Milk has been a mainstay of school lunches for centuries. However, Williamson believes it is time to explore alternatives for a variety of nutritional and environmental reasons. She notes that forty-two percent of American households bought plant milk in 2021.
Williamson has followed a vegetarian diet, but was told by the school that she would need a doctor’s note to get a plant-based beverage instead of dairy with her lunch. She then did something that one would think the school would support: she became an advocate. She gave out non-dairy samples and sought to have a “day of action” heralding the benefits of non-dairy milk. The administration agreed to allow the event but told her she had to include pro-milk literature.
Her lawyers argued that this is an example of the hold of the milk industry and the Department of Agriculture on school. USDA guidelines require milk to be served with public school lunches. The milk is subsidized by the Department and this brings big bucks to the industry. An estimated seven percent of U.S. liquid dairy milk is consumed in schools.
In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This would seem precisely what Tinker was meant to protect.
It is bizarre that the district would make Williamson’s advocacy contingent on her agreeing to pass out literature in favor of the industry that she opposes. It is like telling students during the 60s that they could pass out anti-war literature so long as it included pro-war or military recruitment flyers.
Williamson’s advocacy was not disruptive for the school. Indeed, it would have allowed for a beneficial debate on an interesting issue with environmental, nutritional, and philosophical elements. That seems a lot more educational than the usual hallway banter over the latest TikTok star. The financial arrangement over milk distribution only makes this prior restraint more problematic.
The underlying right, however, can be a double edged sword. Many on the left are supporting Colorado in a major free speech case before the Supreme Court: 303 Creative v. Elenis. In that case, Lori Smith, a graphic artist, is seeking the right to decline clients due to her religious objections to same-sex marriages. The state is asserting the right to not only compel such speech (by requiring Smith to do the work) but also to prevent Elenis from putting a statement on her website on her religious objections. Thus, it is a both a compelled speech and censorship case.
In this case, the school could have allowed any students to present countervailing, pro-milk literature. It could also have placed such literature in the cafeteria to explain the benefits of milk from the perspective of the district. Those seem reasonable alternatives to requiring a student to pass out pro-milk material as a condition for advocating for alternatives to milk.
Williamson could always quote Harvey Milk in her fight to speak out against milk: “I have tasted freedom. I will not give up that which I have tasted.”
This giirl is spouting nonsense but there is no justification for throttling her.
Marielle participated in an action in October with youth-led advocacy group, The Raven Corps, where students across the country distributed plant-based milk samples and educational materials about the harms of the dairy industry. There is a whole movement of students working on this issue.
@Claire
Ok, sure. But how much time would she have for her virtue signaling if she were, say, helping to prepare meals at the local soup kitchen? Volunteering at a food bank? Or a shelter?
Spoiled brat is all I see in this story; activism used to be more than foisting your idiocy on others, ruining their day when they were minding their own business, harming no one, then going back home to mom and dad’s house. There is nothing noble about this.
Hungry people will eat their own human waste if hungry enough. Almond milk is not even a blip on the radar. These very much privileged kids are insufferable little twits, and we have created them.
You know what would be nice? It would be nice if our kids were not being indoctrinated to fight imaginary bogeymen from the moment they can draw breath. I support the free speech, but that doesn’t make this kid NOT an insufferable little twit, and the response to that insufferable-ness is also free speech. For Pete’s sake. Spare us. 🙄 All I see is a privileged (likely white, female) kid with waaay too much time on their hands.
DISCIPLINE
Schools have the authority to supervise and direct students and to maintain order on campus
Students are legally obligated to follow supervision and direction by school authorities on campus.
Students have no authority to supervise, direct or conduct political activities on campus.
Students do not have a constitutional right to disrupt school activities on campus.
Students may not loiter or stop or disrupt pedestrian or vehicular traffic flow on public sidewalks and streets.
Marielle Williamson should request to address the school board or apply for a position on the school board or for the position of school principal.
Article 1, Section 8, enumerates no power to Congress to regulate agriculture.
The Agriculture Department is invalid, illegitimate and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court must have struck down the unconstitutional 1862 creation of the Department of Agriculture by Abraham Lincoln, who had seized all power as a tyrant and dictator.
Where necessary, free men, free enterprises and private industry may engender appropriate and sufficient self-regulation for their own benefit and protection.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America believe that Congress is omnipotent and capable of providing itself any and all powers.
Congress has no such authority.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America want the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
The “dictatorship of the proletariat” is antithetical, illicit and unconstitutional.
The necessary and proper clause does not add any different or new powers but simply, as redundancy, assures the execution of the Constitution as written.
The singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch and Supreme Court.
Just another example of a government agency paying out legal fees and damages because they refused to leave someone alone
Hope she milks them for all they’ve got
Except that it’s taxpayers that are paying any award, not the adjudicated wrong-doer. There’s no incentive for any government employee to not commit the same infraction over and over again when they know their take-home pay or pension is never at risk.
I agree completely JAFO, though I’m not for using someone’s pension as a sanctioning tool against them. Among the reasons is that by taking a pension away from a wrong-doer it is an excessive punishment in the sense that a person who commits the same violation who has no pension is sanctioned less than one who is vested and loses perhaps four thousand dollars a month for life. It is not equal.
But you are correct that if someone had to consider losing their income as a result of considering a malfeasance, that would stop many torts before they even happened.
