Appeals Court Rules Against Burlington Student -- Trials, New York

Finally some sanity in court decisions.

this comment has been censored.

Our rights being chipped away, by piecemeal. Keep sitting back and accepting it.

I question the maturity of grown adults who are mortally offended when a child refers to them collectively as "douchebags."

I'm serious. THIS is what they dug their heels in over? Please! When I was in school kids said a lot worse than that, about a lot of the teachers and administrators. No one was ever disciplined for it when this sort of thing happened outside of school (and it did).

I'm not sure it's a good idea for courts to reinforce that kind of immaturity and thin-skinned reaction in people who run schools. What kind of lesson are they teaching other kids, by going berserk over being called "douchebags"?

This young lady, Avery Doninger, abused the system. She showed a total lack of breeding, upbringing and culture in doing what she did. She should be punished, so Avery, quit crying, the very system you tried to abuse has ruled, learn from it and move on.

Typical today's teenager. If she had been taught some respect at home, this wouldn't have happened. In my day a trip to the woodshed would have solved the problem.

What a team mother and daughter. Honey it is ok if you call people at the school douchebags, of course that is if they don't do what you want them to do. And if they cause you aproblem I will get a lawyer and we will take them to court, so don't you worry say whatever you want about anyone.

I have to chuckle at Mr. Schoenhorn's comment that the underlying record was not substantial. As the 2nd Circuit decision states, live testimony from approximately 10 witnesses - including both mother and daughter - was heard at the preliminary injunction hearing...plus, of course, affidavits and other evidence. Not so "limited," Mr. Schoenhorn.

Avery has had her 15 minutes, and I'm sure parlayed this "fight for her rights" into some very nice essays for her college applications...but let it go.

What if: what if the blog was, I'm gong to get my dad's gun and go back to that school and shoot everyone in site and track him down.

Would they say FREE SPEECH was violated or would they take action on the potential dangerous outcome.

what would you like the officials to do to protect the others.

It's about time she woke up and realized that you can't just call your friend an AH and not expect her to not talk with you anymore!!

Perhaps it is well to remember that free speech is protected; one can say pretty much what one wants. However, if that speech causes disruption or harm, one must be willing to live with the consequences. It's called 'responsibility' and, so far as I can make out, is a pretty rare commodity these days...

ooops "sight"

if we are to be so critical of students standing up for their precieved rights, shouldn't we get as upset with the bullshit being leveled at us by the presidential primary candidates.

in the truman and eisenhower eras, speech and behavior as shown by our senate and congressional leaders would have been dealt with as treason.

get over this brat and her mother-deal with some real problems

DJH wrote:

I question the maturity of grown adults who are mortally offended when a child refers to them collectively as "douchebags."
I'm serious. THIS is what they dug their heels in over? Please! When I was in school kids said a lot worse than that, about a lot of the teachers and administrators. No one was ever disciplined for it when this sort of thing happened outside of school (and it did).
I'm not sure it's a good idea for courts to reinforce that kind of immaturity and thin-skinned reaction in people who run schools. What kind of lesson are they teaching other kids, by going berserk over being called "douchebags"?

DJH
I couldn't have said it better myself.

willy lump lump wrote:

Typical today's teenager. If she had been taught some respect at home, this wouldn't have happened. In my day a trip to the woodshed would have solved the problem.

How old are you? A trip to the wood shed how cliche, my parents used to tie us up in the basement and pour hot wax over us. How stupid did that sound?

According to the precedent relied on, describing school administrators with a term that's essentially the equivalent of "jerks" and calling on fellow students to complain to the administration is now in the same class as a web posting that says "shoot this teacher." If the Second Circuit can't find a reasonable distinction between those two types of speech, then what they've pretty much said is that you don't earn First Amendment rights til you graduate from high school. Until then ANYTHING a student says WHERE EVER he or she says it is potentially disruptive and can be sanctioned.

Not a good day for freedom of thought.

downeaster wrote:

if we are to be so critical of students standing up for their precieved rights, shouldn't we get as upset with the bullshit being leveled at us by the presidential primary candidates.
in the truman and eisenhower eras, speech and behavior as shown by our senate and congressional leaders would have been dealt with as treason.
get over this brat and her mother-deal with some real problems

Isn't that the era that brought us Senator Mcarthy calling everyone traitors and communists?

She needs to learn a lesson that she is accountable for her actions. Shame on her mother for hiding behind freedom of expression. Yes we are free to express our views, but there are also consequences involved when we slander others.

She was not expelled, suspended or refused graduation. She was simply prevented from serving as a class officer. It seems like a measured response. If the young lady wanted to serve as a class officer, then she should be held to a higher standard in her civil discourse regarding school matters.

Jon L. Schoenhorn, Doninger's attorney, said the ruling could "emasculate the First Amendment rights of students."
"If this [blog post] was potentially disruptive, then they might as well empty out half of the schools of not just Connecticut but probably in this country," he said.

Where did this guy get his law degree? This is the most ridiculous example of legal hyperbole I have ever seen. By the way, does this guy have any clue about the subjunctive mood. He should have said "If this were potentially disruptive," when expressing what is possible or imagined. Additionally, I have to support some of the other writers. If I did something like this my father would have punished me, and I would have been extending a mea culpa to the entire administration. Today, the typical mommy can't see anything beyond her "little darling," so instead of punishing the self-centered brat, she hires a lawyer to defend her. This is typical of what is wrong with our schools: overindulgent parents. I'll be willing to bet that this mother writes her daughter's papers. Oh no, did I really say that. Mea culpa!

Avery's punishment was that she was not allowed to be a class officer. She was not denied any rights, not denied access to education by way of suspension or expulsion. The administration decided that a student who posts public vulgar criticisms when she doesn't get her way is not the type of student who should have a leadership position where she would be expected to work in cooperation with administrators and express her opinions appropriately. That hardly constitutes a situation where freedom of thought or freedom of speech has been attacked. How about some realistic perspective here!