Careful about the stories you write, especially in Kentucky
BTR1701
According to the cop in the story below, "anytime you make any threat or
possess matter involving a school or function it's a felony in the state
of Kentucky." I wonder why they haven't sworn out a warrant and/or
arrested Stephen King during any of his many Kentucky book-signings?
After all, he wrote a famous story, "Rage", in which a high school
student shoots several of his teachers and holds his class hostage. For
that matter, why haven't they made it a crime for anyone in Kentucky to
possess a copy of that story? [I myself drove through Kentucky on the
way up to DC last year with that story in my car. I guess I'm a felon,
huh?]
Could it be the reason they haven't gone after the likes of King and
other authors is that they have millions of dollars and barracuda
lawyers at their disposal? On the other hand, this kid doesn't. I guess
your bank account is the difference between a felony and a mere story.
I mean, come on. A story about zombies gets you locked up?
I guess the Buffy fanfiction community in Kentucky better watch out.
Mention a high school in your story and you could go to jail. I guess
just to be safe all Kentucky Buffy fanfiction has to be set in Season 5
only. After Buffy and crew graduated but before Dawn showed up.
Student Arrested For Terroristic Threatening, Says Incident A
Misunderstanding
A George Rogers Clark High School junior arrested Tuesday for making
terrorist threats told LEX 18 News Thursday that the "writings" that got
him arrested are being taken out of context.
Winchester police say William Poole, 18, was taken into custody Tuesday
morning. Investigators say they discovered materials at Poole's home
that outline possible acts of violence aimed at students, teachers, and
police.
Poole told LEX 18 that the whole incident is a big misunderstanding. He
claims that what his grandparents found in his journal and turned into
police was a short story he wrote for English class.
"My story is based on fiction," said Poole, who faces a second-degree
felony terrorist threatening charge. "It's a fake story. I made it up.
I've been working on one of my short stories, (and) the short story they
found was about zombies. Yes, it did say a high school. It was about a
high school over ran by zombies."
Even so, police say the nature of the story makes it a felony. "Anytime
you make any threat or possess matter involving a school or function
it's a felony in the state of Kentucky," said Winchester Police
detective Steven Caudill.
Poole disputes that he was threatening anyone.
"It didn't mention nobody who lives in Clark County, didn't mention
(George Rogers Clark High School), didn't mention no principal or cops,
nothing,"
said Poole. "Half the people at high school know me. They know I'm not
that stupid, that crazy."
On Thursday, a judge raised Poole's bond from one to five thousand
dollars after prosecutors requested it, citing the seriousness of the
charge.
Poole is being held at the Clark County Detention Center.
A.E. Jabbour
> This is starting to get scary.
Absolutely. I read about this too.
[snip]
> I mean, come on. A story about zombies gets you locked up?
>
> I guess the Buffy fanfiction community in Kentucky better watch out.
> Mention a high school in your story and you could go to jail. I guess
> just to be safe all Kentucky Buffy fanfiction has to be set in Season 5
> only. After Buffy and crew graduated but before Dawn showed up.
Not only was it a story about zombies, but it was in his journal. And
when his fucking loser grandparents read the story, they turned him
in!
I don't know what was wrong with those people. And the policeman's
comments made absolutely no sense, as you pointed out. Something
is seriously wrong.
When I first read this story (on fark) I swear I didn't believe it.
I was thinking that the bar at the centre of the story in SHAUN OF
THE DEAD was called the Winchester ... so I thought that this might
not be on the up-and-up.
Unfortunately, it seems to be true. I'm still holding out hope
that it is all a bit of pre-marketing for Romero's LAND OF THE
DEAD. Because, in all honesty, I can't really bear the thought
of the total and complete stupidity and paranoia on all levels
involved in this story (the policeman's statement, the judge
raising the bail, the prosecutor, the grandparents ... it's
just hideous).
--
AE Jabbour
"OK, at this point, you're *abusing* sarcasm."
-Buffy Anne Summers, NKaBotFD
Roy. Just Roy.
in Season 5
only. After Buffy and crew graduated but before Dawn showed up.
That would be season 4.
> I mean, come on. A story about zombies gets you locked up?
I don't care what you say, I'm NOT putting on the glasses.
/ Roy, who's come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass - and I'm all
out of bubble gum
Rob
"BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-6EFCC5...@news.giganews.com...
> This is starting to get scary.
Unfortunately it's nothing new or unusual. Public schools have been
consistently violating the rights of the student body, particularly the
rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble, and
privacy. The justifications seem to be that these rights can be trampled on
because it is done to keep minors safe, and that minors themselves are not
entitled to constitutional rights. Both of these are not only against the
wording of the constitution, but against the spirit and meanings in its
creation.
The fourteenth amendment clearly establishes what a US citizen is (any
person born or naturalized here), and that every US citizen is entitled to
all rights and protections afforded by the bill of rights, and makes no
mention of an age requirement. An infant is just as entitled as an adult to
those rights. As for safety, the US government was never founded on the idea
of safety. It was founded on the opposite of safety, that people would have
to be brave enough to face an unsafe world in order to protect themselves
from tyranny. Making allowances to overstep the safeguards in order to
secure greater safety will only ultimately result in less safety for
everyone, just with a different perpetrator.
A Texas school forcefully cut one of its student's hair because it did
not meet the requirements of the school dress code. And in most schools the
dress code above and beyond what is considered indecent exposure by law.
Another school suspended a group of students for attending a concert over
the weekend, because the school prohibits students from attending concerts.
In another case a student was brought up on charges after her journal was
taken from her in class without her permission and a clearly fictional story
was found containing violent acts done within the school.
Things have gotten a lot worse after the Columbine incident. Right after
really bad things were happening. Students were being forced into
psychiatric care under the threat of expulsion for expressing reasonable
views. Goths were being pulled from classes and interrogated and harassed
because of the way they dressed. Playing Doom was considered by some
educators to be a warning sign of violence.
The worst of that has thankfully passed, but even pre-Columbine these
issues existed. At least in this case the idiots seem to want to take it to
trial, and it's bound to draw some deep pocket civil rights groups to fund
the defense, a defense which could possibly get to the federal level and
manage to knock down at least a few of the most insane laws.
BrendanM
news:BUCUd.29692$Tt.19819@fed1read05...
>
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-6EFCC5...@news.giganews.com...
> > This is starting to get scary.
>
> Unfortunately it's nothing new or unusual. Public schools have been
> consistently violating the rights of the student body, particularly the
> rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble, and
> privacy. The justifications seem to be that these rights can be trampled
on
> because it is done to keep minors safe, and that minors themselves are not
> entitled to constitutional rights. Both of these are not only against the
> wording of the constitution, but against the spirit and meanings in its
> creation.
And, as Civics teachers everywhere know, All Federal laws trump state and
local laws.
I'm surprised that one of them hasn't gotten up and said, "Now wait just a
damn minute!"
<disclaimer>
I am basing my comments upon the expirences that I had in high school. I
understand that this may not be the case in all schools and school
districts, and I am making sweeping generalizations. If you are a teacher
who does not fit my description, please accept my apologies in advance.
</disclaimer>
Oh, wait. That would involve the teachers not being touchy-feely pinko
commie bastards.
lab~rat
>
>"BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:btr1702-6EFCC5...@news.giganews.com...
>> This is starting to get scary.
>
> Unfortunately it's nothing new or unusual. Public schools have been
>consistently violating the rights of the student body, particularly the
>rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble, and
>privacy. The justifications seem to be that these rights can be trampled on
>because it is done to keep minors safe, and that minors themselves are not
>entitled to constitutional rights. Both of these are not only against the
>wording of the constitution, but against the spirit and meanings in its
>creation.
Oh, please! Next thing you'll tell me is kindergartners that get in
trouble for mouthing off in class should round up the ACLU and sue the
school.
Children are wards and are not afforded the same rights as adults
because they don't possess the faculties to realize the consequences
of exercising them.
And I'm throwing a wild guess out there supposing you don't have kids
yourself...
--
lab~rat >:-)
The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.
Rob
"lab~rat" <ch...@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:jfi621l6vbnilf8d6...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:50:57 -0800, "Rob" <robe...@gmail.com> puked:
>
> >
> >"BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:btr1702-6EFCC5...@news.giganews.com...