Darren…not sure I follow the ‘excessive’ part. Though I agree the punishment should fit the crime, public pensions are also paid by the taxpayers in addition to the salary of the offender. If the award includes punitive damages, salary garnishments may not be enough. Plus, those found guilty could easily file for personal bankruptcy and ask to have the award discharged, yet leaving the pension intact, ala OJ Simpson. Then they get another ‘public service’ job and start the process over. Risking the loss of publicly-paid pensions *might* be the only way to thwart repeat or egregiously unethical ‘public’ offenders. –Your friend, JAFO
“is that by taking a pension away from a wrong-doer it is an excessive punishment in the sense that a person who commits the same violation who has no pension is sanctioned less than one who is vested”
What about the innocent who suffered from the crime? Just because one criminal got away, it makes little sense not to punish the other.
If both deserve punishment then reducing the punishment because another guilty party got off
Jonathan: It is curious you would quote Harvey Milk in your column advocating for a student who wants to distribute literature on non-dairy alternatives to regular milk. Personally, I have not consumed whole milk for over 40 years. Beyond infancy there are no real nutritional benefits from milk. But the dairy industry, through intense lobbying, has had a strangle whole on government school policy–and that isn’t something that will change any time soon.
But back to Harvey Milk. For those too young to remember, Milk was the first openly gay elected official in the US. He served on the SF Board of Supervisors for a little over a year when he was assassinated in 1978 by Dan White a former Supervisor. White also killed Mayor George Mascone. White was convicted of only voluntary manslaughter. I was living in SF at the time and there were city-wide protests over the lenient sentence.
Harvey Milk was a nationally recognized advocate for gay rights. If Milk were alive today he would be outraged by the attacks on the LGBTQ+ community–especially in Florida under Gov. DeSantis’ “anti-gay agenda”. The ghost of Milk would be alarmed that dozens of books with gay themes have been removed from school libraries and can’t be taught in classrooms. Milk was a big advocate for freedom of expression and thought and would be chagrined that the “free speech” rights of students and teachers are being suppressed under the DeSantis regime.
I think Milk would also be disappointed that you quoted him out of context to advocate for the “free speech” rights of Marielle Williamson without addressing the greater threat to free expression and LGBTQ+ rights in Florida–a subject you have never viewed as important. I think your use of Milk’s quote was a disservice to his memory.
“The ghost of Milk would be alarmed that dozens of books with gay themes have been removed from school libraries and can’t be taught in classrooms.”
Dennis,
I would be interested in knowing the titles of some of those books. Can you provide some examples, and whether they are banned from all grade levels. Also, would it be your position that we should be allowing any and all books about sex in schools for all grade levels? I’m also guessing you’re ok with drag queen shows for young kids. If so, does that mean we should also start taking third graders on field trips to strip clubs?
carpslaw: It’s not my job to do your research. But check out: clickorlando.com/news/local/2023/02/07. Penn also has a long list. Yeah, I’m fine with kids attending drag shows. Have you ever attended one? I took my granddaughters to one when they were about 12–at their request because they heard about them in school. They were amused and delighted by all the elaborate costumes. And I know it’s probably hard for you to believe but not one drag queen approached by granddaughters to try to “groom” them. By the way, drag shows have nothing to do with strip shows. I never took my granddaughters to a strip show–nor would I. They can do that on their own when they are adults. Your problem is that you are way too wound up!
Beyond infancy there are no real nutritional benefits from milk.
Add nutrition to the long list of topics you hold opinions about, but exhibit a vacuousness beyond description.
There are good arguments on all sides. Speech has limitations at the schoolhouse doors.
What are the rules of advocacy at that school or within that school system?
There are NO good aruments in favor of restricting this kid’s peaceful attempts to advocate here.
That depends on the rules within the school and what type of advocacy she chooses. Rules must comply with the law, and she must comply with legal rules.
I favor her speech rights, but they must conform to the school’s duty, education. You failed to state the school’s rules or how they impacted her free speech.
Example:
“There are NO good aruments”
Let us say she is advocating during class. One can argue against her advocacy in that particular venue. It is specific. That is why the rules and nature of her advocacy must be considered before making a decision.
I favor her speech rights…
Seth, that should be the full stop point if your next word is but. I don’t recall the Supreme Court decision, however it ruled those rights don’t end at the school house gate as long as they do not interfere with the school’s educational mission.
Schools need to be able to create rules to further education. As long as those rules comply with the law my “but” has to be assumed correct. The primary purpose of the school is to educate.
Of course they do. And I fully support the education mission. However, there is a tendency to forget that these natural rights preexist the formation of everything within civil society. From what I’ve read in JT’s post, my first consideration was whether she was legitimately exercising her right to free speech. Was she disrupting the educational process? She got permission from the school to have a “day of action” and hand out literature. However they then proceeded to compel her to provide literature against her conscience or else she was not permitted to speak freely.
It’s troubling the number of conservatives on this blog that are taking a position against this girls actions. It doesn’t matter if it’s soy milk, candy bars or condoms in a unisex bathroom. What if she wanted to speak out against porn in the school library or boys in the girl’s locker room?
Olly, there are two issues here. The main issue is the ability of a school to educate its students. The second issue is that she was told what she had to say in order to exercise her speech rights. The latter was wrong, but the foreman issue is, in my opinion, the important issue.
Some have complained that certain charter school requirements in New York City should not exist. One of the reasons for low performance in the inner city is because there is no discipline and adherence to rules.
Her speech rates do not come at the expense of other students trying to learn.
Her speech
ratesrights do not come at the expense of other students trying to learn.Correct. But in the absence of additional facts, her attempt to exercise her 1st amendment rights wasn’t interfering in the educational process. If there are facts that prove otherwise, then she has no case. So, what evidence exists proving the latter?
“her 1st amendment rights wasn’t interfering in the educational process. If there are facts that prove otherwise, then she has no case. So, what evidence exists proving the latter?”
