Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa_Complex
I'm saying that such requests must be reasonable and, whatever the motivation behind it, wearing a shirt sporting the US flag isn't what I would consider to be provocation. More than just those students needed to be talked to.
|
Wearing the t-shirt by itself is not a provocation, but placed in the context of the situation it can be seen as a provocation.
The altercation that occurred the prior year backs that up.
The evidence provided to the AP (testimony from other students) backs that up.
The actions and testimony of the plaintiff can be seen as backing that up.
Quote:
|
Plaintiffs did not dispute that their attire put them at risk of violence. Plaintiff D.M. stated that he was "willing to take on that responsibility" in order to continue wearing his shirt.
|
The issue is whether the students constitutional rights were violated.
Legal precedent establishes that students rights are limited and that officials have some legal ability to restrict those rights to prevent disruption.
Students do not enjoy the same constitutional rights as adults on school property.
The evidence backed up the assertion a disruption was likely.
Legal precedent gives the school administration the ability to take take action.
Was there a better way to handle the situation?
Perhaps
From a legal standpoint, the situation was handled appropriately and I agree with the ruling unless someone else has the actual court documents that I can review.
I'm only working with what has been posted and what information I've seen from google searches.
I have not found court records nor have I the case number.
If anyone has the case number (pardon me if I overlooked it in the thread) or official docs I sure appreciate the link.