I’m currently looking for a civil rights attorney. My daughter was disciplined & kicked off the dance team for a social media post that was posted outside of school. The post was not directed at anyone & contained nothing inappropriate.
I get judicial review gives the ability for courts and judges to INTERPRET the laws, but what in the law itself suggets that children's rights can be limited, or is this an INJECTION of judicial opinion as a form of judicial activism and therefore atepping outside the bounds of judicial review?
Where and when do a student's right to represent and defend themselves come into play? Especially in non emergency situations, shouldn't there be an opportunity for the kid and or parent to receive notice and have the ability to defend their actions or dispel suspicions?
Also, if speech limits are in effect to prevent hypothetical disruptions and unwated subjective reactions, like hurt feelings, doesn't this make such restrictions illegal and unconstitutional without RAS of a clear and specific, imminent or likely harm, such as disruption? Musn't the policy be narrowly tailored in its scope to address real credible issues without the excessive limiting of rights? Wouldn't the schools ability to educate staff and students about theirs and others rights and protections under the constitution be a better way than imposing blanket restrictions with the intention of stopping hypothetical hurt feelinga and disruptios, and therefore the school must take action to reduce right restrictions by implementing a policy that benefits the students with a constitution education and the retention of people's rights?
@@garrickditlefsen1653 I really wish the court had taken Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified for exactly this reason. Even if they had just cause the day of (which I really don't think they did) without any remedy from that point going forward to ensure students rights it ends up just being a Hypothetical Hecklers Veto. The same logic can occasionally apply on the town square--I have a right to display an Israeli or Palestinian flag as I walk across the town square, but if there's a large group expressing the intent to hurt me for doing so officers could (arguably) detain and remove me for my own safety if they believe theu cant assure my safety at that time. But if the argument is simply that on a particular day every year I won't be able to engage in that expressive act and they had no intent to take any action to ensure that I can in the future...we simply wouldn't tolerate that, and even a disinterested party would wonder why the governments approach to public safety was to instruct the law abiding to avoid offending those who might see fit to assault them. The Gadsden patch case was even more ridiculous--it's hard to see how a disruption can be caused by an emblem the other students don't even recognize.
The responsibilities of the government like safety and order were written amd appear before the bill of rights. The founding fathers had a ton of debate and discussions about these iasuse and they chose to write what they did, the explicitly forbids the making of laws to limit speech, and placed it after the abilities and responsibilities of the government, they knew what they were doing. The government can take action to fulfill thekr responsibilities up to but not past our rights. This was another example of judicial injection or judicial activism of courts giving themselves authority that was never present, explicitly or implicitly, in the constitution
This original issue of the 1a's explicit prohibition of government restrictions and it's being written and placed after the government's listing of powers and responsibilities , solidifying the amendments protections and standing beyond that of government. This makes all cases and laws used to in case law and precedent moot and immediately invalid. Government has never had the authority, gave it to themselves unconstitutionally and continues to violate the constitution with right restrictions
Great stuff thank you.
I’m currently looking for a civil rights attorney. My daughter was disciplined & kicked off the dance team for a social media post that was posted outside of school. The post was not directed at anyone & contained nothing inappropriate.
I get judicial review gives the ability for courts and judges to INTERPRET the laws, but what in the law itself suggets that children's rights can be limited, or is this an INJECTION of judicial opinion as a form of judicial activism and therefore atepping outside the bounds of judicial review?
Where and when do a student's right to represent and defend themselves come into play? Especially in non emergency situations, shouldn't there be an opportunity for the kid and or parent to receive notice and have the ability to defend their actions or dispel suspicions?
Also, if speech limits are in effect to prevent hypothetical disruptions and unwated subjective reactions, like hurt feelings, doesn't this make such restrictions illegal and unconstitutional without RAS of a clear and specific, imminent or likely harm, such as disruption? Musn't the policy be narrowly tailored in its scope to address real credible issues without the excessive limiting of rights? Wouldn't the schools ability to educate staff and students about theirs and others rights and protections under the constitution be a better way than imposing blanket restrictions with the intention of stopping hypothetical hurt feelinga and disruptios, and therefore the school must take action to reduce right restrictions by implementing a policy that benefits the students with a constitution education and the retention of people's rights?
@@garrickditlefsen1653 I really wish the court had taken Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified for exactly this reason. Even if they had just cause the day of (which I really don't think they did) without any remedy from that point going forward to ensure students rights it ends up just being a Hypothetical Hecklers Veto. The same logic can occasionally apply on the town square--I have a right to display an Israeli or Palestinian flag as I walk across the town square, but if there's a large group expressing the intent to hurt me for doing so officers could (arguably) detain and remove me for my own safety if they believe theu cant assure my safety at that time. But if the argument is simply that on a particular day every year I won't be able to engage in that expressive act and they had no intent to take any action to ensure that I can in the future...we simply wouldn't tolerate that, and even a disinterested party would wonder why the governments approach to public safety was to instruct the law abiding to avoid offending those who might see fit to assault them.
The Gadsden patch case was even more ridiculous--it's hard to see how a disruption can be caused by an emblem the other students don't even recognize.
The responsibilities of the government like safety and order were written amd appear before the bill of rights. The founding fathers had a ton of debate and discussions about these iasuse and they chose to write what they did, the explicitly forbids the making of laws to limit speech, and placed it after the abilities and responsibilities of the government, they knew what they were doing. The government can take action to fulfill thekr responsibilities up to but not past our rights. This was another example of judicial injection or judicial activism of courts giving themselves authority that was never present, explicitly or implicitly, in the constitution
This original issue of the 1a's explicit prohibition of government restrictions and it's being written and placed after the government's listing of powers and responsibilities , solidifying the amendments protections and standing beyond that of government. This makes all cases and laws used to in case law and precedent moot and immediately invalid. Government has never had the authority, gave it to themselves unconstitutionally and continues to violate the constitution with right restrictions
But YOU censor comments under the videos you post! Typical!
There's no legal validity to Bethel
Freedom of speech, like banning books ?
Okay so are you saying that a public library violates the first amendment when it doesn't have Mein Kampf on the shelves?
@@thomas-k3dYes! How silly of a question!