I favor the First Amendment, but also discipline and following the rules. That is what students are supposed to do, follow the rules.
The following was my earlier statement which should make things clear. “That depends on the rules within the school and what type of advocacy she chooses. Rules must comply with the law, and she must comply with legal rules.” My earlier one was: “There are good arguments on all sides. Speech has limitations at the schoolhouse doors. What are the rules of advocacy at that school or within that school system?”
I take no side and lack knowledge of all the details involved. I suggested how we could analyze the situation.
Seth, generally speaking you’re correct, students must follow school policies within the learning environment. In this case however, the student wasn’t accused of breaking any school rules. Instead the administration was demanding this student ‘speak’ on behalf of the BOTH viewpoints, including the view being opposed. Administrators are not permitted to demand or coerce students, or anyone else, to *speak* for the ‘side’ they oppose. Can you imagine the Tinker decision mandating anti-war protesters MUST also speak in the affirmative on behalf of their classmates who are ‘pro-war’? That might be the point you’re missing.
“Instead the administration was demanding this student ‘speak’ on behalf of the BOTH viewpoints, ”
JAFO thank you for commenting, but take note. I agree with your point.
“Olly, there are two issues here. The main issue is the ability of a school to educate its students. The second issue is that they told her what she had to say in order to exercise her speech rights. The latter was wrong, but the foreman issue is, in my opinion, the important issue.”
I will repeat my concerns. Education requires discipline and following rules. Once established, the child must work within the legally established rules. The inner city schools in NYC fail when children do not learn that lesson.
If you followed some of the discussions of charter schools in NYC, you would note that some claim charter schools are unfair because they do things public schools don’t. Charter schools require discipline, and that creates graduates that move on to college.
I am less concerned about the free speech issue because discipline helps children learn, and they can be advocates for free speech.
I am not saying that schools have a right to break laws. They don’t. The system must also abide by the law.
I am less concerned about the free speech issue…I will repeat my concerns. Education requires discipline and following rules. Once established, the child must work within the legally established rules. The inner city schools in NYC fail when children do not learn that lesson.
Seth, you are a smart person and I respect and agree with your “other” concerns. But a concern about the 1st amendment must trump those other concerns. If you lose the 1st amendment, you lose the right to argue all those other concerns. So for example, would you be less concerned about her free speech rights if this girl wanted advocate for better discipline and following rules and the administration told her she also had to advocate for the current out of control system? Of course not.
“But a concern about the 1st amendment must trump those other concerns.”
Olly, one concern is not trumping the other. I agree with lawful speech rights and rules that are lawful. How does agreement with both cause one to trump the other?
Do you not agree that schools have a right to have lawfully created rules even though that might deny speech permissible outside of the school?
Do you believe that lawful rules in a school limiting speech cause a loss of the First Amendment?
I am not concerned with the specifics of the rhetoric. My concern is that lawful school rules be adhered to.
Seth, your concerns, our concerns, entail two distinctively different things. Everything we have in this country began on the premise that we have unalienable rights and we formed a government to secure those rights. These are negative rights and they shall not be infringed. From that, positive rights were granted by government to do certain things, all towards securing those rights. Our system of education is an example of that. Schools, textbooks, teachers, curriculum, lunch rooms, rules, discipline, all flow from that. Within that system exist people and those people retain every negative right they were created with. This means nothing that flows out of that education system shall infringe those unalienable rights. When a student enters the school they do so under the agreement they will disable the exercise of certain rights, under the condition that when they conform to the rules established by the school, those natural rights are not being infringed.
So the questions in this case very straightforward. Did the student violate the rules of conduct she agreed to? Were her 1st amendment rights violated by the school administration? The facts provided by JT in his post clearly show she had been granted approval by the administration to exercise her 1st amendment right. That leaves the second question. The administration infringed her 1st amendment right by compelling her to speak about something against her conscience. If all those facts are correct, then case closed. The 1st amendment trumps the arbitrary rule of conduct compelled by the school.
” began on the premise that we have unalienable rights ”
Yes, for the generalization. No, for the specifics. You are working with a hierarchy that my concerns live under. That is what makes some restrictions of speech in schools lawful. I am not advocating going outside the law. I am advocating living within it.
Schools need discipline to serve all students and have a right to limit all sorts of things, including speech, as long as the rules are consistent for everyone and the law.
What you advocate in your statement is chaos in the school system, negating the benefits schools provide. (Later there is a contradiction.)
Our forefathers that founded this nation, who were fortunate enough to go to school, went to schools despite the lack of complete protection from the Bill of Rights.
This situation continued after the Constitution. Why? Because students are children, not adults. Their rights are restricted all the time by their parents. Why? Because children need to learn how to act and live with others.
On the other hand, there seems to be a contradiction in your criticism of me. You say:
“When a student enters the school they do so under the agreement they will disable the exercise of certain rights, under the condition that when they conform to the rules established by the school, those natural rights are not being infringed.”
Your statement above seems to agree with mine. Students must abide by the lawfully created rules of the school and recognize them.
The only thing different is your wording. “those natural rights are not being infringed”
Their natural rights are infringed, but they have accepted it to go to school. There is little difference between saying that and saying that students in school have to live within the rules created lawfully.
In response to your final paragraph, I will quote what I said earlier.
