Archive for March 19th, 2007
Oral arguments were heard today in Morse v. Frederick in front of the Supreme Court. Follow the link for a transcript.
WASHINGTON — A high school principal was acting reasonably and in accord with the school’s anti-drug mission when she suspended a student for displaying a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner, her lawyer told the Supreme Court today.
“The message here is, in fact, critical,” the lawyer, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, said during a lively argument about whether the principal violated the constitutional rights of the student.
On the other side, attorney Douglas Mertz of Juneau, Alaska, urged the justices to see the case as being about free speech, not drugs.
The dispute between Joseph Frederick, who in 2002 was a high school senior, and Principal Deborah Morse has become an important test of the limits on the free speech rights of students. The case is Morse v. Frederick, 06-278.
Justice Stephen Breyer, addressing Mertz, said he was struggling with the case because a ruling in Frederick’s favor could encourage students to go to absurd lengths to test those limits.
A ruling for Morse, however, “may really limit free speech,” Breyer said.
The Bush administration, backing Morse, wants the Court to adopt a broad rule that could essentially give public schools the right to clamp down on any speech with which it disagrees.
There are two questions involved with this case. First, the free speech rights of the student; Second, is the principal entitled to qualified immunity for her response to the student.
I believe it would be consistent with Tinker (Sup Ct. 1968) to find that the students first amendment rights were violated. Tinker holds that speech that creates a disturbance can be prohibited. If the student had held up the banner in a classroom, it would clearly be a disturbance. However, holding up the banner outside, while watching an Olympic torch relay, would require an extremely broad definition of the word disturbance in order to condone the actions of the principal. Further, if it is held that the banner was disruptive, schools will be given a green light to ban virtually any speech, or forms thereof, at the whim of school officials. The integrity of the First Amendment is more important than the school’s view of this banner.
On the issue of immunity, I do not believe the principal should be held personally liable for her actions. It is reasonable to assume that she acted in a manner she thought was consistent with the objectives of her job. However, if the students First Amendment rights are upheld, any further actions by the principal, similar to this, should negate any claims to immunity.
Source: firstamendmentcenter.org: news
Bill Online Easily, Fast & Free with PayPal. No Software Needed. Sign Up Now!
[tags]gay, straight, FOX, comedy, youtube, guys[/tag]
Netflix Delivers DVDs to your home. NO LATE FEES. Try for FREE!
I am very glad to see the City taking the Blue Flu seriously and attempting to hold the police officers who allegedly broke the law accountable for their actions.
An additional five Buffalo police officers are expected to be served court papers today in connection with a “blue flu” job action over the weekend, according to city Corporation Counsel Alisa M. Lukasiewicz.
That would bring the total of officers facing court action to 22. Rank-and-file officers criticized the move Sunday as “excessive.” Many said the matter should have been handled internally.
The “blue flu” sick-out did not appear to cause any serious problems during Sunday’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade, but officers across the city were called in to work overtime to fill in for the absent officers.
A total of 17 officers from one police district — Northwest District — who called in sick between last Wednesday and Friday were served court papers Saturday morning, instructing them to appear in State Supreme Court this Friday.
The police union has benefited for many years from the Taylor Law which unfairly benefits the unions.
“This is excessive,” said one Northeast District officer who asked not be named. “The commissioner should have just did this in-house and maybe suspended them for 30 days.”
What a short memory that officer has. He was probably one of the cops during the parking blitz defending his actions because the tagged cars broke the law. The dual standards do not serve the cause of the police at all.
In my opinion, the penalty for breaking the Taylor Law is far too lenient, 2 days pay lost for each day participating in a “job action.” Police officers who take an oath to uphold the law should be dismissed for willfully violating the law.
Source: Buffalo News: City & Region
WASHINGTON, March 18 — It’s Kennedy versus Kennedy as two members of Congress from the same family face off over competing versions of legislation that would require many health insurance companies and employers to provide more generous benefits to people with mental illness.
This is another cause of ever increasing health care and insurance costs. The government should not be mandating coverage that many people would not purchase if they had a choice. People in a “free” society should be able to make their own decisions regarding insurance coverage.
