“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Yeah someone is making crap up. “Hate” speech is still protected under the 1st amendment. Now she is a student which has more restrictions but the term all lives matter is a nice gesture since she’s seven.
While there are established limits to free speech, the Schenck v US rulling was narrow in scope and doesn’t apply to a little girl drawling a picture in school. If you’re going to cite case law at least find applicable cases and not just pick the 1st one in your search without reading the ruling.
There are many more applicable rulings, mostly to do with how much a school can limit a student’s speech, even those do not cover everything, which is what the Supreme Court is for. Why do liberals constantly forget this? It’s almost like they don’t know constitutional law.
deleted by creator
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
deleted by creator
Yeah someone is making crap up. “Hate” speech is still protected under the 1st amendment. Now she is a student which has more restrictions but the term all lives matter is a nice gesture since she’s seven.
The parents will win if they go to court.
deleted by creator
Even your linked articlevsays it is. You just cant make specific and clear threats that you have the ability to follow through on.
Correct.
What the kid said won’t pass the sniff test in court. It’s overly restrictive on political ideology.
deleted by creator
This wasnt an obscenity
deleted by creator
While there are established limits to free speech, the Schenck v US rulling was narrow in scope and doesn’t apply to a little girl drawling a picture in school. If you’re going to cite case law at least find applicable cases and not just pick the 1st one in your search without reading the ruling.
There are many more applicable rulings, mostly to do with how much a school can limit a student’s speech, even those do not cover everything, which is what the Supreme Court is for. Why do liberals constantly forget this? It’s almost like they don’t know constitutional law.