• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What a massive misunderstanding of the word “Right”!

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Another massive misunderstanding of the word “Right”:


“According to former federal district judge Oliver Wanger, while Mueller’s First Amendment right is being infringed, the school may have the right [emphasis mine] to do it.”

Public schools cannot have “rights”. They can have authorities granted to them by law. Either the judge is ignorant on the concept of Rights, his communication skills stink, or his words were misrepresented.

The school reasonably could have been granted the authority to ban ALL speech on clothing as part of a dress code. However, the instant the school starts making the decision as to which speech is acceptable and which speech is not, they have crossed the line and anticonstitutionally violated the 1A.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,731
Location
here nc
Another massive misunderstanding of the word “Right”:


“According to former federal district judge Oliver Wanger, while Mueller’s First Amendment right is being infringed, the school may have the right [emphasis mine] to do it.”

Public schools cannot have “rights”. They can have authorities granted to them by law. Either the judge is ignorant on the concept of Rights, his communication skills stink, or his words were misrepresented.

The school reasonably could have been granted the authority to ban ALL speech on clothing as part of a dress code. However, the instant the school starts making the decision as to which speech is acceptable and which speech is not, they have crossed the line and anticonstitutionally violated the 1A.
There is that private property concept yet again rearing it’s ugly head as well as the caregiver’s signatures on their student’s contracts granting the school’s ‘right’ to do whatever to “maintain” order!

Yet another outrage over shock and awe nonsense put in the newspeek/social media to sellllll advertising...
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
Another massive misunderstanding of the word “Right”:


“According to former federal district judge Oliver Wanger, while Mueller’s First Amendment right is being infringed, the school may have the right [emphasis mine] to do it.”

Public schools cannot have “rights”. They can have authorities granted to them by law. Either the judge is ignorant on the concept of Rights, his communication skills stink, or his words were misrepresented.

The school reasonably could have been granted the authority to ban ALL speech on clothing as part of a dress code. However, the instant the school starts making the decision as to which speech is acceptable and which speech is not, they have crossed the line and anticonstitutionally violated the 1A.
So if the gov bans. SOME guns and not others it's unconstitutional. If they ban ALL guns it is?

Same line of thinking.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Not at all the same line of thinking. You could try to anologize the idea of the school banning the carry of some guns by the students, as opposed to banning all guns, but they do already lawfully bar all carry by students.

Nice try, but your analogy fails. Schools have the absolute authority, acting in loco parentis, to set a dress code. That dress code could lawfully require that all clothing not carry ideas.

My point, which you ignore, is that they should not control the content of speech that might be included on the clothing if they allow any speech on clothing. THAT action would be (and is) an anticonstitutional violation of the 1A.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
Not at all the same line of thinking. You could try to anologize the idea of the school banning the carry of some guns by the students, as opposed to banning all guns, but they do already lawfully bar all carry by students.

Nice try, but your analogy fails. Schools have the absolute authority, acting in loco parentis, to set a dress code. That dress code could lawfully require that all clothing not carry ideas.

My point, which you ignore, is that they should not control the content of speech that might be included on the clothing if they allow any speech on clothing. THAT action would be (and is) an anticonstitutional violation of the 1A.

Maybe 8n Ohio at private schools they can set a dress code.

You and I live in two states that are so different they may as well be in two different countries.

My sister lived and taught school there for decades until she retired.

From that alone I know we are not going to agree on much as far as rights.

Our two states treat inalienable rights very differently.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Maybe 8n Ohio at private schools they can set a dress code.

You and I live in two states that are so different they may as well be in two different countries.

My sister lived and taught school there for decades until she retired.

From that alone I know we are not going to agree on much as far as rights.

Our two states treat inalienable rights very differently.
If you are saying that, in your State, public schools cannot have a dress code, I’d ask you for a citation.

I am unaware a single State in the US where public schools are prohibited by State law from having a dress code.

My only point remains: If a school uses a dress code to prohibit speech from one point of view, unless they ban speech from all points of view, such a ban would be anticonstitutional.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
If you are saying that, in your State, public schools cannot have a dress code, I’d ask you for a citation.

I am unaware a single State in the US where public schools are prohibited by State law from having a dress code.

My only point remains: If a school uses a dress code to prohibit speech from one point of view, unless they ban speech from all points of view, such a ban would be anticonstitutional.
IMO banning speech from any point of view or belief is unconstitutional.

Course that's just my opinion.

As to dress codes your state puts WAY more emphasis on such things than mine.

Had my daughter in school in your state for a year while I worked there

Difference in daylight and dark.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Again, if you are saying that your State bars schools from having a dress code, citation please. If not, then a judgment of “way more” is pure guesswork.

Would you say that a parent could not be allowed to tell their child that they should not wear some particular piece of clothing based on content? THAT would be anti-Liberty.

Schools operate in loco parentis. They too should have the absolute authority to exclude messages on clothing that could disrupt the educational process. However, they cannot pick winners and losers among causes. Therefore, if messages on clothing are presenting a problem, the only way to deal with the problem is to bar all messages on clothing.

