General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Missouri student loses driving rights for flying Confederate flag [View all]MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Well, I don't need the 1st amendment to despise your analysis. I only need my own mind for that. If I want to express what I think, then the 1st is handy. Ok, enough of being argumentative just to be argumentative.
I agree with you for adults. Children aren't adults. If I've been unclear in my posts about my dislike of applying adult-oriented 1st amendment analysis to a school setting, that's my fault. Given the lesser value/weight/you pick the word of the 1st amendment in a school setting, it's not unreasonable to examine the content and conduct of the speech at issue. Is a black armband with nothing more directly said, though I'm sure questions could be and were asked, incendiary in its own right or is there something more to be considered? What about the Confederate flag? Outside of re-enactors and historical displays, how often is that flag flown for an innocuous purpose? Are the kids wearing the armbands intending disruption or acting recklessly? I would prefer to see these questions asked by a judge because I find them to be less sterile and more rooted in Brennan's opinion that a court always had to be cognizant of the outcome. Cases aren't decided in a vacuum and abstract classroom analysis just promotes the fantasy that they are.
I realize I've kind of moved the goalposts some, but it's really not intentional. I said that this was kind of off the cuff in an earlier post, so forgive me for refining as I go.
I went back and looked at Tinker and realized that I really agreed with Hugo Black's reasoning, even though I don't agree with his disposition of the case. That's kind of funny.