Free Speech In America? Hah, That's Funny (We're Much Too Prissy)
We're now the land of the prissy, or hadn't you heard?
In the latest bit of evidence of this, check out what happened when two kids posted a photo on a Facebook of themselves dressed up -- and holding Airsoft rifles (which only shoot plastic pellets). Cute, aren't they?
Predictably -- these days -- their school administrator got his panties triple-bunched. Jon Street writes at The Blaze that they were suspended:
Tito Velez and his girlfriend Jamie Pereira did not bring the guns to campus and said they never intended to do so. But according to Bristol Plymouth Regional Technical School, the photo's caption, "Homecoming 2014," ties it a school activity."These students know what is provocative. To tie that to one of our school events kind of puts it over the top which brings us into it," Superintendent Richard Gross said.
Police would have cancelled the homecoming dance if they had known about the Facebook post on Friday, Gross added.
Oh how ridiculous.
I shot BB guns when I was a kid.
Notice how I'm not living out my life in jail?
What makes this disturbing is the school is government... private people and orgs can respond how they like, but the govt is supposed to protect free speech.
NicoleK at October 31, 2014 12:14 AM
The picture was taken off school property. And not posted on a school computer or network.
It's a joke (much like the fact that most of these 'administrators' are capable or intelligent). It might be bad taste, but that's is not and should not be the schools' concern.
But think of the children!!!
Oh, and praise jeebus the police would have 'cancelled the event' !!
DrCos at October 31, 2014 4:08 AM
I'd be curious to actually meet the people who think this is okay. There aren't any on this blog, but I'd love to meet someone who says, "That's absolutely right! Mm-hm. That's exactly what the administration should do. And the police absolutely should shut down the homecoming dance!"
I just want to see what their rationale would be. I suspect they'd go on and on about school shootings. But where is the bridge between toy airsoft guns and shooting up schools?
Patrick at October 31, 2014 6:09 AM
I never knew there was a "kind of ... over the top" exception to the 1st Amendment.
dee nile at October 31, 2014 6:20 AM
I think I'm very glad to not have children. My first thought is that the administrator's head would adorn a pike quite well.
*sigh* but that's illegal, and quite rude. My second thought would be to sue the batsnot out of the district, and the administrator personally. That might get the point across.
I never knew there was a "kind of ... over the top" exception to the 1st Amendment.
Well, we've gone from the Constitution being the law of the land to it being more of a guide. So there's that.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 31, 2014 6:24 AM
"I shot BB guns when I was a kid. Notice how I'm not living out my life in jail? "
If I were you, I wouldn't say that too loudly. I doubt that the Constitutional protection against ex post facto laws is any more secure than any of the rest of it these days.
Cousin Dave at October 31, 2014 7:13 AM
First, the photo is no more in "bad taste" than if they had been posing with any other hobby item,such as a football, tennis racket or baseball bat. For that matter I would consider a baseball bat a deadlier weapon than an airsoft rifle.
Even though they are not holding what I consider to be true firearms, they should be commended for following two basic safety rules with a firearm, specifically the muzzles appear to be pointed in a safe direction and their fingers are off the triggers. It is difficult to tell from the photo if they have followed the third rule of keeping them unloaded.
I would suggest the young couple are showing better judgment than the "judgment" of the school administrator.
How very sad that they should be treated this way.
Bill O Rights at October 31, 2014 8:07 AM
Would it have been more okay if they had a dead deer in the foreground?
Bob in Texas at October 31, 2014 12:16 PM
It is difficult to tell from the photo if they have followed the third rule of keeping them unloaded.
All guns are always loaded.
Steve Daniels at October 31, 2014 12:37 PM
The point is to destroy the 2nd amendment by brainwashing kids that guns are 'bad' and making everyone afraid to express any pro-gun sentiment anywhere. This ensures the next generation will grow up in a society where anything to do with guns is stigmatized as hysterically as women's nipples now are.
