constitutional or not?

Question

make an argument for the teachers or anna, an state amendments that are/not violated

School principal caroline schuman suspended Anna G after she showed a comicbook style 3 panel drawing justice. it depicts a character contemplating the destrution of the school. in the age of columbine school massacre, the BOE decided that the drawing represented a threat to the chool. Anna G countered that her art was a form of expression entitled to first amendment protection

please add why it is or isnt constitutional

Answer 1

constitutional.

art is a form of expression. i dont think it is enough to consider it a threat.

Answer 2

A dicey question. I would hesitate to say that the school acted appropriately without knowing more about the situation (I have very little tolerance for zero-tolerance policies). However, I would not say that the school violated the first amendment. What Anna has to understand is that not *all* speech is permitted under the First Amendment. The famous example is that you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre if there isn't one. People could hurt each other in the rush to get out.

So whether or not Anna was yelling 'fire' in a theatre or just showing a comic she doodled, the school had to take some kind of notice. Failing to do so would have left them liable if she had done something violent afterwards.

That being said, I can't make a call as to whether the school acted appropriately without knowing more about the story. But I would not say that Anna's constitutional rights were violated. (This is on the line though between freedom of creative expression or making a threat. The school erred on the side of caution.)

Hope this helps

Answer 3

THe best case to look at is Brandenburg versus Ohio. If a threat is made to a group of people, like overthrow the government or riot or such, and the threat is tenable, then the state has the right and duty for the public good to intervene. If however, there is no imminent or believable danger, then the state cannot.

The defense and prosecution of this case will come down to the issue of if Anna sought to inspire others to act against the school with violence, and if those she showed the picture to had the capability and will to act.

Brandenburg versus Ohio is one of the most important cases in our history, and is the perfect match for this case. I would read up on it if I were you.

Answer 4

Not only do those drawings not represent the immediate threat that yelling "Fire!" does, but it is important to allow free and appropriate dialog on such issues as school violence. Making such issues taboo is dangerous... imagine a world where we never discussed things like the holocaust or the Reichstag fire.

The tragedies of the past must be not only open for discussion, but actively discussed else, if history has shown us anything, we are doomed to repeat them.

Finally... censorship has never once in history proven itself to be successful. Nearly everyone has seen nudity, had sex, been involved in violence, and knows more or less all the profane words. Censorship has even failed in more commited states like the USSR and communist China... so why would we attempt it here?

Seems like the best action would be to have the artist talk to the school counsler to determine her feelings on the subject and to hold on open dialog with the students on the subject.

A shame to forget the fact that the shooting happened because the two kids felt oppressed and had no viable outlets for their anger and loneliness.

Answer 5

Perhaps she should have utilized critical thinking, and practiced the lesson for the principal? Then the whole thing could have been avoided. Also, the BoE could have been a bit more responsible, and given a stern warning, followed by termination on the second offense.

Answer 6

What this boils down to is "zero tolerance." Most schools in the US use this rule. Anna, weather her intentions were innocent or not, broke the "zero tolerance" rule by drawing this picture. She knew that it would not be an acceptable picture to be brought to school. Unless she's a retard or something. Right? There's always that one person who wants to challenge the rules. In this case, Anna was aware of the rules, and she broke them. So, it is constitutional of the school to enforce their rules. Especially in this day and age with creepy kids who want to shoot people at school.Sorry, but, Anna knew better.

Answer 7

Anna g......first amendment. Now one back at you Holmes....what amendment is the principal exercising when she suspended the girl three days so the FBI can search her hard drive to determine a terrorist threat?

Answer 8

Anna is apparently a troublemaker. If I were the principal I would not allow it.

Answer 9

Do you think what she drew was responsible?
With rights come responsibilities.
The right to free speech is not absolute.
Does one have the right to yell FIRE! in a crowed theatre?

Answer 10

constitutional,leave the poor girl alone.