Fuck it.

I have no intentions of ever running for political office.

Plus. I've never given out personal information.

Im not a fan of Sotomayor, but this ruling doesn't mean she isn't a fan of bloggers.. if you post something on a public blog (where your identity is public).. then you bear the responsibility for what you say..

Nothing radical about that..

Sotomayor not a fan of bloggers.

Montetroll is as long as they are called goatman.

Looks like the right decision wsa reached to me.

Are people suggesting that she legislate?

Looks like all 3 judges followed the letter of the law to me.

Isn't that what they are suppossed to do?

Why is it that I am not surprised that the people that whined about free speech under Bush are comfortable with a breech allowed by an Obama pick.

If the girls blog was on government servers, I could see a penalty being given for her language.

However, the school system is a government institution. As such, punishing her for free speech on her personal blog off of government servers is a violation of free speech. It is essentially a punishment by the government for exercising that right in her own time. This is prohibited by the 1st Amendment.

If you think that this wasn't a big punishment and shouldn't be complained about, consider what Class President means for some people. If she had won, this would be in her school record. Colleges look at thing like that when considering an application. Not only was she denied the opportunity to try for this, but the refusal will CERTAINLY go in her record for colleges to see later. They gave her a penalty that will permanently be on her school record simply for exercising her right to free speech. This is wrong in the extreme. Sotomayor was dead wrong when she said they don't have the authority to rule on this, as it was clearly (as she put it) a violation "of specific constitutional guarantees".

For the record, I don't agree at all with what the girl said. I think it was immature and disrespectful under the circumstances of why she was calling them those names. However I think she had the perfect right to say it in her own free time on her own blog.

the only negative i'm concern about so far with her is she might not be very pro second amendment.

but unless she's caught doing rap or worst ~ she's going to be the next justice on the S.C.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm while I am a firm believer in the first Amendment totally. The school system has the Right to forbid and or deny activities to a Student for their bad speech. If it was Me on the School board or the principal I would scold Her but I wouldn't take it beyond that point.

Larry

The school system has the Right to forbid and or deny activities to a Student for their bad speech.

Larry,

Not in her own free time off of government owned servers. I don't care whether it is liberal or anti-religious speech, or simply speaking out against the government authorities... that speech is protected from the government. Especially if it is in your own free time and not using government resources.

I agree. SCOTUS might not, depending on their mood is after snorting some of their magic 8 ball.

There's ample precedent that schools can regulate certain forms of speech in school, but outside of school, who knows. One would hope that they would say "no" and recognize the lower court's ruling as setting a dangerous precedent.

Aw. Sotomayor agreed with everyone else in a position to make a judgement. Same with the kid that lost with the "Bong Hits for Jesus" banner.

This is what happens when you make stupid laws and then demand judges respect the law. You can't have it both ways. It's hard to cry "Activist Judge" and then turn around and slam Judges for precedence and law.

BTW - does this mean the "Conservatives" on the SCOTUS are activist judges?

Rob_A_Hole like to use "douche bag" all the time...

Same with the kid that lost with the "Bong Hits for Jesus" banner.

I disagree with that ruling too.

I disagree with anything that subverts the 1st Amendment (government infringing on free speech where such speech doesn't endanger the public).

It's hard to cry "Activist Judge" and then turn around and slam Judges for precedence and law.

I never said anything about "Activist Judge" in regards to this ruling. I simply say it was a bad ruling and sets a VERY bad precedent. I don't care if it is a "conservative" judge or a "liberal" judge. If they rule against the Constitution it is a bad ruling and that history of such bad rulings should disqualify from consideration for the highest court in the land.

I disagree with that ruling too.

Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg agree with you.

So do I.

I thought Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts were strict Constitutional judges and not activists? How did they get the Constitution so wrong?

Pfft.

A school system can not allow students to run Roughshod over the people in Authority figures no matter if the act is carried out in school or out of school. It's no different than a kid being punished for calling the kids Parents a doushe bag. onsider it teaching the student manners.

Larry

Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg agree with you.

So do I.

I thought Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts were strict Constitutional judges and not activists? How did they get the Constitution so wrong?

Pfft.

Everybody can get it massively wrong sometimes.

The difference is, I can admit this even when it is "my side" that does it. I have yet to see you do so, however, when it is "your side".

Pfft.

A school system can not allow students to run Roughshod over the people in Authority figures no matter if the act is carried out in school or out of school.

So what you are saying is that the government has the right to demand compliance even in matters where such demanding violates our Constitutional rights?

Are you really saying that the government trumps our Constitutional rights?

Tell me this then... what is the point of having a Constitution and a Bill of Rights if the government has the right to ignore it when they wish?

The point of those things, were to limit the ways in which the government may control the people. The fact is, our founding fathers felt it WAS our right to "run roughshod" over the government in certain ways. Furthermore they felt it was necessary that we be able to do so specifically to keep the government from becoming tyrannical.

Ummmmm in High School and younger the school system has the right to control behavior and that includes name calling. After all most of the student body is under the age of 18 so they are STILL minors.

Larry

Ummmmm in High School and younger the school system has the right to control behavior and that includes name calling.

On for actions that happen on school property, during school events, or at times when the school is otherwise responsible for the student. Not in the student's free time on their personal blog not using school resources.

For example... your brother and you go the same school, while playing in the street in front of your house you punch your brother. The school can't suspend you for fighting. You aren't on school grounds, you aren't on school time, and they aren't responsible for you or your brother at that time.

I will give one case that I think is an exception.

If that personal blog on a non-government server was being used by her to coordinate school dealings, even if technically written in her free time, THEN I would consider some sort of school action appropriate. However there was no indication that her blog was being used in such a way. If you can show otherwise I will change my opinion of the ruling.

For example... your brother and you go the same school, while playing in the street in front of your house you punch your brother. The school can't suspend you for fighting. You aren't on school grounds, you aren't on school time, and they aren't responsible for you or your brother at that time.

Posted by moomanfl

good

BTW... for your information, the 1st Amendment rights were put there specifically to protect our right to criticize our government officials.

It doesn't limit that right only to cases where you aren't calling them bad names. It says they may not abridge free speech. It doesn't say they can't abridge free speech unless you call a government employee "poopy head", or "douche bag", or even "mustard lover".

The school probably has a policy about what vocabulary can be used by those who run for office and she violated those policies.

It is like a athletes who drink on their own time off school grounds get booted from the team.

For example... your brother and you go the same school, while playing in the street in front of your house you punch your brother. The school can't suspend you for fighting. You aren't on school grounds, you aren't on school time, and they aren't responsible for you or your brother at that time.

#20 | Posted by moomanfl

But nowadays they do the kids try to get around it and schedule their fights a 1/4 mile away but the school stills punishes them. I say they should let them duke it out and get it out of their system. When I went to school they didn't discourage fair fights as a matter of fact the teachers would show up on the field behind the school and watch too. No punishments or scoldings.

Gimme,

I remember teachers pulling kids into the gym and giving them boxing gloves. The coach would referee.

Yes, I have heard of schools punishing kids for off-campus fights. The government has slowly been expanding their reach into parenting issues, via the excuse of schools for years. The only exception I agree with is in the case of parental abuse being reported to the school. Other than that, the school should be forced to keep it's nose out of the home and private lives of their students unless explicitly invited. Simple enrollment in school (which forced by the government anyway) should not count as such an invitation.

they punished me for fighting in the bus...in 9th grade

& taping "fuck" with masking tape on the back of a seat in the auditorium...9th grade

& then the rolled chocolate flavored Marjuanna joint sitting in the Dean's office wasn't very helpful to my future career either...12th grade

27 | Posted by Bani

You sound like you were a handfull

I was...not really proud of it.

but sometimes a dog will just sit in the middle of the street & not get hit just prove something & have some terrority to call his own.

I was/am that kind of dog

but sometimes a dog will just sit in the middle of the street & not get hit just prove something & have some terrority to call his own.

I was/am that kind of dog

#29 | Posted by Bani

You're a Scotch/Irish/Limey/Danish/ Berber mutt too? Small world huh?

actually I'm a water dragon:>)

Im not a fan of Sotomayor, but this ruling doesn't mean she isn't a fan of bloggers.. if you post something on a public blog (where your identity is public).. then you bear the responsibility for what you say..

Nothing radical about that..

#2 | Posted by nmg_no at 2009

well sure but he does have a right to say it doesnt he...

getting close to intrusion is the way I look at it but then I am gettin more and more liberatarian by the day..

Everybody can get it massively wrong sometimes.

The difference is, I can admit this even when it is "my side" that does it. I have yet to see you do so, however, when it is "your side".

Pfft.

#17 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-29 12:15 AM

but sometimes a dog will just sit in the middle of the street & not get hit just prove something & have some terrority to call his own.

I was/am that kind of dog

#29 | Posted by Bani at 20

I wish I could be there when your kid does the same thing and you try and tell him not to....Im not trying to be hatefull here but it will happen if it hasnt already

for instance I would cross my fingers during the rule book explanation about alcohol on a trip because IN COLLEGE>>>(NOT HS MIND YOU)>>but in college the band jackets we had were a perfect fit for a half pint of JD

Sure it was censorship. But Sotomayor is to big to fail.

Good for her!

She made the right call. This girls 'free speech' was NOT infringed upon as they try to make it out to be.

So many people try to make everything about how their 'right to free speech was violated'.

Just look at that retard called Miss California. She actually said her grandfather fought in WWII to defend her right to free speech which was now being infringed upon.

Really? It was being infringed upon? When did the govt come and arrest her for her views?

This was state action taken against the student. You cannot compare it to Miss California - where private organization was considering action.

It does give insight to how the Judge is going to look at the First Amendment. It seemed like a logical decision to me. Kids have a diminished first amendment rights - and they're gonna have to learn to deal with it.

"Forget Whether She Qualifies as a "Racist." Would Judge Sotomayor Qualifiy as a Juror?"

