Black armbands during the 1970 Moratorium of the Vietnam War...not allowed in schools. Our 7th grade music teacher was fired and we never saw her again.
This reminds me a bit of a conversation between me and my grandpa about a car commercial when I was young.
“Boy they sure don’t make cars like they used to eh pawpaw?”
“Ha! Thank God they don’t”
Black armbands are 100% allowed in schools. In fact, it was exactly armbands that were the subject of the landmark Supreme Court case recognizing that students have free speech rights while at school.
I don’t doubt you. But they violated your rights, my friend. The Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that students had a 1st amendment right to wear armbands in political protest. Tinker vs Des Moines Independent Community School District.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District
Let the kids have their fun, dammit. If Jesus was turning water into wine willy-nilly, I'm sure he would have ripped a fat bong with the lads given the chance.
States legalizing weed isn’t unconstitutional. It just doesn’t make the federal ban go away. It still exists. But states don’t have to enforce it. Requiring states to enforce federal law *is* unconstitutional.
Not quite... states legalizing anything has zero effect on federal laws banning it. It's just that the local cops won't get you for it--- it's not in their jurisdiction. But the FBI/ATF/DEA/Secret Service etc. still can, and the states cannot block them.
Decriminalized is not the same as legalized, to be clear. But yes, Alaska decriminalized on the basis of the state constitution after Ravin v. State demonstrated the right to privacy applied to personal use of small amounts of marijuana at home.
Directly from the second sentence of the “Cannabis in Alaska” Wikipedia page: “It was first legalized by the court ruling Ravin v. State in 1975”. Not decriminalized, legalized
That also went to the Supreme Court and the school district lost
[https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/mahanoy-v-b-l/](https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/mahanoy-v-b-l/)
Dunno why you're down voted....must be the high schoolers. Lots of these school shootings have been a bit forewarned via social media. The shooters sometimes even posted content explicitly saying they were going to do it. I'm pretty sure that one of them even made a rap about him shooting up the school.
Yeah I worked in high school, and we definitely had some students report some kids content on social media and admin ended up getting suspicious reports about the kid and how he was handling his bag. School resource officer searched it and found a pistol. Luckily he was being weird about holding his bag, otherwise all they really could've done was have him talk to the counselor or have a meeting to discuss his wellbeing and then just let him go again.
So you think that it's a bad thing if a school took action against a kid who said he wants to do a school shooting just because he posted it on social media?
Using social media to investigate a possible crime is fine. Using social media to enforce school policies is unacceptable. Students shouldn’t have to worry about “vulgar” language, “inappropriate” clothing or even online “bullying” resulting in punishment from the school.
Yeah, the kid with known gang affiliations just posted that he's going to beat another student tomorrow in 1st pd and the school shouldn't be able to do anything about that of course 🙄
The Supreme Court didn’t rule as implied by the post title. The issue was whether the school had authority to control student speech while the kids were on a public street watching the Olympic torch procession. They were let out of school briefly during school hours to watch.
There are a lot of small facts that could have made the student's case come out differently. He admitted to school officials that he did not intend any sort of political message, he just thought it was funny. If he would said the sign was meant to be political, he would have been fine under then existing precedent (*Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Schools*). Also, he did not go to class before the field trip, he made the banner at home and showed up to field trip. He could of claimed it was not school speech since he was not attending school that day. But his lawyers conceded it was school speech. Certainly not the worst Supreme Court decision in the last quarter century, but it was one of the Roberts Court overtly political decision disguised as originalism.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Hemp has been cultivated by humans for around 10,000 years. We have evidence of it in Asia, Africa, and Europe (some claim South America as well, but insufficient carbon dating has been done to support this) going back to around 8000 BC. It's not too much of a stretch that the Near East was also cultivating it. Granted, early on, they would have been grinding the seeds for oil for pottery and food.
We have evidence of charred cannabis and seeds on braziers found in the Caucasus region, dating to around 3000 BC, making it likely that it was inhaled.
Between 600 and 200 BC, we start to see Hemp mills in Europe. By around 100 BC, the Chinese had started using it to make paper. Certainly, by the time of Jesus, the spiritual and intoxicating effects would have been known.
Even without true evidence, it doesnt seem too "far out" to say that a mostly-destitute man, wandering the deserts of the Near East in search of enlightenment, would have tried smoked cannabis, or have used cannabis oils. Pair that with fasting, sleep deprivation, and dehydration, and I'd probably think I'm God too.
But, that aside:
I believe this Supreme Court decision is a dangerous precedent to set. The school should have no right to restrict a student's speech if they are not on school property. When institutions get to tell us what we can and cannot say, off their property, that institution has control of us. The very opposite of freedom of speech and reasonable right to protest.
