Spring Break
The Daily OrangeRoberts' record lacks full First Amendment support
Abstract:
When Chancellor Nancy Cantor gave her opening remarks at the Newhouse III dedication sponsored by Z89 on Sept. 8, she commented more about the day's weather than she did about the one topic on everyone's mind. No, not the free T-shirts that Z89 ran out of before the event even began....
- Displaying 1 - 8 of 8
Steve Kovach
posted 9/19/07 @ 12:28 PM EST
I think you need to reevaluate your definition of "fact." Just because I THINK Frederick had a right to display the banner doesn't make it a FACT that he had a right to. Your comment helps prove why people misunderstand the First Amendment. We are allowed to express our opinions.
Originally posted byJohn F. Hegyi
Dear Mr Kovach,
Are you not aware of the fact that the useage of "illegal drugs" is against the law??
Young minds and hearts should be free from signs promoting drug use....
We will not even get into the issue of the spiritual issues that are raised by the promotion of useing drugs in the name of God.
I think you need to get your facts right.
J. Hegyi
Brendon Fleming
posted 9/19/07 @ 10:02 AM EST
Just a minor factual correction: the event was actually an out-of-school event (watching the Olympic torch relay) that the school merely let students attend "as an approved social event or class trip," according to the Supreme Court. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. ___, slip op. at 2 (2007). The opinion continues, "Students were allowed to leave class to observe the relay from either side of the street. Teachers and administrative officials monitored the students' actions." Id. Frederick and his friends were actually across the street from the school when they displayed the banner, perhaps making the implications for student speech even more serious because it occurred outside school.
Brendon Fleming
Newhouse & A&S '04
Brendon Fleming
Newhouse & A&S '04
Steve Kovach
posted 9/19/07 @ 12:21 PM EST
It was still considered to be a school event, which is why the student got in trouble, even though he was technically "off campus."
Originally posted byBrendon Fleming
Just a minor factual correction: the event was actually an out-of-school event (watching the Olympic torch relay) that the school merely let students attend "as an approved social event or class trip," according to the Supreme Court. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. ___, slip op. at 2 (2007). The opinion continues, "Students were allowed to leave class to observe the relay from either side of the street. Teachers and administrative officials monitored the students' actions." Id. Frederick and his friends were actually across the street from the school when they displayed the banner, perhaps making the implications for student speech even more serious because it occurred outside school.
Brendon Fleming
Newhouse & A&S '04
JohnBasdow
posted 9/19/07 @ 8:27 PM EST
The only "blinders" on here are firmly ensconced on Mr. Kovach's head.
A student punished for encouraging drug use at a school event -- why is this not punishable by a suspension from that school? Is a t-shirt reading "Mainline heroin because it's fun" also a protected free-speech opinion? Not in a school it's not. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that students' right to an uninterrupted education is more valuable than certain kinds of speech, especially those which encourage an illegal activity. So there you go. Would Mr. Kovach criticize John Roberts if he upheld a suspension of a student with a sign that said "Kill teachers 4 Jesus?" Probably, but he'd be wrong again.
Also, real journalists know that instantly responding to one's critics in a public forum is unprofessional. But berating one's critics for expressing an opinion while claiming the high ground on free speech is the height of irony.
A student punished for encouraging drug use at a school event -- why is this not punishable by a suspension from that school? Is a t-shirt reading "Mainline heroin because it's fun" also a protected free-speech opinion? Not in a school it's not. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that students' right to an uninterrupted education is more valuable than certain kinds of speech, especially those which encourage an illegal activity. So there you go. Would Mr. Kovach criticize John Roberts if he upheld a suspension of a student with a sign that said "Kill teachers 4 Jesus?" Probably, but he'd be wrong again.
Also, real journalists know that instantly responding to one's critics in a public forum is unprofessional. But berating one's critics for expressing an opinion while claiming the high ground on free speech is the height of irony.
Mary C.
posted 9/19/07 @ 11:01 PM EST
Mr. Basdow--
Is it really that ironic that Mr. Kovach has exercised his First Amendment rights by responding to his critics? One could argue that he would seem like less of a free speech enthusiast if he let the criticisms go unanswered.
Is it really that ironic that Mr. Kovach has exercised his First Amendment rights by responding to his critics? One could argue that he would seem like less of a free speech enthusiast if he let the criticisms go unanswered.
Originally posted byJohnBasdow
The only "blinders" on here are firmly ensconced on Mr. Kovach's head.
A student punished for encouraging drug use at a school event -- why is this not punishable by a suspension from that school? Is a t-shirt reading "Mainline heroin because it's fun" also a protected free-speech opinion? Not in a school it's not. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that students' right to an uninterrupted education is more valuable than certain kinds of speech, especially those which encourage an illegal activity. So there you go. Would Mr. Kovach criticize John Roberts if he upheld a suspension of a student with a sign that said "Kill teachers 4 Jesus?" Probably, but he'd be wrong again.
Also, real journalists know that instantly responding to one's critics in a public forum is unprofessional. But berating one's critics for expressing an opinion while claiming the high ground on free speech is the height of irony.
JohnBasdow
posted 9/20/07 @ 8:53 AM EST
Being a "free-speech enthusiast" is not the same as "constantly speaking," in the same way being a gun enthusiast doesn't mean constantly shooting at stuff.
Professional journalists do not respond to their critics in the comments sections of their articles. It just isn't done.
Professional journalists do not respond to their critics in the comments sections of their articles. It just isn't done.
John Smith
posted 9/20/07 @ 2:02 AM EST
People bongs are not illegal and to much was read into what they wanted jesus to smoke out of it. I suppose it was all really about there hair cut or views on government.
- Displaying 1 - 8 of 8
John F. Hegyi
posted 9/19/07 @ 7:37 AM EST
Are you not aware of the fact that the useage of "illegal drugs" is against the law??
Young minds and hearts should be free from signs promoting drug use....
We will not even get into the issue of the spiritual issues that are raised by the promotion of useing drugs in the name of God.
I think you need to get your facts right.
J. Hegyi