The blogger was a white male. Fuck him.

The blogger was a white male. Fuck him.

Posted by mysterytoy at 2009-05-29 06:32 PM

Ooooowwww, no tinge of racial animosity there!

btw -- You should have said "fuck her" -- the blogger was a female.

No one said the teen couldn't SAY what she said, but running for office in SCHOOL is not a right, so they really can tell her she can't run for any reason they wish, unless otherwise forbidden by some statute. Now, she can fight back by raising a big ruckus about what they did and make them all look like complete idiots, which she clearly tried to do, but I don't think she is entitled to be able to run based on the first amendment alone.

Based solely on my opinion, I would say that If she had said something with substance like "The faculty members are self-serving, small-minded, bigots" rather than "douch-bags", then I would totally say that the ruling of the school is unfounded and completely without merit, but the fact that she used graphic terms and meaningless name-calling says that she is childish and immature and could reasonably be barred from running because she is not being a good example.

I have a problem with being punished at the school for something that you did off of their property and on your own time.

For example, if you smoke, would that be a reason for the school to refuse to let you hold office? What about if you ate too much? Went to the wrong church? Voted for the wrong candidate? Have a parent that is the wrong color or wrong sex?

If this girls blog had been calling Bush & company a bunch of childish names, would she have been prevented from holding office?

At a guess, the school admin got its collective panties in a wad and got away with it.

Just another reason to take control of the schools away from gov't.

"Would Judge Sotomayor Qualifiy as a Juror?"

Of course not. No lawyer in the world would want an Appellate Court Judge on the jury.

I was for Sotomayor, but if she's against bloggers forget it.

'but if she's against bloggers forget it.'

You do sort of have a horse in that race . . .

Supreme Court Decisions should be made by bloggers???

This was state action against a student who made comments from her home on her website. If you can restrict this, you can just as easily punish a student for casually telling a friend that 'ABC teacher is a douche bag.' Is that the America you want?

I dont think most here understand who far reaching this is.

gov't is doing everything they can to control every min of every person's life... that they are extending control a little more each day isn't the surprise... the fact that the sheeple haven't overthrown the gov't yet is the surprise.

I am just trying to guess whether the people will rise up, or the gov't will collapse first.

Now that B.O. is in office... I am leaning towards collapse.

manypaths:
Looks like all 3 judges followed the letter of the law to me.
Isn't that what they are suppossed to do?

if you'd be so kind as to cite the law, any law, i'll be so kind as to not only tell you what it means or if it is void for vagueness, but also to tell you if it has anything do with actual justice.

remember these are Supreme [Court] "Justices." Not supreme cops.
+++

btw, i thought it was beautiful how the Pres about spoke about "justice."

Unlike Administrators, Teachers deserve our respect. It is one vital element of a functional educational system.

Administrators take themselves far too seriously and burn too much money on tasks which have nothing whatsoever to do with schooling. It would be a better system if they would lighten up. What kind of an emotionally insecure Administrator wasted more taxpayer money taking legal action against one student for calling them a douche bag? Only someone determined to prove that they are one.

Bloggers who raise free speech issues here are spot on. More and more schools want to raise kids to be industrial robots in the Asian mold. In that context the Superintendent's legal actions make perfect sense.

free speech means what----this teen was statin her opinion -which i think we all have the right to do-where is the empathy obama was susposed to be lookin for
jasman

Let's see... a Student blogger runs her mouth.
A School Administrator freaks out for being called names on a Public blog.

Knowshon blames State Government.
1looneytarian wants to kill the Federal Gov for it.
Newjasman blames Obama.

Absofreakin'lutely par for the course.

President Sanchez 2012

Where is the mom's outrage that her daughter was so disrespectful? This isn't a free speech issue... its a parenting issue.

People (especially children) need to be smart about what they publish. Parents and schools are failing at educating kids about protecting their privacy info.

I like how legregious put it--it's not about the sentiment; it's about the mode of expression. The finding was that her running for office would be disruptive. That makes sense. If a kid is known to make such linguistic references in her speech, and she is a leader among her peers, that sort of behavior could spread. I certainly don't think it's wrong for a student to disagree with a teacher, super, etc., but I do believe it should be done respectfully--much more so than much adult behavior I see, here and otherwise. One can be emphatic without being rude. And btw, she wrote in a blog, which is print. Hell, there are rules about speech in print, free or not. "Douchebag" is insulting, clearly. Would those of you decrying the decision feel different if she had called them morons, assholes, drunks, pedophiles, powertrippers...?

Oh, and children don't have the same free speech rights as adults. Never have, probably never will. Would you want your children to have free speech in their homes? So a kid can call their parents douche-bags and still keep all their privileges? We curtail kids' speech all the time in schools, from simple cursing (vulgarity) and simple mouthing off to so-called hate speech and other improprieties.

This has nothing to do with who's making the call, not for me. I don't share in the belief that what the student did was wrong, but I get the argument. (I'm much more free with my speech and my students' than most of my colleagues are.)