“Olly, there are two issues here. The main issue is the ability of a school to educate its students. The second issue is that they told her what she had to say in order to exercise her speech rights. The latter was wrong,”
Olly, there are two issues here. The main issue is the ability of a school to educate its students. The second issue is that they told her what she had to say in order to exercise her speech rights. The latter was wrong,
Seth, you see that as the main issue here despite nothing in the post indicating the decision by the administration involved the ability to educate the students. Is your issue a legitimate concern throughout this country? Absolutely. But that is not an issue relative to this specific case. If it were, you’d cite the facts detailing that. I appreciate the discussion and we are in agreement that the girls first amendment rights were violated by the school.
Olly, if you look at my initial comment on the subject, you will find I addressed what brought mine into play.
“There are good arguments on all sides. Speech has limitations at the schoolhouse doors.
What are the rules of advocacy at that school or within that school system?”
Do I not have the First Amendment right to respond to others?
Mespo said:
“There are NO good aruments in favor of restricting this kid’s peaceful attempts to advocate here.”
Do I not have a First Amendment right to respond to his comment?
You responded:
“Seth, that should be the full stop point if your next word is but.”
Did I not have a First Amendment right to respond to you?
I told you there were two points. One has to do with First Amendment rights, and the other is the reason and right for schools to have rules abridging those rights.
I think you misread what I initially wrote on the subject, causing this discussion to go astray.
I’m concerned those students are only going to learn that school administrators can and should be allowed to oppress them – just because they’re not adults. I’d hardly call that ‘educating’ them into being productive members of any free society.
“I’m concerned those students are only going to learn that school administrators can and should be allowed to oppress them – just because they’re not adults. I’d hardly call that ‘educating’ them into being productive members of any free society.”
That is a job for adults to handle, or are you suggesting that public schools become like college campuses where the administration accedes to the desires of the students they are supposed to teach?
That is a job for adults to handle, or are you suggesting that public schools become like college campuses where the administration accedes to the desires of the students they are supposed to teach?
First of all Seth, every individual, regardless of age, has a 1st amendment right of free speech. Secondly, upon entering onto the campus, these students and their parents are subject to and agree to abide by the rules in the exercise of that right. You may disagree with the decision by this school administration to established rules of conduct that resemble much or all of what we see on college campuses. You may also provide volumes of empirical data that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such rules directly lead to a disastrous decline in educational performance and ultimately a collapse of our constitutional republic. Your crusade on that issue is absolutely noble and necessary, as we are watching that decline right before our eyes. However important that debate is, it is absolutely irrelevant to the facts of this case. A student at this school followed the rules and was granted permission to speak on an issue that was at least important to her, at a time and place on campus that was approved by the school administrators. The content of her speech was approved contingent on her advocating against her conscience. That violated her first amendment rights.
“First of all Seth, every individual, regardless of age, has a 1st amendment right of free speech.”
That is true, but I am sure I don’t have to quote the First Amendment to you. I will abridge it and hope I won’t be stoned for doing so.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”
Your #2 is valid. There are, however, differences between state-supported schools and private schools.
“it is absolutely irrelevant to the facts of this case.”
But it isn’t irrelevant to the multiple comments I was responding to. I understand you were interested in a different aspect of the discussion, but many other opinions appeared on the blog.
” That violated her first amendment rights.”
I agreed.
So that my initial comment not be lost in the wave of comments on this point, I am copying it below.
“There are good arguments on all sides. Speech has limitations at the schoolhouse doors.
What are the rules of advocacy at that school or within that school system?”
I love talking to you, Olly. You love this Republic with its freedoms and express it so well. Thank you.
But it isn’t irrelevant to the multiple comments I was responding to. I understand you were interested in a different aspect of the discussion, but many other opinions appeared on the blog.
Seth, I too love our discussions and that goes for JAFO as well. In this post by JT, I have been laser focused on the relevant question: was this girl’s 1A rights violated. JAFO has been as well. The 3 of us have agreed her rights were violated. On a legal blog, I realize that easy conclusion is not sexy. And that’s certainly not how discussions on this blog rack up triple digit numbers. So on this post, the obvious legal question and answer is redirected towards some other agenda. Is it an important agenda? Perhaps. But in this case, that redirection waters down the importance of protecting the 1A. I’ve hesitated to say this, but it’s nagging at me. This redirection is how progressives have been able to chip away at our rights.
Anyway, I’m going to move on. Thank you Seth and JAFO.
“In this post by JT, I have been laser focused on the relevant question: was this girl’s 1A rights violated. ”
Your idea is directly related to my first question asked.
“What are the rules of advocacy at that school or within that school system?”
We lacked enough information to provide a decent answer.
“But in this case, that redirection waters down the importance of protecting the 1A.”
It doesn’t. It better defines 1A and its application in school systems. There is an abridgment of 1A rights in public schools that is important enough that it has gone to the SC. That makes the reasons behind the abridgment a part of the discussion.
Most of us agree on 1A, but disagreement arises when there is an abridgment. Turley spends a lot of time on the restraints of 1A. Such a discussion is implicit in the op-ed, public school infringement on 1A.
My discussion has nothing to do with progressive thinking. Progressives, like lawyers, take white and black and make it gray. They can only do that if those on the right lack sufficient understanding of the Constitution and the reasons for a strict interpretation.
Olly, 👍 I haven’t yet figured out the doubling-down on SM’s part about rules no one has been accused of breaking and no one is disagreeing. This seems out of character for the Seth that usually comments. Maybe he’s been spoofed?
JAFO, I was not spoofed. Tell me based on my first comment, how you think I am doubling down.
Here is the comment: “There are good arguments on all sides. Speech has limitations at the schoolhouse doors.
What are the rules of advocacy at that school or within that school system?”
