Student Protesting and Consequences

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think that the idea isn't merely about First Amendment but the First Amendment as it applies to the current location of the walk out. So, it's like saying "This place isn't safe. I am going to use my free speech and free peaceful, assembly to walk out of this unsafe place and demand policy change to make it safer."

So, to repoman, if a million students believe they need a wall to make their schools safe, then they might organize a similar protest. That would make the analogy better. Of course, you might also show some evidence of kids dying in school due to not having a wall to help your case, but it isn't clear that is necessary.

I am not really seeing a response to this.

So there appears to be a meme here of content neutrality or "if they can protest a particular x in X, then they can protest any x in X."

My comment was meant to indicate that X might be a smaller subset of the world of politics, in this case such things that the students think directly affects their survival in school.

So, if the school beats them every day, then they might walk out in protest. Or if the school does not provide lunch, recess, and toilet paper then they might walk out in protest. This sort of set of things is much less than the set X. It's a subset lesser than X, an X' if you will. So maybe we're talking about X' c X. And we're talking if they can protest particular x in X', then maybe they can protest any x in X', which is a different question than the meme from detractors.

To give some more concrete examples... Suppose there was a church in town that beat the students. Ought the students walk out of school to protest? That would be an x in X, but not an x in X'.

This is actually a non-political functional difference that remains content-neutral.

So far:
*crickets*

I have two comments about your posts...

First, from a purely civil rights perspective, the purpose of the protest must remain immaterial. So yes, if 50 students wanted to skip a half-day of school to join a local protest about Trump's stupid wall, they have exactly the same rights and protections as these students protesting against gun violence inside their schools.

From an optices point of view, it certainly makes a big difference, but not from a legal one (imo)

Let me try to give an analogy to what I was trying to write. People can categorize "causes for redress" or "free speech cases" with political impartiality. Each set can still be subdivided with impartiality and unbiased, objective methodologies. Here's an analogy: this forum. You have a rule that posts cannot discuss moderation. So this means you can divide posts into at least two types: (1) regular posts and (2) posts that discuss concrete moderation efforts. The distinction is impartial and objective, i.e. fair, not biased toward any particular political persuasion.

Perhaps I am wrong on some specifics of exactly/precisely what the term "content neutral" is recognized to mean in all the case law. I am not sure if it matters. I think what matters is impartiality.

Second, I am going to go back to my point about parental permission - if the 50 kids leaving early to protest for Trump's wall have written permission from their parents, I don't believe that any school anywhere in the U.S. has the right or authority to punish the student with a suspension.

Should young adults have political rights beyond those approved by their parents? To what extent does this affect their rights in school? Moreover, if the school itself is at the heart of the political issue--i.e. such as perceived significantly unsafe conditions--should young adults have the legal right to protest it? Are there other analogies such as worker strikes or prison protests that fall in the same category? Also, green beans. Everything is exactly the same as green beans.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I support the government not oppressing people.

So this means you are okay with students walking out of school and teacher strikes. Freedom of movement and freedom of association.

 

[Derec]

(1) The students have the right to control their own bodies and minds.

Depends on the age. They may be subject to mandatory attendance laws.

(2) School building itself is a disruption every week due to these shootings. The students if successful will make less disruptions long-term, not more.

Unlike some other student protests, I actually support their goals, I just ...

(3) A protest during school is most effective, not after school, though the two are not mutually effective.

... disagree about the effectiveness of this approach.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

^ This is such a weird statement considering your posts in the NRA to America thread where Angry Floof talks about holding rightwingers accountable for their own decisions and not coddling them, and you talk about the importance of reaching out to them with compassion and understanding and not advocating for negative consequences.

You should probably address that point in that thread. And perhaps you can point out where you think I said there should be no negative consequences. I did not write that and don't know own where you are reading it in.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why should skipping school by a young adult for a reasonable reason be a black mark at all, if they are willing to make up the work?

Indeed. And why must there be any reasonable reason? And who decides what is reasonable. Let them skip. And if they areate with their assignment or fail the exam at the end of term, that's on them. Let them make their own decisions and accept their own responsibility. If they can skip and still pull off an A good for them, and if they skip and wind up failing, that's their own damn fault.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Depends on the age. They may be subject to mandatory attendance laws.

I have to reject the law on the principle that a person believing their life to be in danger or regularly traumatized needs redress by policy change or the courts. Likewise, if a young adult was the victim of school bullying once per week and the school could not solve the problem, the young adult ought not be held to the law but ask for redress.

Unlike some other student protests, I actually support their goals, I just ...

(3) A protest during school is most effective, not after school, though the two are not mutually effective.

... disagree about the effectiveness of this approach.

Give them a better way to make the wheel squeak while the driver drives.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why should skipping school by a young adult for a reasonable reason be a black mark at all, if they are willing to make up the work?

Indeed. And why must there be any reasonable reason? And who decides what is reasonable. Let them skip. And if they areate with their assignment or fail the exam at the end of term, that's on them. Let them make their own decisions and accept their own responsibility. If they can skip and still pull off an A good for them, and if they skip and wind up failing, that's their own damn fault.

So long as the teacher who grades the make up test isn't vindictive and thereby fails them, I agree.

 

[Arctish]

^ This is such a weird statement considering your posts in the NRA to America thread where Angry Floof talks about holding rightwingers accountable for their own decisions and not coddling them, and you talk about the importance of reaching out to them with compassion and understanding and not advocating for negative consequences.

You should probably address that point in that thread. And perhaps you can point out where you think I said there should be no negative consequences. I did not write that and don't know own where you are reading it in.

I put it here because here's where the weirdness struck me. You say "this coddling culture needs to end if we want to have free thinking citizens with a sense of personal responsibility" and yet when Floof spoke against coddling right wingers and protecting them from accountability, you disagreed with that approach.

 

[Frikki]

Do you want me to repeat my position again? It doesn't seem to be having much effect.

Regardless, my position is the law of the land.

Yes, I know. What I'd like to know now is at what point do human lives become more valuable to you than rules?

Since the shooter was a racist alt righter then Dismal is against protesting this shooting.

 

[RavenSky]

At what point DO human lives matter to you more than worshiping rules?

At what point are "human lives" dependent on protesting during school hours?

When they are being shot and killed during school hours

 

[RavenSky]

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... (1) Kids are forced to be in schools. Yet they own their own bodies...

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... Schools [and their government that funds/orders them] have failed their duties...

Not ignoring nor disagreeing everything else you said, but these points particularly caught my eye.

This is, it seems to me, a completely different argument than the 1st Amendment question, but I like it. To boil it down:

Government requires (under threat of penalty) that children must attend school, but government is failing in their responsibility to provide safe and humane conditions in those schools.

Ironically, this is not far from the US Supreme Court decision in Farmer v. Brennan which says that "prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to provide humane conditions of confinement".

Combining this with the NRA's asinine "suggestions" for "hardening" schools, I wonder if nationwide students could bring a class action lawsuit against the federal government for improved gun control. "Hardening" the schools is, itself, and inhumane solution. It treats innocent children like they are criminals/prisoners. But reducing access to guns by those most likely to go on mass shooting sprees at schools is within the federal government's power and authority, and would help make schools (and everywhere else) safer.

 

[RavenSky]

Of course it's the drama kids. Charisma, openness, and teamwork. I always loved the drama kids.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/c...wakening-of-the-stoneman-douglas-theatre-kids

For former high-school-theatre kids, it’s a point of pride to see one of our own elevated to civic hero. “All these kids are drama kids, and I’m a dramatic kid, so it really meshes well,”

Sater and Sheik began writing “Spring Awakening” in response to the Columbine massacre. “I had heard that Cameron Kasky was now playing Melchior,” Sater wrote me yesterday. “He has been so eloquent and impassioned, alive with the force of truth—like Melchior himself.

Good article

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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... (1) Kids are forced to be in schools. Yet they own their own bodies...

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... Schools [and their government that funds/orders them] have failed their duties...

Not ignoring nor disagreeing everything else you said, but these points particularly caught my eye.

This is, it seems to me, a completely different argument than the 1st Amendment question, but I like it. To boil it down:

Government requires (under threat of penalty) that children must attend school, but government is failing in their responsibility to provide safe and humane conditions in those schools.

Ironically, this is not far from the US Supreme Court decision in Farmer v. Brennan which says that "prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to provide humane conditions of confinement".

Combining this with the NRA's asinine "suggestions" for "hardening" schools, I wonder if nationwide students could bring a class action lawsuit against the federal government for improved gun control. "Hardening" the schools is, itself, and inhumane solution. It treats innocent children like they are criminals/prisoners. But reducing access to guns by those most likely to go on mass shooting sprees at schools is within the federal government's power and authority, and would help make schools (and everywhere else) safer.

I think the first amendment question of young adults is raised to a higher caliber when their protest is about their condition at the school. Peaceful assembly to redress wrongs by the govt must be one of the foundational reasons for the 1st amendment.

ETA: yes, a class action suit would be interesting.

In any case, my wife works at a school. This week at work I overheard someone say "another school shooting." I didn't hear the whole discussion just a few words. Someone else said "xxx miles away." Piecing these things together I was frantically Googling to check if it was my wife's school. I wonder if people in the thread can empathize. My meager anxiety is paltry in comparison to the frequency that school employees hear about these things. They worry constantly. It's genuinely disruptive at this point.

I know you get it. I just wonder if everyone else in the thread does. The closest thing I can think of is 9/11 depression (and anxiety). Except it's every time a school shooting happens.

ETA: the disruption applies equally to the young adults. They hear news from others. It just takes one kid to see a news story on their phone for it to spread. But then there's also the lockdowns. A rumor about someone can cause a whole lockdown and trauma. I think there's also some unspoken fear of a multiple location attack. If one school in the state is on lockdown, everyone in the same state may go to heightened alert. And one day, it actually will become a multiple school event...new kind of terror.

 

[fast]

edited out

 

[RavenSky]

ETA: the disruption applies equally to the young adults. They hear news from others. It just takes one kid to see a news story on their phone for it to spread. But then there's also the lockdowns. A rumor about someone can cause a whole lockdown and trauma. I think there's also some unspoken fear of a multiple location attack. If one school in the state is on lockdown, everyone in the same state may go to heightened alert. And one day, it actually will become a multiple school event...new kind of terror.

The Stoneman Douglas situation almost was a multiple school event. The gunman was apparently heading to the nearby middle school next (and they were locked down as a precaution)

My daughter's university is locked down on a regular basis anytime there is a shooting or robbery in the immediate vicinity around the school.

I agree, the disruption and trauma is not limited to the specific schools that have had a mass shooting.

 

[dismal]

Well, fortunately we have a Constitution to protect us from the fascist impulses of totalitarian assholes. Like you.

Well that is a convenient retort in lieu of answering the question. At what point DO human lives matter to you more than worshiping rules?

This thread has nothing to do with that. It's about school policies with respect to speech.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, fortunately we have a Constitution to protect us from the fascist impulses of totalitarian assholes. Like you.

Well that is a convenient retort in lieu of answering the question. At what point DO human lives matter to you more than worshiping rules?

This thread has nothing to do with that. It's about school policies with respect to speech.

Bullshit. It's about children not getting shot at school. Something one of you Inspector Javerts here compared to complaining about cafeteria food. Is there anything at all that could give your rigid authority worship pause?

 

[dismal]

This thread has nothing to do with that. It's about school policies with respect to speech.

Bullshit. It's about children not getting shot at school. Something one of you Inspector Javerts here compared to complaining about cafeteria food. Is there anything at all that could give your rigid authority worship pause?

No, this thread is about school policies with respect to speech. Or at least every post I have made here is. You can start another thread if you want about whether murdering students is good. I probably won't participate. For the record, I think it's bad. Your pathetic act of trying to twist my position about speech into support for murder is tiresome.

It's entirely possible to be against both murder and the government engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Indeed our laws manage to handle being against both.

Now, see if you can actually address what I actually post instead of setting up some silly unrelated strawman to rage against.

 

[LordKiran]

Well, fortunately we have a Constitution to protect us from the fascist impulses of totalitarian assholes. Like you.

Well that is a convenient retort in lieu of answering the question. At what point DO human lives matter to you more than worshiping rules?

This thread has nothing to do with that. It's about school policies with respect to speech.

More accurately, you can't be expected to answer that question because you've never actually thought about it before. Either that or you don't think your answer will be perceived palatably.

 

[LordKiran]

This thread has nothing to do with that. It's about school policies with respect to speech.

Bullshit. It's about children not getting shot at school. Something one of you Inspector Javerts here compared to complaining about cafeteria food. Is there anything at all that could give your rigid authority worship pause?

Sure there is. It'll be when the men in shiny black boots pay him a visit for his lack of "patriotism."