Slashdot Mirror
MySpace is Free Speech, Case Overturned
eldavojohn writes "The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a judge violated the constitution after placing a juvenile on probation for an expletive laden MySpace entry on the principal. The court decided that the juvenile's free speech rights had been unconstitutionally revoked, and the original judge had suppressed politically motivated free speech since the comments were directly attacking school policy. I think we are starting to see a fine line develop online as it did with print — bullying & slander are punishable while we have to allow criticism of ideas no matter how harsh it is."
They tend to get away with it because rightly are wrongly the schools invoke the Safe Schools Act when suppressing speech/activities outside the physical school environment.
The Safe Schools Act is to school age children what the Patriot Act is to the common citizenry.
While I agree that students should have rights, I have to ask: why shouldn't they be second-class citizens? They're not working and they're not nearly as capable as adults of making good decisions. I think "second-class citizen" is a rather good description of what they should be, as opposed to the "first-class citizens" who work and pay taxes for the upkeep of the city. The question, though, is about how many or how few rights second-class citizens should have.
I think the problem is that the U.S. legal system lacks the framework for dealing with anything besides two types of things: individuals, and property. Either you're an individual, and have rights, or you're property, and belong to somebody else.
There have always been questions as to the status of certain things: slaves, for example, were traditionally property, but later became individuals; animals, who arguably have certain independent characteristics, are still just property; and the current abortion debate is mostly an argument as to whether a fetus is an individual, or merely a woman's property.
The track record of the legal system at dealing with the grey areas isn't too great (cf. "3/5ths compromise," or the now-ridiculous limits on exactly how hard you can beat your wife). The solution here seems to be to clarify the status of minors as one or the other.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
MySpeech is a communciations method. You can use it in keeping with the First Amendment, or you can use it outside of those very real bounds. Saying "MySpace is Free Speech" is like saying "the sounds coming out of your mouth are Free Speech." Well, yeah, unless they're not. As in slander, fraud, incitement, conspiracy, threats, etc.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I've always wondered how that used to work. My step-father's high school had an indoor firing range; and people brought their guns to school on the bus. I think they had to turn them into the range master prior to going to homeroom. They obviously don't do that now, but I am curious when and how the policy change occurred.
.22 or maybe a .410).
Of course this was in rural Georgia (Athens-Clarke County) sometime in the 50's.
Anyhoo, it's not that you don't have a right to bear arms as a minor, just that those rights are severely restricted. And ownership is usually flat out (not that it kept any of my friends from "owning" a
FID? Flight ID? Free Induction Decay? Financial Institutions Duty? Functional Interface Drawing? Oh wait, there it is, Firearms Identification.
Guess what? FID is generally only required when purchasing a gun. SOME states require that you have a license to own a firearm, but not most.
In California, "A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To buy a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years of age, and either 1) possess an HSC plus successfully complete a safety demonstration with the handgun being purchased or 2) qualify for an HSC exemption."
It's worth mentioning that no minor without their majority can actually be said to own property anyway. Their parents/guardians can take it away at any time, so it's not really theirs. So the law focuses on providing access to minors. California law doesn't make it illegal to provide access to a firearm to a minor, but you can be guilty of a felony if a minor uses your gun to commit a crime.
Everyone surrenders their right to bear arms on a school campus except for active law enforcement, or military during the execution of orders. Even if you have a concealed carry permit it is not lawful to bring a gun to a school. This is interesting because at one time (IIRC, up until the early 1900s) California law explicitly protected your right to carry a gun on public property. That means schools, courthouses, et cetera.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
After 2 days the faculty caved, and let us carry our purses again (though they had to stay in our lockers, because then we wouldn't be able to shoot up the school with the guns we were all carrying in them). Then they started finding out who organized it, and suspended us for insubordination. About 3 weeks later, there was a sit-out at the school, which didn't end well (not for those of us organizing it).
Yea, I used to be a big pusher for people's rights not getting trampled. But after becoming so disillusioned in those years, then my stint in the Army, and current political happenings, it's enough that I'm willing to make /. posts.
It's sad really.
It's rediculous how as a 16 year old you can drive a car and pay taxes but can't vote. It is taxation without representation in my opinion and that is why the founders of this country took up arms and fought back. Ill stick with posting to internet forums myself but the whole thing is kind of rediculous.
It's not that 'rediculous' in light of the fact that that right has been traded for special treatment. If you are mature enough to vote you should be mature enough to give up your special legal consideration -- in other words, no more child-labour protection, no more child-abuse laws, no more watered-down juvenile courts, no more watered-down juvenile punishments, no more reduced fair for government services, no more exemption from conscription or jury duty, no more obligation for your parents to take care of you, no more protection from prosecution, &c.
I'd be in favour of giving 16-year-olds the right to vote as long as they're OK with giving up all that stuff.