> >> This is starting to get scary.
> >
> > Unfortunately it's nothing new or unusual. Public schools have been
> >consistently violating the rights of the student body, particularly the
> >rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble, and
> >privacy. The justifications seem to be that these rights can be trampled
on
> >because it is done to keep minors safe, and that minors themselves are
not
> >entitled to constitutional rights. Both of these are not only against the
> >wording of the constitution, but against the spirit and meanings in its
> >creation.
>
> Oh, please! Next thing you'll tell me is kindergartners that get in
> trouble for mouthing off in class should round up the ACLU and sue the
> school.
>
> Children are wards and are not afforded the same rights as adults
> because they don't possess the faculties to realize the consequences
> of exercising them.
Well, in this instance the person was an adult. And children are meant
to be afforded the same rights as an adult. BTR's in law enforcement so
let's ask him. BTR, can you search a minor without cause? Can you
interrogate them without a lawyer present when they've asked for one?
A teenager can realize the consequences of exercising rights as well as
an adult could, and some adults can't realize the consequences of exercising
their rights at all. Besides, realizing consequences has nothing to do with
it. Their isn't a mental requirement in order to enjoy the benefits of
constitutional rights. All the necessary requirements were given in the
fourteenth amendment, and no where does it state an age requirement.
lab~rat
I understand your interpretation and perspective, but you forgot
something, do you have children?
Aaron Davies
How is that relevant? Justice is justice. (Not to mention, we all *were*
children at one point.)
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
peachy ashie passion
Well, I have children.
--
If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an
infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without
even considering if there are men on base. -Dave Barry
ashes...@verizon.net
AFPslave to Mistress Stacie
http://www.vrdimension.com/
Grand Opening Feb 19
BTR1701
"Rob" <robe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope and even if they don't ask for a lawyer, I can't interrogate a
minor without their parent or guardian being present. Despite lab-rat's
off-the-cuff pronouncement, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that
students do not check their rights at the schoolhouse door. They do
indeed have the same rights as anyone else.
But all that is beside the point here because the cops in Kentucky
haven't made a distinction between minors and adults. He didn't say "any
threat or possession of matter involving a school or function by a minor
is a felony in the state of Kentucky". He said, "any threat or
possession of matter involving a school or function is a felony in the
state of Kentucky".
That covers *everybody*. Minors and adults alike. I suspect this cop is
just woefully ignorant of the law but considering the DA apparently
accepted charges and the judge set bail and even increased it, I'd have
to say that even the folks in Kentucky with law degrees need a brush-up
on basic Constitutional principles. If it is indeed both law and public
policy in Kentucky that "any threat or possession of matter involving a
school or function by a minor is a felony in the state of Kentucky",
then Kentucky has just run afoul of the US Constitution in a major way.
And in more ways than one, as well. Not only is there an obvious 1st
Amendment violation but the law is also being unconstitutionally
applied, targeting only the relatively helpless (high school kids) while
leaving others who have committed the same "offense" (like Stephen King)
unprosecuted. There are Equal Protection issues here as well.
BTR1701
"BrendanM" <bre...@meteer.net> wrote:
> "Rob" <robe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BUCUd.29692$Tt.19819@fed1read05...
> >
> > "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:btr1702-6EFCC5...@news.giganews.com...
> > > This is starting to get scary.
> >
> > Unfortunately it's nothing new or unusual. Public schools have been
> > consistently violating the rights of the student body, particularly the
> > rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble, and
> > privacy. The justifications seem to be that these rights can be trampled
> on
> > because it is done to keep minors safe, and that minors themselves are not
> > entitled to constitutional rights. Both of these are not only against the
> > wording of the constitution, but against the spirit and meanings in its
> > creation.
>
> And, as Civics teachers everywhere know, All Federal laws trump state and
> local laws.
Actually, that's a common misconception. The federal government only has
the authority expressly granted to it by the Constitution. The 10th
Amendment holds that all powers not expressly given the federal
government are reserved to the states and the people respectively. That
means that if the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the
power to do X, then only the states have the power to do X. And that
means state law is superior to federal law in terms of X.
Rob
> In article <z0IUd.31544$Tt.17140@fed1read05>,
> Nope and even if they don't ask for a lawyer, I can't interrogate a
> minor without their parent or guardian being present. Despite lab-rat's
> off-the-cuff pronouncement, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that
> students do not check their rights at the schoolhouse door. They do
> indeed have the same rights as anyone else.
Unfortunatly the supreme court hasn't bothered to make any real rulings
in the area of student rights. Most of the best cases are either dismissed
before they get near that level, or the supreme court just refuses to hear
them. What happened in Kentucky was one worst case scenerio, but there are a
lot of minor infractions occuring as well.
And in the case of schools, students should be afforded even greater
protections than elsewhere. Students are required to attend public schools
by law, and the only alternative to that is to spend a lot of money and/or
time in order to get into an alternate program like private schools or home
schooling. A student can't just decide not to go to school because they
don't like being submitted to searches, or they disagree with the dress
code. Imagine if the DMV required you to dress in black tie in order to get
your car registered. That's what it's like in schools.
> But all that is beside the point here because the cops in Kentucky
> haven't made a distinction between minors and adults. He didn't say "any
> threat or possession of matter involving a school or function by a minor
> is a felony in the state of Kentucky". He said, "any threat or
> possession of matter involving a school or function is a felony in the
> state of Kentucky".
>
> That covers *everybody*. Minors and adults alike. I suspect this cop is
> just woefully ignorant of the law but considering the DA apparently
> accepted charges and the judge set bail and even increased it, I'd have
> to say that even the folks in Kentucky with law degrees need a brush-up
> on basic Constitutional principles. If it is indeed both law and public
> policy in Kentucky that "any threat or possession of matter involving a
> school or function by a minor is a felony in the state of Kentucky",
> then Kentucky has just run afoul of the US Constitution in a major way.
The law itself isn't half as bad or unconstitutional as this case is.
The law just makes it a felony to intentionally make a serious threat. It's
the same as if I called you at the office and said I was going to gun down
my wife tomorrow and the legal problems I would then be in. Although there
may be some gray area where things could get fudged up by stupid people, it
takes a real idiot to consider a zombie invasion to be a realistic threat.
Now I'm wondering if the DA will manage to convince the judge that the jury
shouldn't be entitled to actually read the story.
Actually, I'm thinking that maybe this isn't so much a case of
overreaction but of people covering their asses. Maybe there is real reason
to believe that this kid is messed up and may actually be plotting to gun
down his classmates. Maybe everyone, the police, DA, and judge, are just
going through with this knowing it'll eventually get thrown out so when he
does gun down those classmates they can say they did what they were supposed
to do, the legal system is at fault here. A jury either didn't convict this
kid or a federal judge threw out the conviction on appeal.
After every school shooting and almost any act of violence involving
minors there's an investigation to see who knew what and who failed to act
to prevent this. It could've been the 911 operator who dismmissed multiple
calls from various people as pranks, the cop who didn't take things
seriously, the DA that didn't prosecute minor offenses like cruelty to
animals, or the judge that dismissed that case.
Of course, what the people want in every situation is for the justice
system to take every complaint seriously and follow-up and investigate it,
and prevent these things from happening by taking children out of abused and
negletful homes, stopping school bullying, or working with parents to get
them psychological help.
What has actually happened is that there's now a bunch of people who are
waisting our resources and not doing their jobs so they can cover their
asses for not doing their jobs. With what's been spent by Kentucky in police
manhours, detention, and court costs already could've no doubt taken at
least one perpatrator of domestic violence out of their homes, and by the
time it's over with the total cost may have been enough to pay two dozen
more police officers for a couple of years.
If people aren't already outraged by the total disregard of
constitutional rights that happens all the time, then they should at least
be outraged that the reason there's never a cop around when you need one is
because they're busy protecting your kid's school from being over run with
zombies, or arresting some guy for selling his ten year old son a comic book
that had a badly drawn breast in one of the panels.
> And in more ways than one, as well. Not only is there an obvious 1st
> Amendment violation but the law is also being unconstitutionally
> applied, targeting only the relatively helpless (high school kids) while
> leaving others who have committed the same "offense" (like Stephen King)
> unprosecuted. There are Equal Protection issues here as well.
It's a lot more than just Stephen King. Violent happenings in high
schools (or at high school functions) has been a staple of the horror genre
since the eighties. The use of zombies was the kid's real mistake though.
Even if he beats the terrorism charge, NIZA will most likely see he gets
charged with creating banned material.
And now will see if anyone is cool enough to know what I'm referencing
there.
BTR1701
wrote:
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-DA2191...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <z0IUd.31544$Tt.17140@fed1read05>,
>
> > Nope and even if they don't ask for a lawyer, I can't interrogate a
> > minor without their parent or guardian being present. Despite lab-rat's
> > off-the-cuff pronouncement, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that
> > students do not check their rights at the schoolhouse door. They do
> > indeed have the same rights as anyone else.
>
> Unfortunatly the supreme court hasn't bothered to make any real rulings
> in the area of student rights.
Sure they have. There's a whole series of SCOTUS cases dealing with the
rights of students in regards to school newspapers, search and seizure
and the right to conduct religious activities in school.
Rob
The supreme court hasn't done nearly enough, or we wouldn't still have
the issues we have today. They've at least made some headway, but a lot of
it is focused on freedom of religion thus far. Random locker searches are
still considered by some school boards and law enforcement agencies as a
good method to deter criminal activity. I don't see it as any different than
saying that police can randomly search people's apartments as long as their
landlord gives them permission. Scratch that, it is worse. It's more like
people living in government housing where police are allowed to randomly
search their apartments because it's government property being leased and
the government's giving permission.
Through all of the supreme court decisions, we still haven't seen one
address the issue of mandatory dress codes. A person's manner of dress would
fall under the expanded freedom expression interpretations that have been
added to the freedom of speech. And yet the schools continue to enforce
dress codes that go far beyond what the law considers indecent exposure.
There have been some recent decisions against schools in regards to
searches, but still the supreme court has allowed the schools to use looser
standards to initiate a warrentless search than what police are held to.
I've never heard of a school asking for a warrant to conduct a search, but
they should have to under most circumstances. With police, if the person is
detained, and so is the thing to be searched, or it's at least somewhere
where it can be guarded and kept from being lost, if they conduct a search
the question usually comes up "well why didn't you just wait for a warrant?"
That isn't the case for schools.
Another big one is property rights. Schools seem happy to confiscate any
student possession they consider contraband (which differs from legal
definitions). That is a clear violation of constitutional rights, and is
actually called theft. Taking a notebook, food, a pager, a cell phone, or
whatever away from a student that isn't either illegal or a weapon without
their consent is illegal. Consider the real world where if your boss caught
you with a cell phone at work, even if it is against company policy, if he
took it from you he'd be in a lot of trouble.
Peter Meilinger
>Actually, that's a common misconception. The federal government only has
>the authority expressly granted to it by the Constitution. The 10th
>Amendment holds that all powers not expressly given the federal
>government are reserved to the states and the people respectively. That
>means that if the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the
>power to do X, then only the states have the power to do X. And that
>means state law is superior to federal law in terms of X.
In practice, of course, various federal agencies and institutions
will try to grab all the power they can. Isn't one of the arguments
for going after medicinal marijuana in California based on Congress'
power to regulate interstate commerce?
Pete
lab~rat
<res1...@invalid.net> puked:
I'm proud of ya...
lab~rat
puked:
Well I guess I'm the stupid one here, especially since your esteemed
Supreme Court just ruled that minors can't be charged with the death
penalty.
It seems that this decision renders any of your blowing proclamations
moot, as they have found that children are, in fact, judged
differently than adults, and their 'rights' are also looked upon in a
different fashion.
lab~rat
puked:
And I suppose there is no difference between minors in public schools
and adults in private colleges either...
Rob
No, BTR is right, there have been a few cases in the supreme court, even
in the last few years, dealing with students in public schools.
Don Sample
Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
Unless they're actually shipping marijuana across state lines, or one
state government is subsidizing the growing of marijuana to the point
where out of state marijuana can't compete with the home grown stuff, I
don't see how it's a matter of "interstate commerce."
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
reld...@usa.net
Rob wrote:
> Another school suspended a group of students for attending a concert
over
> the weekend, because the school prohibits students from attending
concerts.
--Okay, as troubling as the stuff about fiction writing is on this
thread, I want to focus on this thing about attending concerts on
weekends.
Are you sure that wasn't a private school? (Not that I can see why a
private school would want to prohibit concert-going either.) But if
it's a public school, then I can't see how something that takes place
outside school hours, away from school premises, can possibly be the
school's concern. I've never heard of anything this restrictive, with
regard to public schools.
Is it all concerts that are prohibited? Is it only certain types of
music? My high school age son and several of his friends were at a
classical concert (Mendelssohn etc.) recently, performed by the Academy
of St. Martin-in-the-Fields Chamber Ensemble. Would that fall under
this one particular school's prohibition?
Since when are public schools anti-music?
Clairel
peachy ashie passion
*snort* Yeah, that breeding is a real accomplishment.
But I still think you are wrong.
Tom Breton
> > >> >news:btr1702-6EFCC5...@news.giganews.com...
> > >> >
> > >> >consistently violating the rights of the student body, particularly the
> > >> >rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble, and
> > >> >privacy. The justifications seem to be that these rights can be trampled
> > >on
> > >> >because it is done to keep minors safe, and that minors themselves are
> > >not
> > >> >entitled to constitutional rights. Both of these are not only against the
> > >> >wording of the constitution, but against the spirit and meanings in its
> > >> >creation.
Bringing this slightly back on topic: "Gingerbread" captured the
sentiment perfectly. It's one episode that always makes my blood
boil, right around the time the Sunnydale police are searching the
lockers.
--
Tom Breton, the calm-eyed visionary
him...@animail.net
citation at morons.org, I can't find a single story about it, at least
not on news.google.com. That doesn't prove it didn't happen, of
course, and it's perfectly plausible, but this does make me a tad
suspicious.
himiko
Hawk
:I'm not sure if this story is legitimate. Aside from the original
It's not on news.google.com . However, the story is on the Lex18 website
at http://www.wlextv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2989614 . It also made it
into the Lexington Herald-Leader (
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/10982804.htm ), the
Courier-Press (
www.courierpress.com/ecp/gleaner_news/article/0,1626,ECP_4476_3577161,00.html
), The Wincheter Sun (
http://www.winchestersun.com/articles/2005/02/24/local_news/news01.txt
), WKYT TV ( http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=2998292 ), and the AP
wire has picked
it up ( http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/10991368.htm ).
I'm sure that there are other sources that might have picked this up
(some of these are the same article reprinted, some of these are different
articles on the issue), but this is all I grabbed in a five minute Google
& Google news search.
Hawk
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of hawks, for we are fond of raking with our
talons.
Harry The Horse
>
> Well I guess I'm the stupid one here, especially since your esteemed
> Supreme Court just ruled that minors can't be charged with the death
> penalty.
>
BTR1701
lab~rat <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:
Finally! You say something that makes sense.
> especially since your esteemed Supreme Court
How did it suddenly become my Supreme Court?
> just ruled that minors can't be charged with the death
> penalty.
>
> It seems that this decision renders any of your blowing proclamations
> moot,
Nope. Because the death penalty isn't on point when it comes to student
rights in school settings. The following cases are. Read them and then
come back when you're educated.
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Defined the First Amendment rights of students in public high school
system. The Supreme Court decided: "students have the right to engage in
peaceful non-disruptive protest".
"First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics
of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It
can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the
schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court
for almost 50 years. In our system, state-operated schools may not be
enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute
authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of
school are 'persons' under our Constitution."
--Associate Justice Abe Fortas, writing for the majority
Goss v. Lopez (1975)
Established that students have the same due process rights as adults.
Beidler v. North Thurston School District
Thurston County Superior Court ruled in favor of Karl Beidler, who was
suspended for a month last year from Timberline High School in Lacey,
for posting an Internet parody lampooning the school's assistant
principal. The student created the parody on his own computer at home on
his own time.
"This ruling sends an important message to public school administrators
that they do not have the authority to punish students for expressing
their opinions outside of school and without the use of any school
resources," said Aaron Caplan, the plaintiff's attorney. "The First
Amendment protects a student from being kicked out of school just
because officials don't like what the student is saying."
The court found that school authorities had expelled Karl from
Timberline on an "emergency" basis because of his Internet satire.
District officials claimed their action was based on an emergency, yet
no evidence has been given of anything remotely resembling an emergency.
In his ruling today, Judge McPhee made clear that free speech rights
apply to speech on the Internet, saying, "Today the First Amendment
protects students' speech to the same extent as in 1979 or 1969, when
the US Supreme Court decided Tinker v. Des Moines." In that case, the
high court issued a landmark ruling that, "Students do not shed their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the
schoolhouse gate."
Judge McPhee ordered that a trial be held to determine damages for North
Thurston School District's unlawful imposition of discipline.
Also:
Chief Judge John Coughenour of the United States District Court in
Seattle issued an order preventing Kentlake High School from suspending
a student Nick Emmett because of a Web site parody he had created on his
home computer. In final settlement of the case, Kent School District
agreed not to pursue disciplinary action against the student and paid
$6,000 in attorney's fees.
BTR1701
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <d01thm$o6j$2...@news3.bu.edu>,
> Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
> > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer.creative BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Actually, that's a common misconception. The federal government only has
> > >the authority expressly granted to it by the Constitution. The 10th
> > >Amendment holds that all powers not expressly given the federal
> > >government are reserved to the states and the people respectively. That
> > >means that if the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the
> > >power to do X, then only the states have the power to do X. And that
> > >means state law is superior to federal law in terms of X.
> >
> > In practice, of course, various federal agencies and institutions
> > will try to grab all the power they can. Isn't one of the arguments
> > for going after medicinal marijuana in California based on Congress'
> > power to regulate interstate commerce?
> Unless they're actually shipping marijuana across state lines, or one
> state government is subsidizing the growing of marijuana to the point
> where out of state marijuana can't compete with the home grown stuff, I
> don't see how it's a matter of "interstate commerce."
You'd be surprised at the length and breadth of the definition of
"interstate commerce" the Court has developed over the years to extend
federal authority into areas never contemplated by the founders.
In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court found that a farmer was subject to
federal produce regulation even though he only grew enough wheat on his
farm to feed his family. He didn't place anything he grew into the
stream of commerce, yet the Court reasoned that if he wasn't growing
that wheat to feed his family, he'd have to buy it elsewhere so by
growing it himself, he was having a negative effect on commerce.
Back in law school when we studied this case, I remember thinking that
the Court was basically saying that a person's mere existence affects
interstate commerce so therefore, Congress can pass any law it likes and
claim interstate commerce as the justification and nullify the entire
concept of enumerated powers the founders so carefully laid down.
BTR1701
reld...@usa.net wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> > Another school suspended a group of students for attending a concert
> over
> > the weekend, because the school prohibits students from attending
> concerts.
>
> --Okay, as troubling as the stuff about fiction writing is on this
> thread, I want to focus on this thing about attending concerts on
> weekends.
>
> Are you sure that wasn't a private school? (Not that I can see why a
> private school would want to prohibit concert-going either.) But if
> it's a public school, then I can't see how something that takes place
> outside school hours, away from school premises, can possibly be the
> school's concern. I've never heard of anything this restrictive, with
> regard to public schools.
Schools all over are trying to regulate kids' off-school activities,
mostly in terms of the internet. Threatening to suspend or expel kids
who put up web sites with their own computers at home on their own time,
if what is on the sites doesn't meet with the administration's approval:
CLEVELAND -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio today sent a
letter to Lancaster City Schools' Interim Superintendent on behalf of
the family of a student who was suspended and is currently being
expelled for creating a website that skewers school administrators and
staff. The website was created and maintained off school grounds, using
no school resources.
LITTLE ROCK -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed a
lawsuit in federal court today on behalf of the parents of 15-year-old
Justin Redman, who was expelled from Valley View Junior High School in
Jonesboro for creating a Web site from his home that parodied the
official school Web site and lampooned some school administrators,
teachers and students.
And here's one that's particularly Orwellian:
SAN FRANCISCO - Parents in a northern California public school district
and civil liberties groups are urging the district to terminate the use
of Radio Frequency Identification tags (RFIDs) in mandatory ID badges
that track studentsı movements.
The RFID device transmits private information to a computer on campus
whenever a student passes under one of the scanners. The ID badges,
which students are required to wear around their necks at all times,
also include the studentıs name, photo, grade, school name, class year
and the four-digit school ID number.
reld...@usa.net
--All of which has nothing to do with the question of students
attending concerts on weekends, away from school premises.
Somebody please tell me, what is wrong with attending concerts?
Clairel
BTR1701
reld...@usa.net wrote:
Actually, it does. It's the same thing qualitatively and legally: the
school regulating the private behavior of kids when they're on their own
time away from school. Whether it's a concert or a web site, it's the
same principle.
him...@animail.net
the journal story. The others just say he made notes outlining plans
to create a gang and blow up the school. Poor kid...assuming his
journal story is true which I have no reason to think it isn't. No one
else is even telling his side of it.
himiko
reld...@usa.net
> same principle.
--Not really. The websites in question were websites that ridiculed or
criticized the school in some way. And while I'm not arguing that the
school really had a right to punish the students who made those
websites, I can at least see how the websites had something to do with
the school, something that caused the school authorities concern.
Their concern was with their school's image.
I just can't see what it is about musical concerts that would ever
cause the school to be concerned in the first place. How do the
concert-going habits of students reflect back on the school in any way
whatsoever?
That is my plain and simple question.
Clairel
peachy ashie passion
I can't help but suspect that the school is a private school of a
religious type that doesn't approve of music.
reld...@usa.net
--Yes, that's why I asked in the first place if it was really a public
school.
I just can't see a public school in the business of condemning music.
Clairel
peachy ashie passion
According to beliefnet... it was a private christian school,
with a policy against inappropriate music.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/14/story_1426_1.html
peachy ashie passion
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-6EFCC5...@news.giganews.com...
>
>>This is starting to get scary.
>
>
> Unfortunately it's nothing new or unusual. Public schools have been
> consistently violating the rights of the student body, particularly the
> rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble, and
> privacy. The justifications seem to be that these rights can be trampled on
> because it is done to keep minors safe, and that minors themselves are not
> entitled to constitutional rights. Both of these are not only against the
> wording of the constitution, but against the spirit and meanings in its
> creation.
> The fourteenth amendment clearly establishes what a US citizen is (any
> person born or naturalized here), and that every US citizen is entitled to
> all rights and protections afforded by the bill of rights, and makes no
> mention of an age requirement. An infant is just as entitled as an adult to
> those rights. As for safety, the US government was never founded on the idea
> of safety. It was founded on the opposite of safety, that people would have
> to be brave enough to face an unsafe world in order to protect themselves
> from tyranny. Making allowances to overstep the safeguards in order to
> secure greater safety will only ultimately result in less safety for
> everyone, just with a different perpetrator.
> A Texas school forcefully cut one of its student's hair because it did
> not meet the requirements of the school dress code. And in most schools the
> dress code above and beyond what is considered indecent exposure by law.
> Another school suspended a group of students for attending a concert over
> the weekend, because the school prohibits students from attending concerts.
> In another case a student was brought up on charges after her journal was
> taken from her in class without her permission and a clearly fictional story
> was found containing violent acts done within the school.
Rob, of these three specifics you list, I've not been able to
find references online to any of them.
1. TX school forcefully cut a student's hair
2. school suspended group of students because school had a rule
against concerts
3. female student suspended for private journal
I've found that students at a private religious school were
suspended for attending a concert that was against the school's
beliefs... which is quite different.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/14/story_1426_1.html
I've found reference to a young man who was required to cut his
hair to attend school in TX. But no reference to the school
forcibly cutting anyone's hair.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/ts_more.php?id=61133_0_10_0_C
Maybe you can help me out with the citations I'm missing?
James Craine
Don Sample wrote:
>>In practice, of course, various federal agencies and institutions
>>will try to grab all the power they can. Isn't one of the arguments
>>for going after medicinal marijuana in California based on Congress'
>>power to regulate interstate commerce?
>>
>>Pete
>
>
> Unless they're actually shipping marijuana across state lines, or one
> state government is subsidizing the growing of marijuana to the point
> where out of state marijuana can't compete with the home grown stuff, I
> don't see how it's a matter of "interstate commerce."
>
It's not. But the Supreme Court reads the election returns.
In the 1910s when they wanted to make alcohol illegal they
needed a constitutional ammendment to cause all of that
trouble. Now they can make any drug illegal even when there
is good reason to think it does some good with just a law.
What happened that required an ammendment for alcohol but
not for cocain?
BTR1701
reld...@usa.net wrote:
Well, they probably think they are bad influences on the kids or that
the kids use drugs there or something. Who knows?
The point is, just being "concerned" doesn't give a school the right to
micro-manage every facet of the lives of the students who go there.
lab~rat
puked:
It does to the extent that minors are afforded a different set of
rights than adults. It can be evidenced by the fact that even the
examples I snipped put limitations on the extent of the student's
freedom of speech.
It would be ridiculous to argue that minors do not have restricted
rights. Look at the drinking age, driving age and age of consent, for
example.
Rob
"peachy ashie passion" <res1...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:sscVd.26734$uc.129@trnddc09...
It's been so long since they've been actual stories their might not be
anything left of them. As for 1 I really don't remember where I heard it
from, but I think it might have been included in a long list of school
atrocities I read online once. #2 I can't remember much about, but there
were several articles I found about it when it happened. It's possible I've
confused things and your Christian school one is it, but I don't think it
is, mainly because I remember this happening earlier than the Christian
school article's date. I think it was not all that long after Columbine, and
that one of the students was planning on or considering going through with a
lawsuit. As for number three I am positively certain about that one. It
wasn't all that long ago, and at the time I read a lot of different
newspaper articles about it. The kid's parents were both writers, and she
was also being defended in court by a state poet laureate. There was a big
discussion about it over at the Castle and me and Thom argued quite a bit
about the case. Rachel Boim was the student's name in that one (just checked
google groups real quick). I'm not sure if it was a school journal (like for
English class) or a private journal on that last one though. But I do
remember making a point of the fact that the teacher just assumed it'd be in
her right to take possession of the journal and read it.
reld...@usa.net
--I agree with you on that. I just wonder what the basis for objecting
to musical concerts is. If it has to do with drugs or bad influence,
then are only certain kinds of music included in the ban? Are
classical concerts excluded? And how does the school check and see
what its students are doing on weekends anyway?
Clairel
BTR1701
lab~rat <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:
Age restriction laws aren't "rights-based".
It's not accurate to say that because the law imposes an age restriction
on an activity (drinking, sex, driving, etc.) that means those
individuals have less "rights" than others.
The Constitution puts an age restriction on the presidency. You have to
be at least 35 to be president. That doesn't mean that all people 34 and
younger have less rights than their elders.
Federal law mandates that you can't collect your Social Security until
you reach retirement age. That doesn't mean that your rights don't come
into full flower until you're a senior citizen.
lab~rat
puked:
Then evidently 'freedom of speech' is, at least to some degree, and
age restricted right. Kinda like owning a handgun...
peachy ashie passion
> Then evidently 'freedom of speech' is, at least to some degree, and
> age restricted right. Kinda like owning a handgun...
>
How so?
lab~rat
<res1...@invalid.net> puked:
>lab~rat wrote:
>
>> Then evidently 'freedom of speech' is, at least to some degree, and
>> age restricted right. Kinda like owning a handgun...
>>
>
> How so?
Go back and read BTR's examples. They refer to conditions in which
the first amendment applies to students. Evidently they are
conditional rights, having certain criteria and restrictions to be
applicable.
BTR1701
lab~rat <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:19:09 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> <res1...@invalid.net> puked:
>
> >lab~rat wrote:
> >
> >> Then evidently 'freedom of speech' is, at least to some degree, and
> >> age restricted right. Kinda like owning a handgun...
> >>
> >
> > How so?
>
> Go back and read BTR's examples. They refer to conditions in which
> the first amendment applies to students. Evidently they are
> conditional rights, having certain criteria and restrictions to be
> applicable.
Note: those cases apply only to school settings. Outside of school, a
minor has the same 1st Amendment rights as an adult. So even accepting
your argument, 1st Amendment rights aren't restricted by age, but rather
by place, which brings them into the same framework as adult rights.
Even an adult's 1st Amendment rights are subject to reasonable time,
place and manner restrictions. [Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of
Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)] Time, place and manner restrictions on
speech are constitutional if (1) they are content neutral (i.e., they do
not treat speech differently based on content); (2) they are narrowly
tailored to serve a governmental interest; and (3) they leave open ample
alternative means of expression.
peachy ashie passion
> In article <egme2110mbg4uu9us...@4ax.com>,
> lab~rat <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:19:09 GMT, peachy ashie passion
>><res1...@invalid.net> puked:
>>
>>
>>>lab~rat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Then evidently 'freedom of speech' is, at least to some degree, and
>>>>age restricted right. Kinda like owning a handgun...
>>>>
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>>Go back and read BTR's examples. They refer to conditions in which
>>the first amendment applies to students. Evidently they are
>>conditional rights, having certain criteria and restrictions to be
>>applicable.
>
>
> Note: those cases apply only to school settings. Outside of school, a
> minor has the same 1st Amendment rights as an adult. So even accepting
> your argument, 1st Amendment rights aren't restricted by age, but rather
> by place, which brings them into the same framework as adult rights.
Yes, that's exactly what I was going to say.
Mark Evans
> "BrendanM" <bre...@meteer.net> wrote:
>
>> "Rob" <robe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:BUCUd.29692$Tt.19819@fed1read05...
>> >
>> > "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> > news:btr1702-6EFCC5...@news.giganews.com...
>> > > This is starting to get scary.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately it's nothing new or unusual. Public schools have been
>> > consistently violating the rights of the student body, particularly the
>> > rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble, and
>> > privacy. The justifications seem to be that these rights can be trampled
>> on
>> > because it is done to keep minors safe, and that minors themselves are not
>> > entitled to constitutional rights. Both of these are not only against the
>> > wording of the constitution, but against the spirit and meanings in its
>> > creation.
>>
>> local laws.
>
> Actually, that's a common misconception. The federal government only has
> the authority expressly granted to it by the Constitution. The 10th
> Amendment holds that all powers not expressly given the federal
Several parts of the US Constitution explicitally deny powers to the US
Federal Government.
> government are reserved to the states and the people respectively. That
> means that if the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the
> power to do X, then only the states have the power to do X. And that
Assuming the relevent state constitution grants the power to do X.
Mark Evans
> In article <dsample-25D0DD...@news.giganews.com>,
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <d01thm$o6j$2...@news3.bu.edu>,
>> Peter Meilinger <mell...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer.creative BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Actually, that's a common misconception. The federal government only has
>> > >the authority expressly granted to it by the Constitution. The 10th
>> > >Amendment holds that all powers not expressly given the federal
>> > >government are reserved to the states and the people respectively. That
>> > >means that if the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the
>> > >power to do X, then only the states have the power to do X. And that
>> > >means state law is superior to federal law in terms of X.
>> >
>> > In practice, of course, various federal agencies and institutions
>> > will try to grab all the power they can. Isn't one of the arguments
>> > for going after medicinal marijuana in California based on Congress'
>> > power to regulate interstate commerce?
>
>> Unless they're actually shipping marijuana across state lines, or one
>> state government is subsidizing the growing of marijuana to the point
>> where out of state marijuana can't compete with the home grown stuff, I
>> don't see how it's a matter of "interstate commerce."
>
> You'd be surprised at the length and breadth of the definition of
> "interstate commerce" the Court has developed over the years to extend
> federal authority into areas never contemplated by the founders.
Or even areas the founders explictally wanted federal authority kept out
of...
> In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court found that a farmer was subject to
> federal produce regulation even though he only grew enough wheat on his
> farm to feed his family. He didn't place anything he grew into the
> stream of commerce, yet the Court reasoned that if he wasn't growing
> that wheat to feed his family, he'd have to buy it elsewhere so by
> growing it himself, he was having a negative effect on commerce.
>
> Back in law school when we studied this case, I remember thinking that
> the Court was basically saying that a person's mere existence affects
> interstate commerce so therefore, Congress can pass any law it likes and
> claim interstate commerce as the justification and nullify the entire
> concept of enumerated powers the founders so carefully laid down.
Which is exactly what the US Congress had been looking for.
Mark Evans
> In alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer.creative BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually, that's a common misconception. The federal government only has
>>the authority expressly granted to it by the Constitution. The 10th
>>Amendment holds that all powers not expressly given the federal
>>government are reserved to the states and the people respectively. That
>>means that if the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the
>>power to do X, then only the states have the power to do X. And that
>>means state law is superior to federal law in terms of X.
>
> In practice, of course, various federal agencies and institutions
> will try to grab all the power they can. Isn't one of the arguments
This is a general attribute of government...
> for going after medicinal marijuana in California based on Congress'
> power to regulate interstate commerce?
The abuse of the "Interstate Commerce Clause" is a way the US Government
has attempted to subvert the 10th Ammendment since the 1940's.
Possibly it's the reason that a consitutional ammendment isn't felt to
be needed for the "War on Drugs". Unlike the earlier "War on Ethanol".
BTR1701
Mark Evans <m...@anacon.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
And if it doesn't, then the power belongs to the people. It still
doesn't belong to the feds.
-Andy-
thread and whether it was even true... some reporter
actually talked to people at the school:
http://www.trentonian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14109084
&BRD=1697&PAG=461&dept_id=44551&rfi=6
--
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
-- Excepting Alice
BTR1701
"Joel Morton" <joelwmor...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Rob" wrote
> >>
> >> > "BTR1701" wrote in message
>
> >> Sure they have. There's a whole series of SCOTUS cases dealing with the
> >> rights of students in regards to school newspapers, search and seizure
> >> and the right to conduct religious activities in school.
> >
> > The supreme court hasn't done nearly enough, or we wouldn't still have
> > the issues we have today. They've at least made some headway, but a lot of
> > it is focused on freedom of religion thus far. Random locker searches are
> > still considered by some school boards and law enforcement agencies as a
> > good method to deter criminal activity. I don't see it as any different
> > than saying that police can randomly search people's apartments as long as
> > their landlord gives them permission. Scratch that, it is worse. It's more like
> > people living in government housing where police are allowed to randomly
> > search their apartments because it's government property being leased and
> > the government's giving permission.
>
> Except that a locker isn't a student's property, it belongs to the
> government. If a student doesn't want to, there is no regulatory obligation
> to use the school's locker, though there is usually a practical obligation.
> Do you have the right to pile stuff in a county courthouse and not expect a
> bailiff to go through it? Even if you have a legal obligation to be there
> (say, under a subpoena)? Students have no moral, practical, or legal
> expectation of privacy when using a government facility (the school-owned
> locker) to store their belongings.
Especially when the school makes it clear at the start of every school
year that the locker is not the student's property and is subject to
search.
I could see the point if the school pretended that the lockers were
sacrosanct havens of student privacy, then turned around and searched
them anyway, but they don't. They tell the kids right up front that the
lockers are only provided to them as a convenient place to store their
books between classes, not an inviolable student domain.
Joel Morton
> Through all of the supreme court decisions, we still haven't seen one
> address the issue of mandatory dress codes. A person's manner of dress
> would
> fall under the expanded freedom expression interpretations that have been
> added to the freedom of speech. And yet the schools continue to enforce
> dress codes that go far beyond what the law considers indecent exposure.
Because schools have an obligation to maintain an environment that doesn't
distract from an education. Just because students can't dress like whores,
pimps, and/or clowns at school doesn't mean they can't adequately express
themselves during the five-sixths to six-sevenths of their lives outside of
school.
And sorry to jump in so late, but I've been away.
Joel Morton, National Board Certified Teacher
lab~rat
puked:
Can they search a student's back pack?
BTR1701
lab~rat <ch...@cheese.net> wrote:
Yes, but not at their whim. The current standard is "reasonable
suspicion that the student's belongings contain evidence of a crime".
Rob
The lockers could be looked at as being leased storage space for the
duration of the regular school year, or until such a time as the student
ceases to be enrolled at the school.
After all, this space is given to a student to store their belongings
(including belongings that could not normally be searched by police if they
were on a person, such as purses and backpacks), and they are lockable and
closable. Plus you have to consider that a highschool student will be
required to, at times, put his/her belongings into a locker as per school
rules. Think of a PE class where a student would not be allowed to have
their backpack or their regular street clothes on them for the duration of a
class, and have to keep them in a locker. That changes a lot of things IMO.
Think of it this way. Would you consider it right that, instead of
performing a random search on somebody a police officer demanded they remove
their clothes and dress in pocketless clothes, place all of their clothes
and any bags/purses/ect. they may be carrying into a squad car, and then the
officer proceeded to search those for contraband without a warrant?
A case could be made that the same thing is happening with these school
searches.
Joel Morton
"lab~rat" wrote in message
> Can they search a student's back pack?
>
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
They can freely search anything in a student's locker at any time for any
reason, including a student's backpack if it is in the locker at the time.
Searching a student's person, including a purse, backpack, satchel, etc.,
requires some sort of reason, though the requirements aren't as strong for
school officials as for typical law enforcement activities, as BTR explains
in his earlier reply to lab~rat's post.
Incidentally, school authority extends well beyond the physical grounds of
the school, at least in Illinois. While in, on, adjacent to or in transit to
or from school property or a school function, the student is subject to
school rules and discipline.
Joel Morton, National Board Certified Teacher
Incidentally, there was a recent incident at the school I teach at where a
student fired a gun three times in a crowded hallway. Miraculously, no one
was hit by the shots, each of which ricocheted at least once. I point this
out to explain that I have kind of a intimately practical outlook on these
kind of issues.
BTR1701
"Joel Morton" <joelwmor...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "lab~rat" wrote in message
> > Can they search a student's back pack?
> >
> > --
> > lab~rat >:-)
>
> They can freely search anything in a student's locker at any time for any
> reason, including a student's backpack if it is in the locker at the time.
> Searching a student's person, including a purse, backpack, satchel, etc.,
> requires some sort of reason, though the requirements aren't as strong for
> school officials as for typical law enforcement activities, as BTR explains
> in his earlier reply to lab~rat's post.
>
> Incidentally, school authority extends well beyond the physical grounds of
> the school, at least in Illinois. While in, on, adjacent to or in transit to
> or from school property or a school function, the student is subject to
> school rules and discipline.
Not true. The Supreme Court ruled that once off school property,
students enjoy the same constitutional rights as everyone else.
So while they may be able to get away with "reasonable suspicion" to
search a kid's backpack in the school, if he's off school property, the
cops or any other government official must adhere to the more stringent
probable cause rules that apply to every other citizen.
BTR1701
"Rob" <robe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The lockers could be looked at as being leased storage space for the
> duration of the regular school year, or until such a time as the student
> ceases to be enrolled at the school.
Well, no. The students don't pay anything for the lockers so there's not
even the surface resemblance of a lease.
> A case could be made that the same thing is happening with these school
> searches.
Many people have attempted to make that very case. The Supreme Court
rejected it, however.
Joel Morton
I meant that in the circumstances I described above, students may be
punished by the school for their actions, even if they occur off the school
property itself. For example, two students fighting on their way home from
school may be suspended for fighting; if they had each arrived home and then
gone out to fight, the school would not be able to suspend them. A similar
situation arises when students vandalize a teacher's home; the school cannot
punish the students because it is not on or adjacent to a school or school
function, nor does it occur in transit to or from school or a school
function. Likewise, a student who brings pot to a school dance, even if the
dance is held off school property is subject to the same discipline they
would be subject to if they brought the pot to class.
Joel Morton
No, because at no point do the students pay for their lockers, nor do they
sign a lease - so it's not possible to argue that the space is "leased."
Lockers are purchased and maintained by taxes, not by student fees.
> After all, this space is given to a student to store their belongings
> (including belongings that could not normally be searched by police if
> they
> were on a person, such as purses and backpacks), and they are lockable and
> closable.
