Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Federal Judge upholds highschool girl's right to upload lewed photos Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]plastix[/m] at 10:06 am on Aug. 21, 2011[quote]yeah, that's really out of the principal's power to ban them from shit because of pictures on the internet let the parents punish 'em, if they want. school should have no say.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post fire storm Posted at 9:55 am on Aug. 21, 2011 Even high school girls have the right to freedom of speech, no matter how lewd their message might be. A federal judge sided with the ACLU in a recent case, stating that it was wrong for a high school principal to punish two girls for posting "racy" pictures on Facebook, according to Gawker. Apparently the school official suspended the girls from all extracurricular activities for a year after someone informed him of the photos. The photos of the girls, 16 and 15, were lewd to say the least, but that doesn't mean they were illegal. Lol first amendment http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/17/federal-judge-upholds-hig_n_929394.html

Replies Prince o palities Posted at 3:45 pm on Aug. 24, 2011 One could, but then one would be approaching the problem rationally rather than comparing apples and oranges in a fit of righteous indignation. Wilder Posted at 3:59 pm on Aug. 22, 2011 Quote: from Prince o palities at 5:26 pm on Aug. 21, 2011 It drives me crazy that this is permissible and Sherlock Holmes isn't. Surely one can draw a relevant distinction between something required to be read in class and something posted out of school on a social networking site that has nothing to do with the school. Prince o palities Posted at 4:26 pm on Aug. 21, 2011 It drives me crazy that this is permissible and Sherlock Holmes isn't. Bud2400 Posted at 1:26 pm on Aug. 21, 2011 Quote: from SwampPig at 11:17 am on Aug. 21, 2011 ^ Volleyball games are not a constitutional right.   Wanna try again? Way to miss the point. In any case, I'm assuming this is a public school. Even if it were private, it would have some rules according to state law it would need to abide by, such as fairly allowing extracurriculars to all students who wish to utilize them ("fairly" meaning you can't prohibit one's speech outside of school in order to utilize the extracurricular). This one is pretty uniform across states, it may even be a federal thing, I'm not entirely sure. Either way, it's pretty clear according to the law that the school has far overreached itself. shadowpool Posted at 11:42 am on Aug. 21, 2011 I don't think the constitution applies to things like this, but I do think people should personally kick some ass when institutions step out of line. Mandatory schooling is already a disgusting violation. When schools start intervening in personal matters, they should be shut down by the students--thick chains, boarded windows, barricaded doors, students chained to doors with u-locks around their necks, and news trucks blocking traffic. Relying on the law to keep things like schools and corporations decent is a stupid thing to do. Law is something that happens ten years later, sometimes. I think the judge did a good thing, but I think that was luck and not necessarily law. You can't regulate away sexuality. Schools need to educate people about privacy. If you're going to show your parts, it's best to do it in person. Pictures end up on the internet. SwampPig Posted at 11:17 am on Aug. 21, 2011 ^ Volleyball games are not a constitutional right. Wanna try again? Bud2400 Posted at 10:51 am on Aug. 21, 2011 Quote: from SwampPig at 10:20 am on Aug. 21, 2011 Quote: from Niick at 10:17 am on Aug. 21, 2011 The student handbook can say what it wants, it doesn't mean it supersedes laws and constitutional amendments. If it said no black people allowed, it wouldnt be in the right just because its in the handbook. How did their punishment violate their constitutional rights? Did you not read what was written in the OP?  The judge ruled that it violated their 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech / expression, which yes, lewd photos can be a part of. Would it be okay if the student handbook said your family cannot own a firearm while you attend their school, so as to ensure that you would not have easy access to a gun in case you decided to shoot up the school?  Would it be okay if the student handbook said you must keep and maintain video cameras inside your house and own room that the school can access for surveillance, as well as allow them to wiretap your phones, just to ensure that you bring no harm to the school or any of its students?  Would it be okay if the student handbook said, if arrested by the police, you must waive your 5th amendment rights and never be allowed to remain silent in the face of potentially self-incriminating questions, perhaps justified by the notion that all the schools' students are honest and have nothing to hide? Point is, what the school handbook says is completely irrelevant.  It does not have the authority to supersede constitutional rights, and given that education is something mandated by law (as opposed to a job, where you're not required to work at all), a rule like that would actually be restrictive of one's freedoms given that they have no choice on the matter. Serj Tankian Posted at 10:32 am on Aug. 21, 2011 Lol whores. My school makes you sign a contract that reserves the right for them to punish you for like anything they see fit pretty much because of this bullshit. It's private so they can do this. SwampPig Posted at 10:20 am on Aug. 21, 2011 Quote: from Niick at 10:17 am on Aug. 21, 2011 The student handbook can say what it wants, it doesn't mean it supersedes laws and constitutional amendments. If it said no black people allowed, it wouldnt be in the right just because its in the handbook. How did their punishment violate their constitutional rights? Char Aznable Posted at 10:17 am on Aug. 21, 2011 The student handbook can say what it wants, it doesn't mean it supersedes laws and constitutional amendments. If it said no black people allowed, it wouldnt be in the right just because its in the handbook. Little Vixen Posted at 10:14 am on Aug. 21, 2011 Although it's none of his business I think the girls should be punished regardless. Anything to try and tame the nation of bluewaffled sluts that we're raising. SwampPig Posted at 10:11 am on Aug. 21, 2011 The principal was right to suspend the girls from extra-curricular activity. They broke school guidelines. This is not any more of a free speech issue than getting suspended for telling your teacher to fuck himself. Separately, under the heading "EXTRA-CURRICULAR/CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES" on page 24, the Student Handbook states: "If you act in a manner in school or out of school that brings discredit or dishonor upon yourself or your school, you may be removed from extra-curricular activities for all or part of the year." Id. http://www.splc.org/pdf/smith-green.pdf plastix Posted at 10:06 am on Aug. 21, 2011 yeah, that's really out of the principal's power to ban them from shit because of pictures on the internet let the parents punish 'em, if they want. school should have no say. fire storm Posted at 10:02 am on Aug. 21, 2011 http://www.splc.org/pdf/smith-green.pdf ^ Court document Distance is Darkness Posted at 10:01 am on Aug. 21, 2011 wow. Most recent 15 of 17 previous replies displayed.