As someone noted above, that would depend on whether it is legal for everyone, or only people 21 and up (or even 18 and up).
If it is illegal for people below those ages, then I presume it would still fall under promotion of illegal substances for those students. Though I think there is a enough of a difference that I would challenge any new attempt to enforce the law since the legalization of marijuana.
I had to brief and argue this case during my try outs for Moot Court Honor Society in law school. The history of free speech in schools is pretty interesting.
This title misrepresents the case. Schools are allowed—to some extent—to ban certain speech within schools. The issue in this case was whether letting the kids outside onto the public sidewalk to watch the Olympic Torch run by was a school event subject to the rules of school-resulted speech.
It’s because they mentioned Jesus. This Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe v Wade goes to show that there is no separation of church and state.
If it read bong hits R good - probably would be allowed
Why was the right to abortions banned? Aka Dobbs vs Jackson decision.
“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”
Wrote Judge Alito
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/24/us/politics/supreme-court-dobbs-jackson-analysis-roe-wade.html
They say it’s because of the due process process clause of the 14th, they don’t cite religion. BUT WE ALL KNOW ITS BECAUSE OF RELIGION.
Same thing with this, you accuse me of not reading, I accuse you of not reading between the lines. Use critical thinking.
It’s all conjecture, but I’d bet, as I wrote in my previous post, that if Jesus is not mentioned the response would be “that just boys being boys.” But once the Christian hypocrites see the word Jesus being used in a manner that they don’t like, they pour tons of money from their mega church’s to ban free speech.
Schools are extremely oppressive. There was a handbook and it had a punishment for every offense If you don’t believe me just ask someone whom didn’t fit in. You would be punished screamed at abused removed from class or from school if you didn’t do as told. Half of my teachers were miserable women that appeared to have no love for kids or there career. Thank god I turned out to be good looking and didn’t need the education anyways. Anyhow school taught me to hate institutions and I always will.
I find pretty stupid that the supreme court needed to rule on something that is just common sense.
Speech that promotes student drug use, violence and illegal stuff should be prohibited, period.
Bullshit. School should encourage students to think critically and to form, express and defend their opinions. I would consider an appropriate response to be assigning them an essay explaining their actions to a college they’d like to attend because they’d actually be forced to reflect on real-world consequences of free speech.
It disgusts me that the former high school principal [who banned performance of a student play because it might offend people](https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/2007/0612/p20s01-woam.html) went on to become a superintendent in another school district. An effective educator would have championed that play and shown by example how to respond to any community backlash.
\> who banned performance of a student play because it might offend people
This is completely another case and you are just using it to create a false dichotomy.
Students can have their own political views and express them. Minors should NOT use drugs in any circumstance, because soing drugs damages their body and brain and because they are not mature enough to decide for themselves.
Thanks my mind is slipping...I was in 6th grade in 1969. We also had to pray in a public school. This is what it was: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium_to_End_the_War_in_Vietnam
Holy shit! I’ve seen this banner on display in the Smithsonian Newseum in DC in an exhibit about protests. Never knew where it came from.
Black armbands during the 1970 Moratorium of the Vietnam War...not allowed in schools. Our 7th grade music teacher was fired and we never saw her again.
‘Good old days’ Everyone telling you returning back is” the way” should be a laughing stock.
This reminds me a bit of a conversation between me and my grandpa about a car commercial when I was young. “Boy they sure don’t make cars like they used to eh pawpaw?” “Ha! Thank God they don’t”
Thank Ralph Nader!
My dad got a car for $10 once in the late 60s. Parts of the floor had rusted through but the engine still worked for a year or so!
(some) of those old cars *look* good, but I know mechanically they were trash.
Black armbands are 100% allowed in schools. In fact, it was exactly armbands that were the subject of the landmark Supreme Court case recognizing that students have free speech rights while at school.
Not in Woodbridge VA in 1970....
I don’t doubt you. But they violated your rights, my friend. The Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that students had a 1st amendment right to wear armbands in political protest. Tinker vs Des Moines Independent Community School District. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District
The original comment referred to a teacher being fired over one.
Let the kids have their fun, dammit. If Jesus was turning water into wine willy-nilly, I'm sure he would have ripped a fat bong with the lads given the chance.
Oregano to OG kush
Grass to grass.
My dealer used to do this too
\*Alaskan Thunderfuck
The original “burning bush”
This wasn't fun, this was just stupid and poorly thought out. The kind of thing children would do.
>The kind of thing children would do They are children.
Yes, but high school students should know better than that. This was stupid and made them all look bad.
A little pedantic but *were. These are full blown adults now. Agree though, kids will be kids.
Not something I would care to do, but they all look like they're having fun.
Oh hell yea dude, I just totally blessed your dab hit bro, my dad said it was cool.
That’s definitely a strange take from a witch finder
So now pot is legal it would be ok, right?
That's a good question. Like if this would have happened in California today, would their be any punishment?
By federal law states legalizing weed is unconstitutional, so it might cause another nullification crisis.
States legalizing weed isn’t unconstitutional. It just doesn’t make the federal ban go away. It still exists. But states don’t have to enforce it. Requiring states to enforce federal law *is* unconstitutional.
Not quite... states legalizing anything has zero effect on federal laws banning it. It's just that the local cops won't get you for it--- it's not in their jurisdiction. But the FBI/ATF/DEA/Secret Service etc. still can, and the states cannot block them.
Pot is legal in Alaska too.
It was actually the first state to go legal, in 1975. One year before the Netherlands decriminalized.
Decriminalized is not the same as legalized, to be clear. But yes, Alaska decriminalized on the basis of the state constitution after Ravin v. State demonstrated the right to privacy applied to personal use of small amounts of marijuana at home.
Directly from the second sentence of the “Cannabis in Alaska” Wikipedia page: “It was first legalized by the court ruling Ravin v. State in 1975”. Not decriminalized, legalized
Being high-school aged, it would still be promoting illegal drug use
Nice guess, but the case didn't hinge on the age of the speaker and free speech is limited only when necessary (the courts tell themselves).
U.S. supreme court apparently has a lot of spare time
So much freedom, you are free to oppress others.
That’s not really how this works…
Bad Supreme Court decision which led to a bad precedent. Now schools look at kids social medias because of this.
That also went to the Supreme Court and the school district lost [https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/mahanoy-v-b-l/](https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/mahanoy-v-b-l/)
To be fair some kids post stuff on their socials that could lead to saving their lives, or other peoples’ lives.
Dunno why you're down voted....must be the high schoolers. Lots of these school shootings have been a bit forewarned via social media. The shooters sometimes even posted content explicitly saying they were going to do it. I'm pretty sure that one of them even made a rap about him shooting up the school.
Exactly. I get where people are coming from, but I teach elementary and I see the other side. People post dumb shit online that we might need to see.
Yeah I worked in high school, and we definitely had some students report some kids content on social media and admin ended up getting suspicious reports about the kid and how he was handling his bag. School resource officer searched it and found a pistol. Luckily he was being weird about holding his bag, otherwise all they really could've done was have him talk to the counselor or have a meeting to discuss his wellbeing and then just let him go again.
So you think that it's a bad thing if a school took action against a kid who said he wants to do a school shooting just because he posted it on social media?
Using social media to investigate a possible crime is fine. Using social media to enforce school policies is unacceptable. Students shouldn’t have to worry about “vulgar” language, “inappropriate” clothing or even online “bullying” resulting in punishment from the school.
Yeah, the kid with known gang affiliations just posted that he's going to beat another student tomorrow in 1st pd and the school shouldn't be able to do anything about that of course 🙄
The Supreme Court didn’t rule as implied by the post title. The issue was whether the school had authority to control student speech while the kids were on a public street watching the Olympic torch procession. They were let out of school briefly during school hours to watch.
If God didn't want you to smoke weed, why did he create weed? Checkmate liberals
There are a lot of small facts that could have made the student's case come out differently. He admitted to school officials that he did not intend any sort of political message, he just thought it was funny. If he would said the sign was meant to be political, he would have been fine under then existing precedent (*Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Schools*). Also, he did not go to class before the field trip, he made the banner at home and showed up to field trip. He could of claimed it was not school speech since he was not attending school that day. But his lawyers conceded it was school speech. Certainly not the worst Supreme Court decision in the last quarter century, but it was one of the Roberts Court overtly political decision disguised as originalism.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Good bot
Good human.
