Is it specifically against the rules of your company? I’m sure it is in writing somewhere. In this case, many of the “rules” apparently weren’t written down anywhere.
Sounds like Calvinball to me.
OK, if I had out literature at my workplace during lunch time saying that my company is polluting the environment and that our CEO is sleeping with his secretary - can they legimately fire me?
county, the difference between passing literature out at your company and passing out literature at school is that most companies have a written policy regarding solicitation and pamphleteering. Most companies don’t allow it on company premises. So, yes, they can fire you.
School property is a different kettle of fish. Kids must attend school until they graduate or turn 16. Work, OTOH, is voluntary. You don’t have to work for that company. You’re free to find other employment.
That said, this does sound like a game of Calvinball. I hope the kid can get away from these people when he graduates and goes to college.
Robin
I’m okay with dress codes, as long as they’re equally enforced. Which they weren’t, in my HS.
Once, I got out of having my trench coat taken away because I counted how many girls baring their stomachs I walked past on the way to the Principal’s Office. 10. After the Get Into Class bell had already rung.
I missed nearly 30 minutes of my German class so I could be taken to my Principal’s Office for wearing my coat inside (maybe if it was warmer than 40 in the building [I kid you not], I wouldn’t wear my coat inside). I have no idea how those girls wore those clothes in that temperature.
The question I am posing is does an organization have the right to determine what goes on at the organization, on organization property AND does that right extend to elementary and high schools (colleges pretty much encourage freedom of speech).
Perhaps I should be in General Questions, but this discussion seems to be going in the direction of the kid’s absolute right to free speech and I am not sure it exists in this situation.
How does it not exist?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that he was told not to do it and he did it anyway. THEN the administration would be justified in punishing him for disobedience.
The problem is that I don’t see where he was told not to do it in advance. He passed out copies of that newspaper article and was punished after the fact. He got four days of in-school suspension for doing that.
As has been pointed out to you before, students have freedom of speech while in school and have since the 1960s. It seems to me that the boy is being punished for criticizing the administration, not for any actions he’s doing.
Let me pose this hypothetical. Let’s say the boy was handing out Sierra Club or some other school-neutral material. Should the principal punish the boy just as harshly as he did for distributing copies of an article critical to the administration?
And you may be interested in this quote from the Tinker case:
Does that answer your question?
Robin
No. A student would probably not be allowed to hand out KKK literature at school despite such literature being protected under freedom of speech. The question then becomes where is the line drawn? how much criticism and what type is acceptable?
county, Tinker says that the event has to create an environment that is disruptive to the process of learning. Not “might create” or “has the potential to create” but HAS to create.
From the same source as cited above.
I couldn’t find anything at the national ACLU site about this specific case, but in a FAQ about students’ right to free expression, the ACLU answered thus:
It still seems to me that Justin was punished for daring to criticize the administration, not for the pamphleteering itself.
Robin
Well, I hesitate to comment on a case that I have not read in it’s entirety, but it seems to me that:
“the event has to create an environment that is disruptive to the process of learning.”
is a fairly broad criteria, and I expect the court wanted to leave some discretion to the school administration. In any event, the case certainly makes clear that freedom of speech for minors in school is not unfettered.
No one ever said that freedom of expression is to be unfettered. It’s still illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater (unless there is an actual fire).
That said, however, the point is, it’s the behavior that is to be punished, not the message. Students can protest the war, the administration, or whatever else they feel like. As Tinker makes clear, it’s not up to the administration to pick and choose what messages it will allow.
If I put up a soapbox in front of my university library with the idea that I’m going to speak out against the war in Iraq, all I can be punished for is the disruption to the school if I manage to gather a large crowd. The university, being a public entity, cannot censor the message I’m spreading. Marketplace of ideas, and all.
Robin
Gotta disagree, based on your quote from the Tinker case:
"Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749. "
That quote is not saying that the message cannot substantially interfere. Maybe there has been subsequent caselaw or the full text of the case covers it but with the information presented; the school administration is free to assert that the child did in fact interfere with the operation of the school in such a manner as to require discipline.
Additionally, I don’t believe that our school system is the appropriate forum for “any” message to be circulated in an unfettered manner (And I believe that Tinker would tend to support that belief).
I’m not going to sit here and argue with you on this. I’ve explained my position as clearly as I can and am not prepared to spend any more time on it.
Robin
Well, ok, - am I suppose to thank you for your time?