Lobster at October 31, 2014 2:11 PM
The point is to destroy the 2nd amendment by brainwashing kids that guns are 'bad' and making everyone afraid to express any pro-gun sentiment anywhere. This ensures the next generation will grow up in a society where anything to do with guns is stigmatized as hysterically as women's nipples now are.
Posted by: Lobster at October 31, 2014 2:11 PM
Yep. You nailed that one.
Isab at October 31, 2014 3:02 PM
"I shot BB guns when I was a kid."
Yeah? Well, you could have shot your EYE out with that thing!
Jay R at October 31, 2014 3:12 PM
Just another indication of how thoroughly we've been infected by fear.
Radwaste at October 31, 2014 9:46 PM
No, sorry Jay; neither of those are a "Red Ryder Carbine Action 200-shot Range Model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time."
And, if you do happen to shoot your eye out; blame it on an icicle.
Charles at October 31, 2014 10:31 PM
And this is in Massachusetts, a liberal state. "Liberal", don't make me laugh.
crella at November 1, 2014 1:19 AM
The point is to destroy the 2nd amendment by brainwashing kids that guns are 'bad' and making everyone afraid to express any pro-gun sentiment anywhere. This ensures the next generation will grow up in a society where anything to do with guns is stigmatized as hysterically as women's nipples now are.
Or non symptomatic citizens returning from Ebola hot zones
lujlp at November 1, 2014 1:55 AM
1) Thank you Steve Daniels.
2) Schools can censor speech in their status in loco parentis.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District
Scary that a school administrator isn't confident he could find those firearms in a pat-down. Her dress doesn't even have pockets.
Michelle at November 1, 2014 4:16 PM
1) Thank you Steve Daniels.
2) Schools can censor speech in their status in loco parentis.
Posted by: Michelle at November 1, 2014 4:16 PM
Yes, they can, in certain situations, but in this case, Tinker probably doesn't apply, as none of the *speech* symbolic or otherwise took place at the school.
The school is trying to bootstrap it as some kind of a veiled threat. I think they are going to lose on this one.
Isab at November 1, 2014 6:24 PM
A photograph of a gun is a symbol of a gun. Whether labeling the photograph "homecoming" and posting the photograph on the internet well in advance of the event constitutes protected speech is a matter for courts to suss out. .
From a First Amendment standpoint, Tinker applies because it sets the standard for when public school personnel have the right to restrict students' speech, and arguably (depends on the interpretation of the court with jurisdiction) sets the bar higher than the facts in this case.
Here's the standard from Tinker:
"In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would “materially and substantially interfere” with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district’s actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference."
In applying (and interpreting) the Tinker standard, some courts have upheld school administrator's punishments against children for inflammatory things kids have written on the internet. If lampooning teachers and administrators can be considered to "materially and substantially interfere with the operation of the school," then it's possible a court could consider this picture, given the label "Homecoming," to interfere as well.
Check out the explanation provided by the First Amendment Center:
"Cyberspeech: Many students have turned to the Internet to express a variety of viewpoints, including criticism of school officials. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of protection on par with the print medium.
Students generally have broad freedom to express themselves on the Internet on their own time, using their own off-campus computers. However, some school officials have suspended students for their off-campus Internet postings that lampooned or criticized school officials or contained vulgar commentary.
Some courts have sided with the students, saying that school officials may not censor student speech unless they can reasonably forecast that the speech will cause a substantial disruption of the school environment or invade the rights of others. Other courts and commentators have said that school officials simply lack the authority to regulate students’ off-campus behavior — on or off the Internet."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/k-12-public-school-student-expression-overview
Students would make the First Amendment argument, while school officials would want to find a way beyond the First Amendment/ asserting a need to respond to a veiled threat, as you mentioned
Michelle at November 1, 2014 8:36 PM
So, my first thought seeing that was, "I never considered the shooting range a post-dance event, but why not?"
Here's what used to be considered off-campus school-affiliated problem behavior (go down to "hazing" section). Note that while it mentions school colors, it leaves out that it was a school group(cheerleaders I think).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenbrook_North_High_School
Shannon at November 3, 2014 7:03 PM
Leave a comment