And the school retains keys to all lockers at all times. Students are
required to purchase specific locks (if the lock aren't built-in) to allow
custodians access at all times, and unauthorized locks are cut off when
noticed.
> Plus you have to consider that a highschool student will be
> required to, at times, put his/her belongings into a locker as per school
> rules. Think of a PE class where a student would not be allowed to have
> their backpack or their regular street clothes on them for the duration of
> a
> class, and have to keep them in a locker. That changes a lot of things
> IMO.
The student does not have to use the locker; they can carry their stuff
around with them if they choose. And, of course, if they have anything they
don't want found, then they SHOULDN'T BRING IT TO SCHOOL. Why is this such a
difficult concept?
> Think of it this way. Would you consider it right that, instead of
> performing a random search on somebody a police officer demanded they
> remove
> their clothes and dress in pocketless clothes, place all of their clothes
> and any bags/purses/ect. they may be carrying into a squad car, and then
> the
> officer proceeded to search those for contraband without a warrant?
This is not a reasonable comparison. A better one would be to someone
leaving a backpack in a public park and being upset that the police searched
it for explosives (or just for ID to return it to its owner).
> A case could be made that the same thing is happening with these school
> searches.
You seem unable to make the distinction between private property and public
space. School lockers are not owned, leased, or in any way the 'property' of
the student. Students and parents are told this often and clearly.
BTR1701
"Joel Morton" <joelwmor...@insightbb.com> wrote:
Even that has been curtailed recently. The state of Washington just
slapped down a school that expelled a kid for using his home computer to
put up a web site critical of his teachers and the school administration.
The school ordered him to take the site down. The kid refused and they
expelled him. The school argued that the web site was disruptive to the
learning environment since it could be accessed from school computers by
students while on school property and it was a popular subject of
discussion among the student body.
The court sided with the kid and said that what the kid does on his own
time away from school with his own computer is his business and fully
protected by the 1st Amendment. The court ordered the school to
reinstate him, wipe his record clean and pay attorney's fees, court
costs and damages.
lab~rat
<joelwmor...@insightbb.com> puked:
>
>"lab~rat" wrote in message
>> Can they search a student's back pack?
>>
>> --
>> lab~rat >:-)
>
>They can freely search anything in a student's locker at any time for any
>reason, including a student's backpack if it is in the locker at the time.
>Searching a student's person, including a purse, backpack, satchel, etc.,
>requires some sort of reason, though the requirements aren't as strong for
>school officials as for typical law enforcement activities, as BTR explains
>in his earlier reply to lab~rat's post.
But he also explained that, regarding freedom of speech, students have
the same rights as adults. I guess that's an inconsistency in this
case.
Joel Morton
"BTR1701" wrote
> Even that has been curtailed recently. The state of Washington just
> slapped down a school that expelled a kid for using his home computer to
> put up a web site critical of his teachers and the school administration.
>
> The school ordered him to take the site down. The kid refused and they
> expelled him. The school argued that the web site was disruptive to the
> learning environment since it could be accessed from school computers by
> students while on school property and it was a popular subject of
> discussion among the student body.
>
> The court sided with the kid and said that what the kid does on his own
> time away from school with his own computer is his business and fully
> protected by the 1st Amendment. The court ordered the school to
> reinstate him, wipe his record clean and pay attorney's fees, court
> costs and damages.
Since the offense occurred off school property and away from any school
function or transportation, I can't see any reason why a rational person
would think the school had any argument that it had the authority to do
anything about it. Obviously, rationality is hardly a requirement for
working at a school.
Joel Morton
To an extent, but it's more that the school can impose temporary limits on
freedom of expression in order to accomplish its mission. For example, it
would be very difficult for me to teach if a student walked in and said
"Hey, motherfucker, I ain't doin' nothin' you say. You a durb*, man." To
keep at least the vague pretense of education, school have to punish
students who say that. If the same kid came up to me at the mall and said
that, I'd be just as pissed, but I couldn't send him to the deans to get
suspended. The kid still has a right to call me a durb and/or a
motherfucker, just not at school. His freedom of speech is temporarily
restricted so that I can do my job.
Joel Morton, National Board Certified Teacher.
*durb (n.) = cocksucker
I'm not at all sure of the etymology, but I started hearing it a couple
years or so ago from my low-income students, and while uncommon, it still
pops up in conversations I overhear now and then. It made Senator Durbin's
(D-IL) election quite the hoot, though, given the gerund of the word.
BTR1701
"Joel Morton" <joelwmor...@insightbb.com> wrote:
I read a law review article recently that compiled and analyzed the
dozens of "student web site" cases that have been filtering in from
around the country in the last couple of years.
The author found something interesting: schools only tend to become
upset about student web sites and label them "disruptive to the learning
environment" when the web sites are critical of and/or lampoon the
teachers and the administration.
Basically, they don't have a problem with it until the kids start to get
uppity and make fun of the adults. They have no problem teaching about
the 1st Amendment in class, they just don't want the kids to actually
use the darned thing in real life.
peachy ashie passion
What he said was that both adolescents and adults have the same
rights, which may be limited situationally.
Student's lockers can be searched at school. Many adults work in
places where their belongings can be searched at will as well.
It's not an age difference.
peachy ashie passion
Someone needed a study to tell them this?
BTR1701
peachy ashie passion <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
> lab~rat wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:10:42 GMT, "Joel Morton"
> > <joelwmor...@insightbb.com> puked:
> >
> >
> >>"lab~rat" wrote in message
> >>
> >>>Can they search a student's back pack?
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>lab~rat >:-)
> >>
> >>They can freely search anything in a student's locker at any time for any
> >>reason, including a student's backpack if it is in the locker at the time.
> >>Searching a student's person, including a purse, backpack, satchel, etc.,
> >>requires some sort of reason, though the requirements aren't as strong for
> >>school officials as for typical law enforcement activities, as BTR explains
> >>in his earlier reply to lab~rat's post.
> >
> >
> > But he also explained that, regarding freedom of speech, students have
> > the same rights as adults. I guess that's an inconsistency in this
> > case.
> >
>
> What he said was that both adolescents and adults have the same
> rights, which may be limited situationally.
>
> Student's lockers can be searched at school. Many adults work in
> places where their belongings can be searched at will as well.
>
> It's not an age difference.
Bingo.
BTR1701
peachy ashie passion <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
Well, the original claims made by the teachers in these cases are that
the sites verbally harass other students, making lists of who is cool,
who is not, who sleeps with whom, etc.
What the author of the law review article found was that in reality,
those types of sites, while actually *more* disruptive in terms of
creating ill will among the students, were not cracked down on nearly as
often as sites that verbally attacked the school administration.
Rob
"peachy ashie passion" <res1...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:mfFYd.1608$uw6.283@trnddc06...
There are a few minor differences in the situation. First off, an
employer is a private entity not working with the US government when it
searches, school employees are agents of the US government. Secondly
students are required by law to attend school, and they are required by
school rules, at times, to store their clothes and items inside of school
lockers. This makes the situation a little bit different.
Rob
> In article <bh5Yd.70893$Tt.27931@fed1read05>,
> "Rob" <robe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The lockers could be looked at as being leased storage space for the
> > duration of the regular school year, or until such a time as the student
> > ceases to be enrolled at the school.
>
> Well, no. The students don't pay anything for the lockers so there's not
> even the surface resemblance of a lease.
Even public schools require a small fee for attendance, which could be
taken as a tuition payment which includes certain amenities like locker
access.
> > A case could be made that the same thing is happening with these school
> > searches.
>
> Many people have attempted to make that very case. The Supreme Court
> rejected it, however.
And the case being that the courts have, for a large part, failed to
adequately protect student rights.
Rob
"Joel Morton" <joelwmor...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:JngYd.54842$Ze3.4708@attbi_s51...
>
> No, because at no point do the students pay for their lockers, nor do they
> sign a lease - so it's not possible to argue that the space is "leased."
> Lockers are purchased and maintained by taxes, not by student fees.
Students do have to pay a small fee to attend school, and it could be
taken that the locker access is implied to be included in that fee.
> > Plus you have to consider that a highschool student will be
> > required to, at times, put his/her belongings into a locker as per
school
> > rules. Think of a PE class where a student would not be allowed to have
> > their backpack or their regular street clothes on them for the duration
of
> > a
> > class, and have to keep them in a locker. That changes a lot of things
> > IMO.
