I support the extension of the civil privileges of “marriage” to all adult unions (including polygamous and consensually incestuous ones). I support returning or giving the word “marriage” per se back to the church(es); you can be married in your church, under its private rules, and/or have your union(s) recognized by the state, under their public ones.

I’m not sure where the stern-father hierarchy enters into this.

If what you claim were true, the line of judicial cases would be irrelevant. To be more exact: if the only voice that mattered were the community as set through its local school board, there would be no need for judicial review at all: if the school board approved the principal’s action, it would be de facto application of community standards.

The reality is that this is federal law; federal law tends to be fairly wide-reaching. As a result, “community” as used in that context reflects a much LARGER group than the incidental community that most laypeople mean when they say “my community” or “our community.”

How large? I don’t know–it’s a complex area of law. But your definition of community, and your arguments supporting your position, are incorrect.

For what it’s worth, you have a limited truth in your statements: EVENTUALLY, the community standards are reflected in the decisions, since we all (technically) have a say in the president, and the congress, who appoints the Supremes, who actually make the decisions. But that’s pretty far removed, and I don’t think that’s what your argument is based on.

What’s immaterial is the judgment of a bunch of folks on the Internet somewhere, mine included, other than in the exercise we each employ as voters. Sailorman is right that an authority figure who exceeds her bounds is acting without validity, but it’s generally not left to the general public to make that determination. ”

Insofar as we are not members of the immediate community, it’s true; the school board does not answer to us. However, they do answer to the local community.

In a more broad sense, our debate is significant because, to the extent this decision was predicated on an assumption that it would be considered acceptable by the American public, the hue and cry protesting it is evidence that some people are not okay with such censorship even of high school students, and this may affect other similar decisions when they are made later.

Well, I still appreciate it. :)

Correct.

Although I appreciate all kind words and thoughts, it’s not so much tenacity as bull-headedness. Which does come in handy in battles-of-wills with the kids.

I’m not sure what could be material aside from the general public’s opinion.

Perhaps he meant that the general public elects the people who elect the principal? Or that elected officials elect the principal. They’re all supposed to come from the community anyway, but then, we all know how often that can get skewed.

Otherwise, we’d have to take a vote of the masses whenever someone disagreed with an official’s decision instead of running it through our check and balance system, and I imagine that would make it much more difficult and time consuming to process a decision on wether Principal was right or wrong by community standards. I suppose, by that conclusion, that technically the general public’s opinion doesn’t really matter, because we’re sacrificing our direct voice for a single one (or a set of single ones) to get a faster system.

What’s immaterial is the judgment of a bunch of folks on the Internet somewhere, mine included, other than in the exercise we each employ as voters. Sailorman is right that an authority figure who exceeds her bounds is acting without validity, but it’s generally not left to the general public to make that determination.

OK, fair enough that our opinion is pretty immaterial :) But insofar as the principal was supposedly upholding “community standards,” I’m not sure what could be material aside from the general public’s opinion.

If the judgment of other people regarding the call is immaterial, then any student’s speech can be censored for any reason.

The judgment of other people is quite material. The principal is part of a chain of authority. He’s subject to a superintendent, or a school board, or something along those lines. Those people in turn are subject to authority higher than they.

What’s immaterial is the judgment of a bunch of folks on the Internet somewhere, mine included, other than in the exercise we each employ as voters. Sailorman is right that an authority figure who exceeds her bounds is acting without validity, but it’s generally not left to the general public to make that determination.

I don’t think that’s the same as avoiding the question all together.

But my purple bunnies are feeling awfully neglected :(

you are wrong.

the principal has wide authority to censor student speech. this is correct.

HOWEVER, that authority has limits (drawn from a fairly lengthy set of Supreme and appellate court cases–fascinating stuff. I happened to do moot court on this and read way, way, more than i meant to on this particular topic.)

If the principal oversteps her authority (the key word being “oversteps”) then she is acting without authority and her actions are invalid. They become just like any other invalid action–whether it’s ordering kids to hop on one foot for an hour, or whether it’s ordering the school to fall to their knees and pray to Jesus.

It is similar to rules placed on police officers. Cops can make arrests. But if they overstep their authority to make an arrest (by ignoring facts, being motivated by forbidden factors, etc etc etc) then they have made a “false arrest.”

In both cases (cops and principals) the courts have the ability to make a retrospective judgment of whether the rule was applied correctly. they tend to be fairly lenient on behalf of the rule maker. but that does not mean the rule maker has carte blanche to do what they want with all the authority of the school.

Sorry, I’ve said this before on another thread here: Not everything in the world is as you believe /want it to be. No matter how strongly you hold said belief. Look up items in dispute for yourself.

It does seem like a lot of threads end with you saying, “What about this point which you’ve consistently failed to address throughout the entire thread?” and Robert saying, “That point? Uh… nevermind, I no longer wish to argue.”

I like to interpret this as you winning.