If you have a hard time grasping this concept, ask yourself whether a shirt praising Hitler’s or Stalin’s actions should be allowed, considering the disruptions that would occur?

Oh, BTW, contrary to what you seem to think, I have not been discussing Ohio schools at all.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,731
Location
here nc
Again, if you are saying that your State bars schools from having a dress code, citation please. If not, then a judgment of “way more” is pure guesswork.

Would you say that a parent could not be allowed to tell their child that they should not wear some particular piece of clothing based on content? THAT would be anti-Liberty.

Schools operate in loco parentis. They too should have the absolute authority to exclude messages on clothing that could disrupt the educational process. However, they cannot pick winners and losers among causes. Therefore, if messages on clothing are presenting a problem, the only way to deal with the problem is to bar all messages on clothing.

If you have a hard time grasping this concept, ask yourself whether a shirt praising Hitler’s or Stalin’s actions should be allowed, considering the disruptions that would occur?

Oh, BTW, contrary to what you seem to think, I have not been discussing Ohio schools at all.
Now eye95, you seem to be saying KY must have legal Statutory mandates to affect schools to implement their policies within their respective districts.

While within the State level educational organization oversight policies [not stautory mandates] might have criteria, the language is broadly stated to cover a myriad of circumstances a individual school administrator needs to cover their immediate needs.

Therefore eye95, if there is no state statutory law covering ‘dress codes’ but perhaps an obscure school policy filed under the ‘maintain discipline’ clauses which means there is nothing to cite statutorily it kinda mitigates the ‘cite please’ angle now doesn’t it?

As for your Godwin’s Law t-shirt example, the school’s administrators would invoke the disruptive criteria under the ‘dress code’ policy.

Still private property, their ground rules!
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
Again, if you are saying that your State bars schools from having a dress code, citation please. If not, then a judgment of “way more” is pure guesswork.

Would you say that a parent could not be allowed to tell their child that they should not wear some particular piece of clothing based on content? THAT would be anti-Liberty.

Schools operate in loco parentis. They too should have the absolute authority to exclude messages on clothing that could disrupt the educational process. However, they cannot pick winners and losers among causes. Therefore, if messages on clothing are presenting a problem, the only way to deal with the problem is to bar all messages on clothing.

If you have a hard time grasping this concept, ask yourself whether a shirt praising Hitler’s or Stalin’s actions should be allowed, considering the disruptions that would occur?

Oh, BTW, contrary to what you seem to think, I have not been discussing Ohio schools at all.
Don't recall saying there was a KY statute barring a dress code.
But having went to school here while having a sister 18 yrs my senior with a teaching career in Ohio,
plus having my own child in Ohio school for a year WAY MORE isn't guesswork.
There is much difference in the way the two states approach almost everything, including school, gun permissions, traffic, policing etc.

If you have clothes on here in school very little else will be required or banned except maybe outright profanity.

But again we are digressing .

The 1A, as the 2A , states what it states. Neither grants the right they seek to protect. That those rights are willingly allowed to be violated by gov and it's agencies by way to many Americans doesn't remove those rights from those who will not surrender them.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
You never addressed a parent’s authority to determine what their child can or cannot wear—or a school’s authority to act in loco parentis.

Or do you believe that parents have no such authority? Do you further believe that children’s rights are the same as adults so that parents cannot make decisions for their children???

I am done with this facet of this discussion if you choose to continue to ignore key aspect?
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
You never addressed a parent’s authority to determine what their child can or cannot wear—or a school’s authority to act in loco parentis.

Or do you believe that parents have no such authority? Do you further believe that children’s rights are the same as adults so that parents cannot make decisions for their children???

I am done with this facet of this discussion if you choose to continue to ignore key aspect?
A parent has or should have control of their child .
The school is not there to parent.
It has no such right or authority or frankly the intelligence unaffected by politics to be granted such authority.

We will simply forever more most likely have to agree to disagree.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
To think that a parent, who you finally admit should have control over their child, should turn their child over to the supervision of others, but not permit them the necessary authority to be able to exercise necessary control is just plain foolhardy.

I never agree to something as foolish as “agreeing to disagree”. I have completely made my point to those who will see, so there is nothing more that needs be said in this subdiscussion.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
To think that a parent, who you finally admit should have control over their child, should turn their child over to the supervision of others, but not permit them the necessary authority to be able to exercise necessary control is just plain foolhardy.

I never agree to something as foolish as “agreeing to disagree”. I have completely made my point to those who will see, so there is nothing more that needs be said in this subdiscussion.
Aurhorizing the school to exert enough discipline to maintain control, and giving it authority to determine what the child should or should not wear that over rules the parents decision of what the child should wear are two completely different ball fields.

In any case schools today have no control at all, having to depend on having a kiddie cop full time to be able to stay in the building.

