{"id":120,"date":"2010-05-08T01:27:37","date_gmt":"2010-05-08T08:27:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/?p=120"},"modified":"2010-06-30T01:33:26","modified_gmt":"2010-06-30T08:33:26","slug":"symbolic-speech-and-the-first-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/?p=120","title":{"rendered":"Symbolic Speech and the First Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>There has been a lot of moral and political uproar in my network over the Live Oak High School incident on Wednesday. While I chose to engage a few comment threads on the subject, I made an effort to argue only on the constitutionality of the school official&#8217;s decision to censor a few student&#8217;s symbolic speech.<\/p>\n<p>I came up with some legal references to help clarify the motivations of the school authority. In U.S. courts, <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/In_loco_parentis\"><em>in loco parentis<\/em><\/a> is a doctrine derived from English common law which in part deals with how schools function in the place of a student&#8217;s legal parents. To put it another way, the school authority takes on some of the traditional parental role, to act in the student&#8217;s interest while preserving their civil liberties.<\/p>\n<p>But <em>in loco parentis<\/em> allows officials to play quite the tyrant towards students, particularly when order and discipline are substantially threatened. The Supreme Court has upheld invasive searches of lockers and personal property in <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/New_Jersey_v._T.L.O.\">New Jersey v. T.L.O<\/a> and the suppression of some vocal, printed, and symbolic speech while acting &#8220;in the place of a parent&#8221; (<a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser\">Bethel v. Fraser<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hazelwood_School_District_v._Kuhlmeier\"> Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier<\/a>, and <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District\">Tinker v. Des Moines<\/a> respectively).<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note &#8211; the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the constitutional rights of students, while in school or at school-hosted functions, are not automatically coexistent with the rights acknowledged for adults and juveniles in other settings. If that seems severe and draconian to you, I think you&#8217;re right.<\/p>\n<p>However, a child would see parenthood at times to be nothing short of utter tyranny. When school authority tries to censure, it certainly impinges on the student&#8217;s preferences, but it is not always a constitutional violation. Under specific circumstances described in Tinker v. Des Moines, even silent symbolic speech is not protected by the First Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>If you heard news that a good many students were sufficiently upset by the patriotic symbols to ditch school and directly petition City Hall, then you&#8217;d see the official&#8217;s situational assessment of &#8220;incendiary speech&#8221; was evidently accurate. Patriotism is emphatically <em>not<\/em> under attack at Live Oak, but the official likely sought to temporarily suppress the speech of a few students to halt a major disturbance, either present or imminent, in an environment where education trumps political discourse.<\/p>\n<p>Americans seem to cherish speech protections more than anything else enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and I&#8217;ve recently heard a lot of ardent opinions about censorship. I&#8217;m not interested in attacking anyone&#8217;s nationalistic sentiment; Personal values are the culmination of the individual life experience, and I simply can&#8217;t argue validity one way or the other. I offer only one criticism, but I need to first give a brief explanation:<\/p>\n<p>My decision to research and focus my comments on constitutionality was largely guided by the many declarations of national pride and patriotism posted to one particular thread before I even opened the text window to respond. I wanted to bring a fresh perspective because there had been no mention of the Supreme Court rulings I cited earlier. In fact, there had been little else but opinions based on value judgements and the hearsay of the initial media coverage.<\/p>\n<p>My criticism is for the people who call for lawsuits and administrative dismissal and seem to be entirely ignorant of the extensive jurisprudence over protected speech. I&#8217;m beginning to suspect that many people have the erroneous understanding that they can pull a copy of the Constitution out of their desk drawer and glean all there is to know about First Amendment rights.<\/p>\n<p>I say to them directly: <em>Patriotism<\/em> constitutes more than passion.<\/p>\n<p>I am aware that some of you have endured extraordinary sacrifice for the sake of our country&#8217;s security and way of life. Your selfless contribution is not in question, but I am not alone in the belief that the enfranchised are obligated to have at least a rudimentary command of how judicial doctrine relates to our civil liberties.<\/p>\n<p>In the present era, it is easier than ever to access the resources necessary to inform yourself on the half-century of judicial review governing this particular incident at Live Oak. You can start with the hyperlinks I posted earlier in this note. Also, Stanley Fish recently wrote a <a href=\"http:\/\/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com\/2010\/04\/26\/the-first-amendment-and-kittens\/\">good primer<\/a> on the history of First Amendment theory and how it pertains to the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/04\/21\/us\/21scotus.html?scp=2&amp;sq=supreme%20court&amp;st=cse\">controversial ruling<\/a> on <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_States_v._Stevens\">United States v. Stevens<\/a> last month.<\/p>\n<p>I look forward to engaging you all again as appreciably more empowered citizens.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There has been a lot of moral and political uproar in my network over the Live Oak High School incident on Wednesday. While I chose to engage a few comment threads on the subject, I made an effort to argue only on the constitutionality of the school official&#8217;s decision to censor a few student&#8217;s symbolic [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rant"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=120"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":124,"href":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120\/revisions\/124"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jighexadecimal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}