3 ms·
> in any manner they see fit. That cannot possibly be true. Here is an example. Imagine if a school banned people from sports, because they expressed support
by stale2002 6y ago
> in any manner they see fit.
That cannot possibly be true. Here is an example. Imagine if a school banned people from sports, because they expressed support for Obama or Trump.
Clearly that would be a government infringing on people's right to speech, as it is expressely political.
Or imagine that a school gave certain benefits, only to students, who publicly support a certain political candidate. If you don't support their choice of president, you lose privileges or benefits or get expelled.
Or, if we are truly talking about "any manner they see fit", an obvious counter example would be if they just banned women from playing sports.
> is about to open One Giant Can of Worms.
There is no can of worms being opened here. A school is a public institution. How speech laws apply to public institution is not some crazy out there idea. It is well established.
I am not sure why people are making out speech laws, which have a long history of how they apply to public institutions, as some sort of alien topic.
You wouldn't say that a school could expel people, for example, for this kind of speech, out of school. Why is it so crazy, for this to be applied to other activities?
- mason55 6y ago> A school is a public institution. How speech laws apply to public institution is not some crazy out there idea. It is well established. Free speech laws apply differently in school. They're not exactly the same as other public institutions, as SCOTUS has ruled numerous times. Bethel v. Fraser[0] is an example where the Court ruled pretty clearly that the school can go as far as to prohibit sexual innuendo, it doesn't even have to be obscene or vulgar. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fras...
- stale2002 6y ago> They're not exactly the same as other public institutions, as SCOTUS has ruled numerous times. I didn't say that they were exactly the same. Instead I am saying that there is not some "huge can of worms" that is opened on up this topic, if the supreme court rules in favor of the student in this case. It is instead something that predictably might happen, and which will have predicable results that are in line with how things work in other examples. So, in other words, the sky will not fall, and schools will not collapse under the weight of not being allowed to punish students for purely off campus speech.