(09-07-2017 02:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 01:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 12:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 04:27 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  What federal ruling is that?

Did you ever get an answer to this?

I think it was in Iowa. The kids names were Turner or Tanner or something like that.

The court on the issue:

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

The court's 7–2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

So do you want to retract that "she was following a federal ruling"?

You conveniently forgot the last part of the ruling.

But Fortas added an important caveat: conduct that "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." In other words, not all student conduct is First Amendment protected, only that which does not disturb the classroom environment or invade the rights of others. This standard, also known as the "material and substantial disruption test," has basically remained the standard in which the school's right to prescribe free speech is examined at the secondary rank as well as at public colleges and universities.

http://education.findlaw.com/student-rig...hools.html

and according to the school district and referring to this ruling, the student's shirt was not disruptive to the classroom environment, case closed.