A pair of free-speech cases on Monday had us discussing and disagreeing but without the conventional separation usually associated with left-right American politics.
In one, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's campaign reform law, as justices voted 5-4 to not overturn an appellate ruling from a few years ago that loosened restrictions on the content of ads in the last month of a campaign.
The far-right and the ACLU applauded the court's decision. Yikes.
Conservatives loved the ruling because it loosened restrictions on corporate ads, while the ACLU supported it in defense of our freedom, no matter the cost, man. And, I say that if we want to reform political campaigns in this country, we have to make it way easier for candidates to get on ballots.
All this discussion about an ad not being fair or concern about billionaire candidates hijacking our elections can be trumped by offering Americans a wider variety from which to pick in the buffet line. I read somewhere that it might cost Michael Bloomberg $250M or some such just to get on the ballot in all 50 states, if it's even possible.
That's crazy. Sure, there has to be some control as to who gets on a ballot, and that's why a signature-based system should do the trick. How about a requirement that a candidate get at least 2.5M valid signatures before being allowed onto a ballot?
Any candidate who can convince 2.5M people to sign anything, to me, is at least worthy of ballot consideration. Heck, if the process becomes such that hundreds of candidates hit the mark, why not have an initial election weeding the list down to the Final 12 -- yeah, like American Idol!
Do that in November of the year before the actual election, and it makes all this pre-election year campaigning worthwhile. It gives guys like Tom Tancredo and Dennis Kucinich a fighting change. If nothing else, it keeps their message and effort viable for six to eight extra months, and that hurts nobody.
In the other big free-speech case, the Supreme Court sided 5-3 with a school authority in Alaska who suspended a student for displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner during a parade at which the Olympic flame passed.
The student, who is now 23, said his was a free-speech experiment. The principal said she didn't like the connection made between a bong and Jesus. Oddly enough, again, religious conservatives (not sure I understand why) and the ACLU came to the student's defense.
Odd mates, indeed, but it happens more than you'd think.
I slightly disagree with both parties. First and foremost, I think this student was out of line. However, unlike the principal, I don't believe his offense was in linking marijuana to Jesus. The student's offense was in representing his school and his community poorly.
In the real world, what we do in the community, at lunch, on the weekend, within reason, affects our professional lives. I could not get drunk, kill three people in a crash and expect to keep my job. Duh. Likewise, I couldn't hold up a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign when a big executive comes to the office.
The location of the offense is relevant. Students, kids, etc. are the domain of both their parents and the community, specifically teachers and school officials when near or on school grounds. His behavior was deemed to be reflective of the community, the school and its leadership.
In the real world. his butt would have been fired.
So, I think it was a good opportunity for the young man to learn a lesson without cost. More than anything else, educators have a responsibility to prepare children for adulthood -- real adulthood, where we don't use algebra or diagram sentences, but where our judgment and decision-making abilities determine our path.
The court's reasoning wasn't in line with mine, and I would have liked them to reaffirm their position that students, basically, don't have rights. As long as they're under the guidance of reasonably sane and responsible adults, they should have very few legal rights, outside of those protecting their health and safety, until they're 18.
At that point, if we adults haven't taught them the basics of sound judgment, then God help us all. Usually, that's the case.
Labels: politics
So, if the school decided that part of its educational mission was to teach civics and support of national leaders, he could be punished for raising a sign that said "Stop the war."
Because that was, indeed, the school's argument.
For that, matter, I'm not sure that one would lose a job for something pretty innocuous. Do people lose their jobs based on their bumper stickers in the parking lot? Not too often. This was more akin to that than to killing people. What if the exec visiting was a Republican donor and you had a "Blue and Proud" bumper sticker that he noticed? That may harm your career subtly, but again, not the same as formal punishment.
The school basically decided that because the content of his speech was not what they agreed with it was punishable. That's not conduct we should accept from what amounts to a government agency.
And really, the job/school analogy isn't that great to begin with. Public schools don't get to choose the best candidates who they think match what they need. They have a wider service mission and requirement.
(And, again, that's the school itself. If individuals want to tell him his an idiot and scorn him for his banner... then that's where he should learn the lesson).
~Adam
Actually, in the workplace, employers have the right to prohibit political speech on the job. Bumper stickers are confined to the parking lot; the boy's poster was part of an event.
It matters not to me what the school's argument was; I understand it. I disagree with their argument; however, the result was right on. The days where public schools were charged with offering kids a classical education are over. They should focus on preparing kids for adulthood, and then if the student wants to pursue a classic, liberal education, he/she can.
Nevertheless, this student was completely out of line per the standards of his community, which was the school ... and that community, per their standard, has every right to punish him as they see fit, within reason.
I have no problem with it, and I don't see it as a slippery slope.
I have to agree with the school on this one. On what was deemed a school event, the school's rules are law. I don't think a school is out of line for prohibiting offensive speech or denying the advocation of illegal acts. Children and prison inmates are not afforded all the same rights as normal adults. I am okay with that.