You’ve contradicted yourself at least three times now. You’re the only one bringing up the idea that school rules exist to supersede every student’s 1A Right to free speech, and only based a presumptive ‘teacher-is-the-parent therefore students have no Rights and should not speak unless spoken to’ school rule, including those outside of the structured classroom. And now, somehow, it’s upon to me to, “Tell (you) a legal school rule where violation of it is not disruptive.”? The premise of your scenario is nonsensical and probably can’t be answered to your satisfaction. At least that’s the impression I’m getting via your own, while passionate, contradictions on 1A Rights. Do you even remember what JT’s original post was about…a student being compelled to speak against her conscience during a non-classroom event?
Seriously, who are you and what have your done with our mostly Reasonable/Rational Seth?
Do you even remember what JT’s original post was about…a student being compelled to speak against her conscience during a non-classroom event?
JAFO, this is an example of how this blog gets hijacked away from the law. I’ve never attended law school and have only witnessed a trial in progress on TV or online. Given the facts presented by JT, I imagine Seth as the defense lawyer giving a passionate opening statement about our failing education system and the need for rules and discipline. He might mention “abridging” 1A rights in the interest of protecting the educational process. The prosecutor would take about 3 minutes. They will say the facts of the case are this: the school had rules of conduct regarding a student’s exercise of free speech. The student requested and was granted approval to exercise that right. The content of her speech was approved on the condition she had to include speech that violated her conscience.
But given the facts presented by JT, this will never go to trial. The school districts attorney will settle this in favor of the student out of court.
Olly, Agreed. While Seth hasn’t said it directly, his implication is clear: school administrators can change the parameters of any student’s free speech Rights, making them conditional should they choose, because they’re minors. He hasn’t made clear where that authority is enshrined in the Constitution, though.
Thanks for the respectful back and forth.
JAFO, your statement about what I think is in error. Administrators must be careful how they diminish 1A rights, but they have the right to do so based on basic needs when educating the young.
My example demonstrated the need, and the SC addressed it. (I am not commenting on their decision.) So far, I haven’t heard your response.
Joe, age ten, told Mary, also age ten, that she was ugly and stank.
You must allow that to occur, or diminish 1A rights, in agreement with my thinking. Pick your poison.
JAFO, I didn’t contradict myself. I sided with the Constitution and a Supreme Court decision.
You are a good guy but dissect concepts in a way that one cannot tell one part from the other. I am hoping Olly explains to you where you are going wrong. I am not able.
Maybe you will have a better grasp of what I am saying from those posts you haven’t yet read, so I intend to wait and see if you can look again and take one idea at a time and discuss it on its own. There are plenty of them out there.
“Do you even remember what JT’s original post was about…a student being compelled to speak against her conscience during a non-classroom event?”
Yes, and I made numerous comments addressing that point. However, my initial response addressed many ideas written by others. You don’t seem to understand that one can reply to Turley or others.
“Seriously, who are you and what have your done with our mostly Reasonable/Rational Seth?”
He is still here JAFO. [The S. doesn’t stand for Seth, but it is fine for you to use it.] You need to look more closely at the individual ideas and which idea is responding to which subject matter.
Apologies for calling you Seth. I mean no disrespect. I followed other’s lead not knowing what you initial S represents. If you have a preference for addressing you, I’ll gladly use it.
I used Seth as there was a Seth Meyer at the same this Meyer was changing his ID. I will just call him Meyer.
Olly, I didn’t know (or realize) there was a Seth Meyer. There was a crazy guy named Seth Warner who is still on the blog with another identity. You can call me Seth.
🤙
No apologies are needed, and you can call me Seth. When that name comes my way, it represents a friend.
Use Seth since it corresponds to my initial.
“Do you believe that lawful rules in a school limiting speech cause a loss of the First Amendment?” Limiting any *non-disruptive* speech by students in schools make those kinds of rules unlawful by default. The only objection – administrators demanding one student support both sides of an issue – you already agree. You haven’t yet provided any scenario where non-threatening, non-disruptive, and otherwise acceptable speech can and *should* be forbidden by school rule simply, “because there’s a rule”. I’m unable to follow why you’re ‘triple-dog daring’ in favor of rules no one has objected.
“Do you believe that lawful rules in a school limiting speech cause a loss of the First Amendment?” Limiting any *non-disruptive* speech by students in schools make those kinds of rules unlawful by default.
JAFO, what is non-disruptive speech in school? My answer is an action that follows the rules. When the teacher asks a question and others raise their hand, Johnny having a fantastic and polite answer is disruptive if he fails to raise his hand.
The rules on speech must follow the law, or they are invalid. If a child breaks those rules, he is disruptive.
“The only objection – administrators demanding one student support both sides of an issue – you already agree.”
Of course, I agree, but that is dealing with a specific case when rules and laws should deal with most or all of them. We generally do not pass laws that lack coverage over similar actions.
“You haven’t yet provided any scenario where non-threatening, non-disruptive, and otherwise acceptable speech can and *should* be forbidden by school rule simply, ”
Tell me a legal school rule where violation of it is not disruptive.
“JAFO thank you for commenting, but take note. I agree with your point.” I guess I’m missing yours, then. Why persist in driving home policies this student hasn’t broken and aren’t being questioned in JT’s post or in the comments if there’s already agreement?
Why persist in driving home policies this student hasn’t broken and aren’t being questioned in JT’s post or in the comments if there’s already agreement?
JAFO, when it comes to any discussion involving education, Seth is laser focused on the failures of the system and of course the need for adherence to rules and discipline. And those are certainly legitimate concerns. If educators are brought into the discussion, you can reliably expect Prairie Rose to contribute her laser focused defense of teachers, regardless of the current issue. This particular post was strictly a first amendment issue and we’re all in agreement her rights were violated.
