I thought the first amendment had to do with free political speech, not lima beans.
I am not 100% sure what dismal is trying to say, but if I am parsing it correctly he is actually correct.
The reason for the walk-out cannot matter with regard to the school's punishment.
So, IF skipping school or leaving school early (without parental permission) is punishable with a 3-day suspension, then it does not matter if the student's reason for leaving was gun violence in the school, gun violence at the local church, Trump's wall, or the color of lima beans. All four students should receive 3-day suspension without reference to their reasons for leaving.
IF, however, a student leaving school because he doesn't like the color of the lima beans receives a 1-day in-school detention (and a plate of lima beans), the school cannot then turn around and give the students protesting gun violence a 3-day suspension and expel the knucklehead supporting Trump's wall.
That is what the USSC says.
There is a primitive rule of liberty being violated and that is that kids are physically forced to be in school. You skip school you can find yourself hunted down by a truant officer. You run, you can be chased and brought down. Everything we are discussing is layered, more abstract notions of law and civil society on top of that. Lest we not forget it.
(1) Kids are forced to be in schools. Yet they own their own bodies.
Kids are sent to schools so that parents can get time away from them to work. So that kids can be in a relatively safe environment that promotes their health, well-being, and educates them to be productive members of society and/or to work for The Man. Parents generally (except when they excuse them) give the schools purview over educating their kids and providing a safe, functional environment for the kids to be part of. A consequence of this is that schools must minimize disruptions.
(2) Schools must be safe. Schools must minimize disruptions as a matter of practice.
The rights of people are not only Constitutional but also controversial with respect to their meaning in the Bill of Rights to this day and extra-Constitutional with respect to other rights--like collective rights, workers' rights, human rights that are not so expressed with a mere Constitutional argument.
(3) It is entirely possible that citizens (in this case kids) deserve more than the Constitution [or at least more than the USSC has currently ruled on].
______________________________________________________
The reality right now is that young adults are being forced to be in consistently traumatizing environments. [Teachers, too, by the way, but that is another discussion]. A school shooting remains rare, but these young adults are less safe than they were. Also, the frequency of coverage of school shootings is so great right now there is a monthly or weekly story and traumatization. Extra security measures at schools make drills, lockdowns, and knowledge of lockdowns a regularly scary event.
So there is a perception (at the very least of unsafe environment) but there's also a reality of a regularly disruptive environment due to these traumas. So, the schools themselves have become disruptive because the government has not solved the problem of all the shootings. This situation isn't actually the kids' fault as they've been thrust into it, forced into it. [see (1)]. Schools [and their government that funds/orders them] have failed their duties. [see (2)].
We cannot blame children protesting their conditions of existence (8 or so hours a day) because their condition hasn't been dealt with. We especially cannot use the excuse that their peaceful assembly for redress is disruptive when their lives are already being seriously disrupted by these constant scares.
If the kids were protesting lima beans, then that would be an added disruption to the school. If the kids were protesting how gun violence is wreaking havoc on their lives because we make them stay in these buildings, then they are trying
not to be disruptive in the long-term. They are also trying to improve their survival.
And I say that even without their parents' permission. What's at stake here is akin to whether a young adult can appeal to the courts when their parents aren't taking care of them. In this case, the government is
in loco parentis, both neglectful, and then due to conflict of interest, trying to apply consequences. Personally, I think if kids walk out of school and they are broadly supported to do it, while the Supreme Court is forced to rule in favor of right to protest unsafe/unhealthy environment by young adults, it's a good thing.
