I am afraid to describe the case in these details, as Yahoo's A team has implemented some type of filter-bot that is more restrictive than their own search engine. Seems like mentioning *rhymes with gong* hits for *rhymes with cheeses* in an Answers post is bad, but it's ok in a search using their "safe search" filter.
I repeat - this link will ONLY return content that Yahoo has deemed OK for children.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Joseph+Frederick+juneau+suspended+site%3Ayahoo.com&adult_done=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch&adult_cancel=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fweb%2Fadvanced&_adv_prop=web&ei=UTF-8&vf=all&vm=r&fl=0&n=10&fr=yfp-t-501&_bcrumb=a3d2e1e9df17c3a77e8566156c289f37%2C1170109324
2007-01-29 09:24:17 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The (public) school is the in the wrong here. What people do or say outside of the jurisdiction of the school is of no consequence to the principal.
If this were a private school, this would be a different matter altogether. Remember only the government and public institutions are subject to the 1st Amendment. A private company is not.
2007-02-05 01:29:42 · answer #1 · answered by adreed 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically I believe schools are responsible for kids until they get home (I got suspended when I was little for pounding a kid on the way home). Additionally, schools are allowed to have additionally restriction, more protective then outside of the school, on free speach and other Constitutional rights. I do think this is going a little far and will be interested in seeing how it ends up.
2007-01-29 09:55:21 · answer #2 · answered by straightup 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know what case you are talking about. The kid was let out of school for a parade. He went to non-school property and displayed a banner that said the phrase that we are hiding. The kid got in trouble with the principal because of it. I am in favor of the kid. He was let out of school and was not on school property. The school has no say in what types of banners the kid wants to show off under these circumstances. The school is taking a very gestapo stance here. "You are allowed free speech as long as we approve of what you are saying."
2007-01-29 09:32:43 · answer #3 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I had to click the link to figure out what rhymes with cheeses.
I dont see how that activity helps the J man.
If people got along better, then we wouldnt need religion
it is all about hate and death
2007-01-29 09:33:31 · answer #4 · answered by brainiac 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know in the school that my children go to, references to drugs can get them suspended for a few days. I think that what this kid did was wrong and depending on the schools rules he coould get in trouble.
2007-01-29 09:37:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
in favor of the 1st amendment- it's straightforward. you cannot censor speech. period. if the Kid was in school at the time, I might understand it, but he was ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN SCHOOL AT THE TIME. the school had absolutly no right. if you were standing on a public sidewalk outside your workplace while in a protest march, they could fire you just for that? it's the exact same case except for one thing: age.
right.
2007-01-29 09:32:45 · answer #6 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The school had to maintain discipline... It looks like this guy is a bit of a joker and no one needs a joker.
2007-01-29 09:33:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the principal was in his right to suspend the kid, man I hate it when the ACLU gets involved, I didn't see anything about them but you know they are behind it.
2007-01-30 12:14:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It seems to me that the school authorities were clearly in the wrong.
2007-02-04 19:20:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is your name Mike Solomon cuz you might go to my school.
2007-01-29 09:27:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