“involving education, Seth is laser focused on the failures of the system and of course the need for adherence to rules and discipline. “
I am focused on education, and that is why concerning multiple other comments, I said:
“There are good arguments on all sides. “
Do you think those that supported the abridgment of speech had no valid point of view? I thought they had a valid point of view as long as it complied with the First Amendment.
We know your commitment to the First Amendment is strong.
“Speech has limitations at the schoolhouse doors.”
Are you not committed to speech limitations at the schoolhouse door?
I believe yes, and if that is correct, you have a partial agreement with posts on both sides that preceded my own.
“Do you think those that supported the abridgment of speech had no valid point of view? I thought they had a valid point of view as long as it complied with the First Amendment.”
How can one be *for* abridging a viewpoint so long at that viewpoint complies with the 1st? Again, you’ve contradicted your own position.
“How can one be *for* abridging a viewpoint so long at that viewpoint complies with the 1st?”
JAFO, I won’t quote the First Amendment to you a second time, but when you look it up, you will find no contradictions on my part.
Moving on, I must congratulate you on your expansive view of free speech. In school, all the little Joes at ten years of age cannot be stopped from telling ten-year-old Ms. Joan that she is ugly and stinks, even if it is correct and in public. Ten-year-old children now have the right to say whatever they wish anywhere, anyplace.
Amendment 14, Clause 3… “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” expanded the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to apply to the states as well as the federal government.
Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to guarantee a wide array of rights against infringement by the states, including those enumerated in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, right to bear arms, etc.) as well as the right to privacy and other fundamental rights not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution.
Did you happen to notice it *doesn’t* say “… except for school administrators who are hereby allowed to infringe, willy nilly.” ?
“Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to guarantee a wide array of rights against infringement by the states, including those enumerated in the Bill of Rights”
That is true, and though I disagree with much of what the SC did, I must live under those rules. You commented about one of those cases that went before the SC, so you must feel the need to live under those decisions also.
“Did you happen to notice it *doesn’t* say “… except for school administrators who are hereby allowed to infringe, willy nilly.” ?”
But whether you like it or not, and dealing only with the issue of public education, the SC accepted or approved of limitations of 1A in public schools.
The question remains, can little Joe, age ten, tell Ms. Mary, also age ten, that she is ugly and stinks? That is an abridgment of Joe’s 1A according to you if you still disagree with what I said.
Let’s sort out how Joe will be permitted to act in school.
Unless little Joey has Tourette’s and/or is acting unlike other typical 10-year-old boys, I’d say his parents have failed him. They have not taught little Joey that calling other people ‘poopy-head’ or other names is not good manners. Teacher may remind Joey she prefer he use his good manners, but she nor anyone else at school can make a policy that forces little Joey to say something/anything he doesn’t wish to speak.
“I’d say his parents have failed him. ”
JAFO, at ten years of age, we all do stupid things, so I wouldn’t be so quick to blame the parents. Further, that was an example. We could choose numerous others that involve speech.
Take Johnny blurting out an intelligent and on-topic answer instead of raising his hand. Did his parents fail him as well?
“but she nor anyone else at school can make a policy that forces little Joey to say something/anything he doesn’t wish to speak.”
That is only half of what free speech is in this context. I agree it is wrong to force Joe to say what the teacher wishes, but should she permit him to say those things to Mary?
Try not to deal with partial concepts when or if you reply.
“…at ten years of age, we all do stupid things, so I wouldn’t be so quick to blame the parents.”
That was the example you choose to submit. We apparently agree that 10-year-olds often act like 10-year-olds. Who knew? I’m sure I did at the time, too. Then again if parents don’t teach their kids to follow established decorum, in the classroom and elsewhere, one should expect a 10-year-old to not know any better and possibly act out or speak inappropriately.
“Try not to deal with partial concepts when or if you reply.”
If memory serves, you introduced ‘the SC says schools can (and should, emphasis mine) abridge students 1A Rights’, without provocation, clearly implying the student must have broken the school’s rules *after* being granted permission to share her viewpoint. After all, she has no 1A rights on school property, unless the administration explicitly gives permission, I guess.
I responded by covering two concepts, yours – the one not mentioned in JT’s post, and secondly to JT’s point where he mentions that Tinker does not mean what you say it means – in one reply. I really don’t know why that ruffles your feathers.
I do however, admittedly, try to add levity when it seems lacking. It’s who I am. That you may disagree with those attempts, well, that’s hardly on me.
In closing, I’ll consider this back and forth a lesson learned on my part. I shall not respond when you choose to introduce elements into a conversation that weren’t part of the original…you’ve made it clear you don’t wish to be challenged on any extracurriculars you, yourself introduce – in this case when do students unilaterally lose their Constitutional Rights? As a preventive measure(?), at the school’s doorstep, with rule’s that deny students rights, unless they don’t(?). I, like others, simply disagree. But what do I know, I’m Just Another F’n Observer, after all.
“That was the example you choose to submit.”
But I also included Johnny who had the correct answer at the right time. How do you meld Johnny, Joe, and everyone else’s legal rights together? We have to deal with this concept as a whole. Correct?
Schools help socialize children. That lack of socialization can be a problem with home-schooled children. Socialization requires abridgment of a child’s rights. That is what is under discussion.
>”If memory serves, you introduced‘the”
>>SC “says schools can (and should, emphasis mine) abridge students 1A Rights”
Yes, I said something like that.
But you continue with my quote paraphrasing what else I said:
“without provocation, clearly implying the student must have broken the school’s rules *after* being granted permission to share her viewpoint.”
