The 3rd. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a finding that Justin Layshock's First Amendment rights were violated, "It would be an unseemly and dangerous preedent to allow the state in the guise of school authorities to reach into a child's home and control his/her actions" to the extent it can exert control in school.
"It makes pedagogic sense for the First Amendment to allow school officials some say over the tenor of speech in school. But by unleashing that power to anywhere a student is, school authorities would essentially get to control the speech of the general population under 18. That is too much discretion for schools and not enough freedom for young people." Source: Robyn Blumner rblummer@sptimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment