Green Habit wrote:As an aside, I am not a fan at all of initializing party names just because they're minors, granted that if they, like Brandi Levy did, go on the record with their full names elsewhere to discuss their plights. They did use Menachem Zivotofsky's name in the Jerusalem passport case, I wish they did the same here.
Mahoney Area School District v. B.L., a minor, by and through her father, Levy, et al.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Green Habit wrote:As an aside, I am not a fan at all of initializing party names just because they're minors, granted that if they, like Brandi Levy did, go on the record with their full names elsewhere to discuss their plights. They did use Menachem Zivotofsky's name in the Jerusalem passport case, I wish they did the same here.
Mahoney Area School District v. B.L., a minor, by and through her father, Levy, et al.
Reading over Thomas's dissent in Mahanoy, it's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Certainly better than the whoppers he wrote in Morse v. Frederick and Schwarzenegger v EMA.
4/5 wrote:I'm reading Levy now. Schools still can regulate some off campus speech:
These include serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers.
And unfurling "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banners, under their precedent. I don't have the time right now, but I'm going to have to figure out how they tried to square this with Morse v. Frederick--if at all, since that was a really bad ruling anyway.
What I quoted before was Breyer's description of the descriptions of potential school regulation suggested in briefs, not what the Court is holding.
Given the many different kinds of off-campus speech, the different potential school-related and circumstance-specific justifications, and the differing extent to which those justifications may call for First Amendment leeway, we can, as a general matter, say little more than this: Taken together, these three features of much off-campus speech mean that the leeway the First Amendment grants to schools in light of their special characteristics is diminished. We leave for future cases to decide where, when, and how these features mean the speaker’s off-campus location will make the critical difference. This case can, however, provide one example.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
4/5 wrote:I'm reading Levy now. Schools still can regulate some off campus speech:
These include serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers.
And unfurling "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banners, under their precedent. I don't have the time right now, but I'm going to have to figure out how they tried to square this with Morse v. Frederick--if at all, since that was a really bad ruling anyway.
I'm not done but it seemed like Breyer merely listed it as one of three exceptions to Tinker that has been carved out, along with Bethel and Kuhlmeier.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
4/5 wrote:I'm reading Levy now. Schools still can regulate some off campus speech:
These include serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers.
And unfurling "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banners, under their precedent. I don't have the time right now, but I'm going to have to figure out how they tried to square this with Morse v. Frederick--if at all, since that was a really bad ruling anyway.
Ctrl+F for all the Morse references; seems like they emphasize that was a school sanctioned event and therefore in loco parentis could be invoked in that case but not this one.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
4/5 wrote:I'm not done but it seemed like Breyer merely listed it as one of three exceptions to Tinker that has been carved out, along with Bethel and Kuhlmeier.
Yeah, I saw that section. It's factually correct as far as their existing precedent goes, but as a manner of establishing what's off-campus speech it's quite contradictory unless you just put up a lazy "sex and drugs are bad for kids!" argument, which is what they did in both Morse and Bethel.
4/5 wrote:I'm not done but it seemed like Breyer merely listed it as one of three exceptions to Tinker that has been carved out, along with Bethel and Kuhlmeier.
Yeah, I saw that section. It's factually correct as far as their existing precedent goes, but as a manner of establishing what's off-campus speech it's quite contradictory unless you just put up a lazy "sex and drugs are bad for kids!" argument, which is what they did in both Morse and Bethel.
Seems in this one they merely reiterated that both of those examples of speech would have been protected outside of school supervision.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
4/5 wrote:Ctrl+F for all the Morse references; seems like they emphasize that was a school sanctioned event and therefore in loco parentis could be invoked in that case but not this one.
The only "sanctioning" of it, though, was just giving kids the day off. What Frederick did was far less connected to actual school activity than what Levy did.
4/5 wrote:Ctrl+F for all the Morse references; seems like they emphasize that was a school sanctioned event and therefore in loco parentis could be invoked in that case but not this one.
The only "sanctioning" of it, though, was just giving kids the day off. What Frederick did was far less connected to actual school activity than what Levy did.
This is based on memory, but I thought it was during the school day and they let the students go outside (across the street?) to watch the Olympic torch go by and then they unfurl the banner. So I thought they were still under school supervision even though it wasn't on campus, it was essentially viewed as a field trip.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
4/5 wrote:Ctrl+F for all the Morse references; seems like they emphasize that was a school sanctioned event and therefore in loco parentis could be invoked in that case but not this one.
The only "sanctioning" of it, though, was just giving kids the day off. What Frederick did was far less connected to actual school activity than what Levy did.
This is based on memory, but I thought it was during the school day and they let the students go outside (across the street?) to watch the Olympic torch go by and then they unfurl the banner. So I thought they were still under school supervision even though it wasn't on campus, it was essentially viewed as a field trip.
That's ultimately what SCOTUS held, but the 9th Circuit held otherwise. I still firmly believe that some justices (looking at you, Scalia), twisted that understanding just because they didn't like certain recreational drug use, and while I'll have to wait to digest this later to confirm, this case could provide a pretty decent contradiction here.
Also in the cert denials, right at the top of the list, was this wacky case from my state, where a petitioner wanted to overturn Employment Division v. Smithon these grounds:
Ricks filed an application for individual contractor registration with the Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licenses (IBOL). The application required Ricks to provide various pieces of information, including his social security number. Ricks did not provide his social security number on his application because of his religious belief that social security numbers are "a form of the mark, and in substance (essence) the number of the 2-horned beast written of in the Holy Bible."
Thomas doubling down on his Gonzales v. Raich dissent today:
Clarence Thomas wrote:A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government’s piecemeal approach.