I said nothing like that. If you think I did, everything I wrote is written above. Copy it, and I will explain my words. I was pushing for a unitary rule which would handle both Joe and Johnny.
“After all, she has no 1A rights on school property, unless the administration explicitly gives permission”
That is also not correct.
“where he mentions that Tinker does not mean what you say”
Before making such a comment, you have to understand what I said. I don’t think you do, but you can quote my words and tell me where I am mistaken. I would like to know and correct myself if I made a mistake, but I don’t think I did.
“I really don’t know why that ruffles your feathers. ”
Why do you say that? My feathers aren’t ruffled. I am defending a position with quotes and trying to inform you what I believe,
I am not here to fight with good and honest people like you. I am here to learn.
I like your levity, and think we should have more of it. Sometimes levity and sarcasm can be misinterpreted, so an explanation might need to follow.
“I shall not respond when you choose to introduce elements into a conversation that weren’t part of the original…”
We disagree with your conclusion because my entry into the discussion had to do with the comments made by multiple people. Do what you feel comfortable with. I appreciate what you say.
“you’ve made it clear you don’t wish to be challenged on any extracurriculars you, yourself introduce ”
I don’t know where you get that idea since I have explained what you call “extracurriculars ” with quotes.
” in this case when do students unilaterally lose their Constitutional Rights?”
That is what my discussion was about. Maybe you should review it from the beginning. Then you could quote where the problems start, and we can work them out.
Take note, I am a firm believer in individual rights, but I recognize children are not adults, and they cannot be left on their own to say or do whatever they want.
Without insult, I think you shot before aiming and missed the target.
“Socialization requires abridgment of a child’s rights. That is what is under discussion.”
I offer you a heartfelt “LOL”. No, “Socialization” does not “REQUIRE” abridgement of a child’s, nor anyone else’s, Constitutional Rights. It is not a prerequisite for teaching OR learning. That’s your schoolmaster’s perspective on who you personally, believe SHOULD have which Rights and under what circumstances – for nothing more than expediency. It’s what YOU ADDED to the original post and only what YOU wish to discuss. This is what I’m referring as “doubling-down”, maybe quadrupling or quintupling now, I’ve lost track. It was NOT under discussion in JT’s post, the one where school administrators pushed for a student to advocate against her own viewpoint. It is only you crying over the proverbial ‘spilled milk’ that wasn’t.
The end result will remain the same: I disagree with your viewpoint on this specific issue, the one you raised *after* JT published. The one where Tinker says students are not required to ‘check’ their 1A Rights at the schoolhouse door.
You wish to prevent bad speech in the classroom before it ever happens? Yes, I agree. That’s a reasonable expectation in the classroom environment; no one disagrees with that point. But that’s not what the post was about. Nor is that what 1A is about. Bad speech isn’t prevented by pre-outlawing it with administrative ‘rules’. When Johnny, Joey, Jimmy, Jerry, or even little Muffy says something unexpectedly inappropriate despite the “rule” intended to prevent it, the only option is to deal with it after the “bad” speech is spoken. Even then, it’s STILL not a 1A Problem – you’re in disciplinary, after-the-event, territory.
I will concede this though: It’s highly likely I would have been expelled from your classroom under these conditions and perhaps we’d both be better off for it. LOL 🤣
With all of the previous being said…if you must, please, even if only to help you feel better or just to say, “so, there!”, have the last word. I have no desire to continue this thread. At the same time, in all sincerity, be well and have a nice weekend. 😊 <<(levity…there are no hard feelings on this side, even if it's coming across that way.)
” No, “Socialization” does not “REQUIRE” abridgement of a child’s, nor anyone else’s, Constitutional Rights.”
OK. I am waiting to find out how you intend to fix the problems with Joe and Johnny. You repeat yourself without responding to sincere questions.
“It’s what YOU ADDED to the original post and only what YOU wish to discuss. This is what I’m referring as “doubling-down”
We disagree, and I wish to inform you that you have the prerogative to answer or withhold your answer. You have failed to respond to numerous statements I made explaining my point of view, which you take issue with.
You state I say things that do not belong in the discussion. I ask again, explain to me what is wrong with my first entry into this thread.
“There are good arguments on all sides. Speech has limitations at the schoolhouse doors.
What are the rules of advocacy at that school or within that school system?”
If you think I am wrong, I want to know why. What you seem to dislike is that I believe school children should live under legal rules set by the schools recognizing they infringe on the constitutional rights of a ten-year-old. That appears to be the significant problem in our discussion, but you discuss everything except that. Instead, you become argumentative: “maybe quadrupling or quintupling now, I’ve lost track.” That solves nothing and only adds heat to the discussion.
“It is only you crying over the proverbial ‘spilled milk’ that wasn’t.”
Precisely what crying are you talking about?
” The one where Tinker says students are not required to ‘check’ their 1A Rights at the schoolhouse door.”
That is not a requirement and is why the school’s rules must meet requirements and needs where litigation might occur later.
“You wish to prevent bad speech in the classroom before it ever happens? Yes, I agree.”
That infringes on 1A rights. That is what the discussion is about. There is an agreement, but you continue to debate.
Once again, I ask you to quote what demonstrates our difference of opinion.
“Bad speech isn’t prevented by pre-outlawing it with administrative ‘rules’.”
There are both rules and guidance. In the case presented by Turley, It sounds as if there were no rules on students providing literature. That is what I referred to in my initial statement. We didn’t know the directions for advocacy. The school could have had a rule, an advocate cannot present only one side of a dispute, or it could have a directive not allowing students to provide leaflets.
JAFO, I am glad there are no hard feelings because I find you to be a genuine person who stands up for 1A.