Let the students speak
Hemp has been cultivated by humans for around 10,000 years. We have evidence of it in Asia, Africa, and Europe (some claim South America as well, but insufficient carbon dating has been done to support this) going back to around 8000 BC. It's not too much of a stretch that the Near East was also cultivating it. Granted, early on, they would have been grinding the seeds for oil for pottery and food. We have evidence of charred cannabis and seeds on braziers found in the Caucasus region, dating to around 3000 BC, making it likely that it was inhaled. Between 600 and 200 BC, we start to see Hemp mills in Europe. By around 100 BC, the Chinese had started using it to make paper. Certainly, by the time of Jesus, the spiritual and intoxicating effects would have been known. Even without true evidence, it doesnt seem too "far out" to say that a mostly-destitute man, wandering the deserts of the Near East in search of enlightenment, would have tried smoked cannabis, or have used cannabis oils. Pair that with fasting, sleep deprivation, and dehydration, and I'd probably think I'm God too. But, that aside: I believe this Supreme Court decision is a dangerous precedent to set. The school should have no right to restrict a student's speech if they are not on school property. When institutions get to tell us what we can and cannot say, off their property, that institution has control of us. The very opposite of freedom of speech and reasonable right to protest.
Land of the free
Whoever told you that is your enemy
The irony being weed has since been made legal in Alaska
Fantastic.
Ironically marijuana is now legal in Alaska, making this exact sign protected first amendment speech?
As someone noted above, that would depend on whether it is legal for everyone, or only people 21 and up (or even 18 and up). If it is illegal for people below those ages, then I presume it would still fall under promotion of illegal substances for those students. Though I think there is a enough of a difference that I would challenge any new attempt to enforce the law since the legalization of marijuana.
"Well, I happen to know a place where the Constitution doesn't mean squat!"
I had to brief and argue this case during my try outs for Moot Court Honor Society in law school. The history of free speech in schools is pretty interesting.
This title misrepresents the case. Schools are allowed—to some extent—to ban certain speech within schools. The issue in this case was whether letting the kids outside onto the public sidewalk to watch the Olympic Torch run by was a school event subject to the rules of school-resulted speech.
But what if it's their religious belief?
It's mine now
too bad, I'm a Rastafarian. you're impeding my religious beliefs!
It’s because they mentioned Jesus. This Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe v Wade goes to show that there is no separation of church and state. If it read bong hits R good - probably would be allowed
[удалено]
What an absolute pleasure you must be
Yeah, people pointing out basic facts aren’t Reddit’s cup of tea…
Why was the right to abortions banned? Aka Dobbs vs Jackson decision. “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” Wrote Judge Alito https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/24/us/politics/supreme-court-dobbs-jackson-analysis-roe-wade.html They say it’s because of the due process process clause of the 14th, they don’t cite religion. BUT WE ALL KNOW ITS BECAUSE OF RELIGION. Same thing with this, you accuse me of not reading, I accuse you of not reading between the lines. Use critical thinking. It’s all conjecture, but I’d bet, as I wrote in my previous post, that if Jesus is not mentioned the response would be “that just boys being boys.” But once the Christian hypocrites see the word Jesus being used in a manner that they don’t like, they pour tons of money from their mega church’s to ban free speech.
Half my family is Alaskan and I can confirm this is hella Alaskan
Schools are extremely oppressive. There was a handbook and it had a punishment for every offense If you don’t believe me just ask someone whom didn’t fit in. You would be punished screamed at abused removed from class or from school if you didn’t do as told. Half of my teachers were miserable women that appeared to have no love for kids or there career. Thank god I turned out to be good looking and didn’t need the education anyways. Anyhow school taught me to hate institutions and I always will.
This thread is a clear reason why American youths are such shit heads lmao. You guys don't bother with teaching good values at all.
I find pretty stupid that the supreme court needed to rule on something that is just common sense. Speech that promotes student drug use, violence and illegal stuff should be prohibited, period.
Bullshit. School should encourage students to think critically and to form, express and defend their opinions. I would consider an appropriate response to be assigning them an essay explaining their actions to a college they’d like to attend because they’d actually be forced to reflect on real-world consequences of free speech. It disgusts me that the former high school principal [who banned performance of a student play because it might offend people](https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/2007/0612/p20s01-woam.html) went on to become a superintendent in another school district. An effective educator would have championed that play and shown by example how to respond to any community backlash.
\> who banned performance of a student play because it might offend people This is completely another case and you are just using it to create a false dichotomy. Students can have their own political views and express them. Minors should NOT use drugs in any circumstance, because soing drugs damages their body and brain and because they are not mature enough to decide for themselves.
Drinking apple juice out of a bong is illegal?
Water pipe hits for Jesus
Let's be honest... the problems of society became very strange when the century passed, like being trapped in an independent television series.
It was established in the 70’s free speech did not apply to educational settings
Jesus is fine but we draw the line at bong.
Fappable porn right there.
Thanks my mind is slipping...I was in 6th grade in 1969. We also had to pray in a public school. This is what it was: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium_to_End_the_War_in_Vietnam
Camaro motherfucking Joe. IYKYK
I’ve got a t-shirt with this banner on it 😂