>
> The student does not have to use the locker; they can carry their stuff
> around with them if they choose.
And when a PE teacher insists that a student refrain from carrying his
stuff around with him for the duration of the class and places it in their
locker under the threat of punishment, how is this a student having the
option to carry their stuff around?
And, of course, if they have anything they
> don't want found, then they SHOULDN'T BRING IT TO SCHOOL. Why is this such
a
> difficult concept?
And the other side of it is, if the government wants to go looking for
something, they should get a warrent.
> > Think of it this way. Would you consider it right that, instead of
> > performing a random search on somebody a police officer demanded they
> > remove
> > their clothes and dress in pocketless clothes, place all of their
clothes
> > and any bags/purses/ect. they may be carrying into a squad car, and then
> > the
> > officer proceeded to search those for contraband without a warrant?
>
> This is not a reasonable comparison. A better one would be to someone
> leaving a backpack in a public park and being upset that the police
searched
> it for explosives (or just for ID to return it to its owner).
This is not the same, because someone was not required to leave their
things in the park, and they weren't required to change their clothes and
leave their old clothes in the park.
BTR1701
"Rob" <robe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-F5A5EC...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <bh5Yd.70893$Tt.27931@fed1read05>,
> > "Rob" <robe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The lockers could be looked at as being leased storage space for the
> > > duration of the regular school year, or until such a time as the student
> > > ceases to be enrolled at the school.
> >
> > Well, no. The students don't pay anything for the lockers so there's not
> > even the surface resemblance of a lease.
>
> Even public schools require a small fee for attendance,
No, they don't. At least not everywhere. I never paid a fee (or I should
say my parents never paid a fee) for going to school in Texas when I was
a kid.
BTR1701
wrote:
How about all the people who work for the US government? I do. I have a
locker in the gym at our building. The government (my employer) can
search it at will.
Paul Hyett
>>
>> There are a few minor differences in the situation. First off, an
>> employer is a private entity not working with the US government when it
>> searches, school employees are agents of the US government.
>
>How about all the people who work for the US government? I do. I have a
>locker in the gym at our building. The government (my employer) can
>search it at will.
Whatever happened to Probable Cause?
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett
BTR1701
Paul Hyett <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
The locker is not my property. It's the government's and they make it
clear that it's subject to search. The government doesn't need probable
cause to search its own property.
Joel Morton
"Alicat" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:it4931lttj9rarh0c...@4ax.com...
> California, and I've never had to pay a fee in the last eight years my
> kid has been in public school in California. Where do they charge
> anything to attend public schools?
>
> adios,
> alicat
Most, if not all, Illinois schools charge assorted fees. The high school I
teach at charges for textbook rental, lab fees for certain science, art, and
technical classes, and for PE uniforms - and, of course, overdue library
books. Students too close to the school to receive free transportation may
elect to pay for school bus service as well. Typically, fees total between
forty and seventy dollars depending on the mix of classes the students take.
Students on Medicare have their fees paid for by the state. Students can
attend school without paying their fees, but the school will not give them a
diploma or transcript until their fees are paid in full.
Joel Morton
>
> "Joel Morton" <joelwmor...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:JngYd.54842$Ze3.4708@attbi_s51...
>>
>> No, because at no point do the students pay for their lockers, nor do
>> they
>> sign a lease - so it's not possible to argue that the space is "leased."
>> Lockers are purchased and maintained by taxes, not by student fees.
>
> Students do have to pay a small fee to attend school, and it could be
> taken that the locker access is implied to be included in that fee.
>
>> > Plus you have to consider that a highschool student will be
>> > required to, at times, put his/her belongings into a locker as per
> school
>> > rules. Think of a PE class where a student would not be allowed to have
>> > their backpack or their regular street clothes on them for the duration
> of
>> > a
>> > class, and have to keep them in a locker. That changes a lot of things
>> > IMO.
>>
>> The student does not have to use the locker; they can carry their stuff
>> around with them if they choose.
>
> And when a PE teacher insists that a student refrain from carrying his
> stuff around with him for the duration of the class and places it in their
> locker under the threat of punishment, how is this a student having the
> option to carry their stuff around?
Since we seem to be dealing with silly hypotheticals at this point, the
student has the option of A) not dressing for PE and dealing with the
consequences, B) cutting class, and C) dropping thier stuff on a
hypothetical bench. Or, of course, D) not bringing contrabrand to school to
begin with.
> And, of course, if they have anything they
>> don't want found, then they SHOULDN'T BRING IT TO SCHOOL. Why is this
>> such
> a
>> difficult concept?
>
> And the other side of it is, if the government wants to go looking for
> something, they should get a warrent.
Why? They don't need a warrant to search someone in a public park, only
probable cause.
>> > Think of it this way. Would you consider it right that, instead of
>> > performing a random search on somebody a police officer demanded they
>> > remove
>> > their clothes and dress in pocketless clothes, place all of their
> clothes
>> > and any bags/purses/ect. they may be carrying into a squad car, and
>> > then
>> > the
>> > officer proceeded to search those for contraband without a warrant?
>>
>> This is not a reasonable comparison. A better one would be to someone
>> leaving a backpack in a public park and being upset that the police
> searched
>> it for explosives (or just for ID to return it to its owner).
>
> This is not the same, because someone was not required to leave their
> things in the park, and they weren't required to change their clothes and
> leave their old clothes in the park.
Except that students aren't required to go to public school, either. They
can choose private or home schooling, and many do.
Paul Hyett
>>
>> Whatever happened to Probable Cause?
>
>The locker is not my property. It's the government's and they make it
>clear that it's subject to search. The government doesn't need probable
>cause to search its own property.
But it contains *your* property.
Surely a bank can't open a person's safety deposit box without probable
cause, for example?
peachy ashie passion
I love when I get it right. Yay me.
peachy ashie passion
At the bank you pay a fee for rental, making it property under
your control.
Additionally, there are expectations of privacy. The bank makes
it clear that this IS private, whereas the schools make it clear
that you have no privacy.
peachy ashie passion
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:32:50 -0500, BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Never a fee for me growing up in public schools in Nevada and
> California, and I've never had to pay a fee in the last eight years my
> kid has been in public school in California. Where do they charge
> anything to attend public schools?
>
> adios,
> alicat
You know, I hadn't thought about that.
I paid fees in Utah. It was usually about 15 to 25 bucks a year.
My kid is in school in Virginia, and also went to school in New
York, and we haven't paid fees either place.
BTR1701
Paul Hyett <p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
A bank doesn't need probable cause because it's not the government. Your
privacy rights regarding a safety deposit box are covered in your
contract with the bank. If the fine print says they can open the box,
they can open the box.
lab~rat
>school employees are agents of the US government
County, I would assume.
lab~rat
I pay 600 bucks a year in taxes for SOMEONE to attend...
Joel Morton
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:24:08 -0800, "Rob" <robe...@gmail.com> puked:
>
>>school employees are agents of the US government
>
> County, I would assume.
Varies.
In Illinois, schools are run (with the exception of Chicago) by independent
school boards. Local school boards are separate government entities in and
of themselves, with popularly elected school board members, and all the
rights of local governments - approving their own budgets, salary and
benefit levels, and determining their own tax rates (with some limitations
on how fast taxes can be increased). School district boundaries are separate
from and rarely contiguous with any other local government (the district I
teach in, for example, includes the City of West Peoria and most of the City
of Peoria, while there is at least one other school district that includes
part of the City of Peoria). In rural areas, school districts sometimes
encompass multiple counties. School districts in Illinois may be primary,
secondary, or unit (which include both primary and secondary schools), and
may vary from under one hundred students to over one hundred thousand
(Chicago, I think, has 100 000 or more students). In some states, schools
may be run by city or county governments, and there may be states in which
all schools are controlled directly by the state.
Joel Morton
Joel Morton
Actually, you probably pay quite a bit more than that, depending on what
state you're in. Most states use general (income and/or sales) tax revenue
to supplement local property taxes. And of course a very small portion of
your federal taxes goes to primary and secondary education. Specifically,
though, we're talking about additional costs imposed on individual students
to addend school and/or participate in extracurricular activities.