“JAFO thank you for commenting, but take note. I agree with your point.” I guess I’m missing yours, then. Why persist in driving home policies this student hasn’t broken and aren’t being questioned in JT’s post or in the comments if there’s already agreement?
There is a partial agreement.
As I pointed out, some use the free speech argument to inhibit charter schools in NYC. This incident occurred in a school where the rights of children are abridged.
I want recognition that schools have a right to create rules that abridge constitutional rights as long as the schools comply with the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, as long as the abridgment is for all views.
(Take note. I made my arguments. Unless you disagree with them, why persist in whatever point you are trying to make?)
“I want recognition that schools have a right to create rules that abridge constitutional rights as long as the schools comply with the Constitution…”
Say what, now?
“…particularly the First Amendment, as long as the abridgment is for all views.”
As long as every student’s views (1A Rights) are suppressed equally then it’s ok for administrators to oppress students? Surely, even you see your own contradictions in this statement.
JAFO, about a dozen years ago I had dove deeply into trying to understand negative and positive rights. I began with unalienable rights. Yes, these are rights we have merely because we exist and we cannot legitimately give them away or have them taken away. I say ‘because we exist’ because others will attempt to focus on the how we came into existence as a way of arguing against these rights because they don’t believe in God or a Creator. Then I wondered how we can identify what those natural rights are. The best method I have figured out is these rights are what we have alone in the state of nature necessary to secure our lives, our liberty and our property (pursuit of happiness). Then, when we began adding other people into the mix, everyone has the same rights and the security of them becomes more complex. Finally, we figured out that allying with others would be a more effective way of securing these rights. So we enter that civil society and we bring those rights with us.
This is where it got tricky. Are we giving up some of these rights when we agree to be part of this alliance? How does all of this work if we cannot legitimately give these rights away? And the best answer I found was that we disable a percentage of the responsibility to secure these rights in exchange for an agreed body that would use that percentage to better provide for the security of these rights. Disable is the keyword. This means I’m not giving it away. I still retain ownership and have the natural right to reenable whatever is necessary if that body fails to do what was agreed. So when we established this constitutional republic, the limits of the power that was given them is measured by the percentage that we agreed to disable. And we have steadily wittingly or unwittingly disabled or outright lost ownership of more an more of those rights. This is the long train of abuses Jefferson was talking about.
I bring all this up because this particular case is just another example of we’ve lost ownership of rights. They will get dragged away from us while we get distracted.
Olly, Completely agree. The Founders, as many (but not nearly enough) philosophers before, recognized that Natural Rights also exist outside of any human reference, too, so they took Nature’s cue: All living things have the Right to Live, including the Right to Defend and Live their Life as much as they’re capable. Free Speech being just one, but certainly not the only, Right afforded to humans for simply ‘being’.
Not long ago the God character on tv show “Joan of Arcadia” was having a discussion with teenage Joan – the only person God chose to show Himself. “God” was played by both female and male actors giving the insight mentioned in the song, ‘what if God is one of us?’ Anyway, Joan was frustrated that life and nature’s system isn’t ‘fair’. I don’t remember what precipitated the discussion, maybe a friend died, but I remember God’s response: “It’s a Perfect System.”
That’s quite the profound statement when looking at the bigger picture; the System was Created with every living thing having Rights, if you’ll allow. And it’s ‘free will’ being abused by humans, including those who *say* they’re acting on behalf of God, Crusades and The Inquisition come to mind, that’s the actual problem – not “The System” itself. That surprising response, from Hollywood tv show of all places, has ‘stuck’ with me since.
With that being said I don’t think the Individual is ever without our inalienable Rights when a group of folks get together to create security for the group. Sure, there’s some negotiations to be made along the way in order to ‘keep the peace’. But for any one person to deny another’s Rights is ‘wrong’ despite the passion shown by some who might favor that action. And it only gets worse when the Group piles on for no other reason than ‘because we make the rules’. I can see that I’m starting to ramble (again, lol) so I’ll drop off this thread for now. As always, stay safe.
There is no contradiction. I will provide an example to help you understand how one cannot abridge freedom of speech in a school.
Example: If the school rule is one cannot pass out fliers against the Vietnam War, but can in favor of the war. That is a political issue and is wrong at the highest level.
JAFO, I hate to say it, but you are messing concepts up.
Let me abridge the First Amendment: ***CONGRESS shall make no law*** abridging the freedom of speech.”
The Supreme Court recognized that schools could abridge freedom of speech. There is a proper way and an improper way.
” … kid’s peaceful attempts to advocate here.”
***************************************
Emphasis on word two after the contraction.
Mespo, the problem has nothing to do with peaceful attempts.
It has to do with discipline and understanding how to live within legal rules.
This seems like the appropriate time to ask. Just how does one milk an almond, or an oat, or a soy bean, or anything else that has no udder and no teats?
JAFO, I think it’s not really “milked” more like, it’s pressed. Crushing soy beans or almonds and then pressing them until the “milk” is extracted is how you get “milk”. But agree with another poster that technically it should be almond or soy juice instead of milk. I mean evaporated milk is still milk even though it’s a powder. Cows obviously don’t produce powdered milk.
“I mean evaporated milk is still milk even though it’s a powder. “
Svelaz, you must have failed home economics as you failed everything else. Evaporated milk is not a powder.
Of all the items on school lunch menus, milk is the one she objects to?
BTW, I hope she informs everyone of the water requirements to create things like almond “milk.” The enviros should be handing out pamphlets about that.
To the point, I hope she wins, then learns more about wtf she is talking about. That’d be a win-win.