You hypocritical bastard

[drwex]

Yes, I mean you, Mr Chief Justice Roberts. How can you sanctimoniously write

Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor

and not include a footnote saying "Except where the speech concerns drugs and the censor is the governmental or in loco parentis authority figure?

Oh, right, because speech is only free when it's paid for, not when it's a kid holding up a banner. The First Amendment apparently protects big-money political buyers like unions and PACs, but not actual individual Americans. Jeezus jumping jehosephat, how do people like this sleep at night?

(For those not following the reference, I'm ranting about Roberts' opinion striking down McCain-Feingold limits on political ad spending which differs remarkably from yesterday's ruling on Bong hits 4 Jesus.)

P.S. feste, note again Scalitomas voting en bloc.

Comments

[dpolicar]

(nods)

I haven't seen a map of the area, but recalling what the equivalent layout would have been in my high school, the same principle would mean the school had control-in-principle of several private residences, a deli, and a couple of gas stations. Surely that can't be right.

I have no problem with schools refusing to let students off school property while school is in session. But if they choose to do so, one consequence is they give up some control over the environment their students are in during that time. IMHO, they can't have it both ways.

[gsh]

the same principle would mean the school had control-in-principle of several private residences, a deli, and a couple of gas stations. Surely that can't be right.

Well, I agree it can't be right, but that's cause I don't think it meant the school had control of several private residences, etc.

I think it is clear that the school maintains control if (for example) they take a trip to the zoo. In this case they took a trip to the street to watch something pass by on the street. If they had dismissed classes for the day, then I'd agree they gave up control of students, but classes continued. I'm not very annoyed over this case.

[dpolicar]

Interesting.

I agree that, because class was in session, the school had the right to keep its students on school grounds, where it can control the messages they're exposed to. But given that the school chose not to exercise that right, I don't see where it has any grounds to exert control over speech on the street just because that's where it sent its students during class time.

I agree that the field-trip-to-the-zoo analogy is relevant, and I would say the same thing there: the school is free to send students to the zoo, or not, based on whatever assurances the zoo is capable of providing and whatever other factors it wants to take into account. But once it chooses to do so, it can't claim the right to restrict speech at the zoo on the grounds that such speech will expose its students to undesirable messages. That's not under the school's control, it's under the zoo's control. In choosing to send its students to the zoo, the school gives up some control over what its students might be exposed to.

Similarly, in choosing to send its students out on the street, the school gives up the same control, and cedes it to the various private residences and public services that face the street, and to citizens on the street legally exercising their right to free speech.

Now, if we want to discard the legal line of reasoning that says "the school has a right to protect its students from bad messages, even outside school property" and replace it with a line of reasoning that says "the school has a right to control its students' speech, even outside school property, never mind who is exposed to it" I'd consider that more consistent with our usual in loco parentis approach to schools. (Which, as I said originally, I have trouble with, but accept as the convention.)