed. If they did, then free speech violation would be of concern. This is the mild difference between discipline and punishment.

I am interested in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case. If not holding an office, and not breaking the law, I’m not sure how the case can ever be upheld. Again I am not familier the case about filtering smoke and referencing Christ, so I have to duck out here…

L8r

The standard tool of the bureaucrat…retaliation.

Definition of a bureaucrat: one in authority that completely disregards common sense and goes ballistic when their authority (policy) is questioned.

It was also Hooper’s theory of rogue sharks in Jaws.

“but the good judges here fret about the poor school administrator, inundated by calls and emails from her disgruntled constituency”

How does inconvenience convey jurisdictional power upon the school or the courts?

If it were a private school, then it’s a case of “buy the ticket, take the ride.”

But what the hell is this?

“she could be punished under a rule that students must “demonstrat[e] qualities of good citizenship at all times.”’

Lead by example? Good citizenship is equivalent to treating the Constitution like a urinal puck?

Territoriality is a very useful concept in defining the limit of law enforcement’s authority, but the good judges here fret about the poor school administrator, inundated by calls and emails from her disgruntled constituency. Obviously, we must protect our government officials from dissent by the public, these jurists reason, or else we’ll have real democracy where the will of the public might actually be considered. And as for potty mouth speech, it will be grudgingly tolerated when it doesn’t criticize the politburo, er… I mean the government officials. Talk about Brittney and Paris all you want, but leave the poor, impotent government official alone to do her work as she sees fit without scrutiny.

I wonder if these reactionary judges ever stop to consider that cowling the free expression of students might tend to cowl their free expression when they are adults, leading inevitably to a docile populace ever susceptible to tyranny. Nah, that would be too farsighted for this country club crowd, whose main concern, we have seen on this blog, seems to be protecting hubby’s interests at the bank, or making jokes at the expense of the citizens who pay them. Lest you believe that evil occurs only through the actions of evil men, I give you these terminally misguided souls who exist only to promote law and order at the expense of freedom.

Lenny Bruce had it right:” [t]ake away the right to say f**k and you take away the right to say f**k the government.”

“Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.”
–Aristotle.