And as much as it pains me to say it, you will agree to disagree this time.
Or continue to debate yourself.

Your stating that you have completely made your point hardly makes it so, except in your own mind.

Now we will simply, and I hope civily, agree to disagree, or you may continue to pontificate solo.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,731
Location
here nc
The ability to discern term(s) appropriately to facilitate any type of discussion took our founding fathers from the state of our beginning Union quite a long time to adjudicate and ratify into our constitution and bill of rights.

Thank goodness these gentlemen, Mason in particular, we call our founding fathers didn’t blatantly state:

“...I have completely made my point to those who will see, so there is nothing more that needs be said...”

We might not have what we have today which makes this Union so great.

However, in one particular case during that era, one felt slighted through defamation against them and was successfully in defending their honor but at the cost of life of his distractor and their political career never recovered for their act!
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Tinker is a new facet of the discussion, well worth comment. Thank you OC for Me.

The case is another example of courts creating privileges, the key philosophical difference between a privilege and a Right being the origin. Rights come from God (or nature, if you prefer). Privileges come from other people and institutions, such as government, including courts.

It is inarguable that children have fewer Rights than adults, that parents routinely restrict the Liberty and property of their children, as do adults whom parents place in charge of their children. The Court essentially drew a line beyond which they define the restricting of speech to be unreasonable and unlawful. They defined a privilege for children in schools.

For adults, I find such rulings that define “reasonable restrictions on Rights” to be anticonstitutional, but in this case, since children clearly don’t have the Rights that adults do, by drawing the line, the Court is granting privileges and not restricting Rights, which is generally a good thing for them to do.

The problem I would have with the ruling would be allowing the school to determine which speech causes disruption. That allows them to decide which speech is allowable and which is not. This goes beyond infringing on a perceived right and gets into a realm where government picks winners and losers among ideas. While Tinker makes this legal, philosophically, it is wrong and dangerous.

What is the solution? Once a school has found that speech on clothing has disrupted, then it must stop the disruptive speech. However, stopping only the disruptive speech is biased censorship. Therefore, the only possible option is the banning of all speech on clothing.

While the whole thrust of my argument has been philosophical, I really never wanted to discuss cases and law, this case does recognize that schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to maintain discipline, which can include restricting speech, which is the point I have been endeavoring to make.

The Court and I disagree on how to restrict speech to prevent disruption. They think that some political speech can be selectively muted. I hold that it is unacceptable for government censorship not to mute all political speech.

BTW, I remember the event with the black armbands. Most of the students at my school walked out that day. That was disruptive to say the least. I was wrong to participate. The school should have taken stronger action to try to prevent (likely unsuccessfully) the walkout or to punish those of us who participated. You see, as students, we didn’t have the Freedom to Travel, a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) Right that adults enjoy.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,896
Location
White Oak Plantation
A prior restraint on a protected right by government. The supremes have been consistent on 1A prior restraints...bad, until they are asked to apply their "doctrine" to a pre-college student exercising of their 1A.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
Tinker is a new facet of the discussion, well worth comment. Thank you OC for Me.

The case is another example of courts creating privileges, the key philosophical difference between a privilege and a Right being the origin. Rights come from God (or nature, if you prefer). Privileges come from other people and institutions, such as government, including courts.

It is inarguable that children have fewer Rights than adults, that parents routinely restrict the Liberty and property of their children, as do adults whom parents place in charge of their children. The Court essentially drew a line beyond which they define the restricting of speech to be unreasonable and unlawful. They defined a privilege for children in schools.

For adults, I find such rulings that define “reasonable restrictions on Rights” to be anticonstitutional, but in this case, since children clearly don’t have the Rights that adults do, by drawing the line, the Court is granting privileges and not restricting Rights, which is generally a good thing for them to do.

The problem I would have with the ruling would be allowing the school to determine which speech causes disruption. That allows them to decide which speech is allowable and which is not. This goes beyond infringing on a perceived right and gets into a realm where government picks winners and losers among ideas. While Tinker makes this legal, philosophically, it is wrong and dangerous.

What is the solution? Once a school has found that speech on clothing has disrupted, then it must stop the disruptive speech. However, stopping only the disruptive speech is biased censorship. Therefore, the only possible option is the banning of all speech on clothing.

While the whole thrust of my argument has been philosophical, I really never wanted to discuss cases and law, this case does recognize that schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to maintain discipline, which can include restricting speech, which is the point I have been endeavoring to make.

The Court and I disagree on how to restrict speech to prevent disruption. They think that some political speech can be selectively muted. I hold that it is unacceptable for government censorship not to mute all political speech.

BTW, I remember the event with the black armbands. Most of the students at my school walked out that day. That was disruptive to say the least. I was wrong to participate. The school should have taken stronger action to try to prevent (likely unsuccessfully) the walkout or to punish those of us who participated. You see, as students, we didn’t have the Freedom to Travel, a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) Right that adults enjoy.
Who stated in the constitution students have no freedom to travel?
 
Top