Thursday, February 22, 2018

Case Law

At my high school in 1984, I took a class called "Legal Studies." It was a simple introduction to U.S. and state legal systems, and I think it was pretty effective.

(Shout out to Mrs. Taylor, who had to deal with 17 year-old Chaon and his sleeveless shirts. And his attitude. And the 'Eat McShit and Die' button. Which he tried to wear on the state prison field trip.)

We learned about The Constitution, misdemeanors and felonies, circuit courts, anti-trust law, Gideon Vs. Wainwright, and... The Bill of Rights. Especially the First Amendment. We spent a lot of time on that. And so now, 34 years later, I remember this about the First Amendment as the courts have applied it to students: there were black armbands, and there has to be a "substantial disruption of the educational process" (to justify the school's abridgment of speech). I don't remember the corresponding case name (though I'll look it up after I hit the "Publish" button)

And the black armbands and the substantial disruption are peculating in my brain today because of this headline:

Well I'll tell ya' Mr. Rhodes. At some point you will have to demonstrate to the courts that the protests you are punishing were creating a substantial disruption of the educational process. Students, you should note this point as well.

1 comment:

Karl Smith said...

Tinker v. Des Moines