?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Ganked from gessatrude

As evidenced by Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade. (She was also asked what newspapers or magazines she regularly reads. She couldn't or wouldn't name one.)

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.

Tinker vs. Des Moines

ETA - [Tinker vs. Des Moines involved a student's right to free speech in schools via a message on a t-shirt. Though the court upheld that a student could be disciplined for causing a disruption, he could not be for just wearing the shirt, even if others took offense and caused a disruption because of it. Unless he himself stood up, shouted, whatever ~ he was not the one causing the disruption regardless of how inflammatory his t-shirt message was to others. <---- quick and dirty nutshell of the decision.]

[And ETA 2 - the actual ruling came from passive wearing of black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War w/o disturbance by the arm-band wearing students. I learned of the ruling when a "t-shirt debate" about logo/word/phrase shirts in schools became a ridiculously long thread at a forum years ago.]

W00t! I could be the Republican VP pick! Oh. Wait .....

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
xterminal
Oct. 2nd, 2008 01:06 pm (UTC)
Except that you didn't post info-- just the name.

(Did Brown v. Board of Education make it to the Supreme Court? That's always the first one that comes to mind for me.)
pjvj
Oct. 2nd, 2008 01:16 pm (UTC)
Aaahhhh ... the woman I yanked it from didn't have a description as part of the meme.

She listed Brown vs. the Board of Education, too.

Tinker vs. Des Moines involved a student's right to free speech in schools via a message on t-shirt. Though the court upheld that a student could be disciplined for causing a disruption, he could not be for just wearing the shirt, even if others took offense and caused a disruption because of it. Unless he himself stood up, shouted, whatever ~ he was not the one causing the disruption regardless of how inflammatory his t-shirt message was to others. <---- quick and dirty nutshell of the decision.
xterminal
Oct. 2nd, 2008 01:18 pm (UTC)
Though the court upheld that a student could be disciplined for causing a disruption, he could not be for just wearing the shirt, even if others took offense and caused a disruption because of it.

This obviously (and quite unfortunately) happened after my own high-school days...
pjvj
Oct. 2nd, 2008 01:30 pm (UTC)
Oh, it is way worse than that. The ruling was in 1969, but many schools ignored it counting on no-one bringing suit or knowing of the ruling. And they were right. :-/

Hell, I only learned of it a few years ago.
=============

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

". . . In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views."

— Justice Fortas, speaking for the majority

Full text of ruling here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=393&invol=503

AND my memory fails - they were armbands, not t-shirts. It must have at some point been expanded to include t-shirts, or fought and extrapolated to t-shirts because that is how I know of the ruling. There is the possibility I am full of shit, too. :P~ It all falls under freedom of expression guaranteed to *all* people, kids included.
chiska
Oct. 2nd, 2008 03:18 pm (UTC)
Alaska v. Arctic Maid

regulates taxation, etc. of basically catcher/processor ships (or "floating cold storages) in Alaska.

I put it in my LJ, too. :)
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )