A high school principal in Tennessee told students they couldn’t have “Rebel flags” or symbols of flags on their clothes. Three students, who felt that the policy unconstitutionally interfered with their ability to express their southern heritage, sued. In August, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a grant of summary judgment in favor of the school.
The court cited testimony that racial tensions — including racist and threatening graffiti and physical altercations between African-American and white students — comprised the context for the clothing ban. The court distinguished the case from Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm School, the landmark First Amendment case that struck down a school ban on armbands to protest the Vietnam War.
Today, the Sixth Circuit denied the students’ petition for rehearing en banc.
In dissent, Judge Danny Boggs wrote:
It should be emphasized that no disruption of any sort was directly associated with the display of symbols, in that the persons displaying the symbols are not alleged to have been involved in any physical incidents, nor to have instigated even any verbal ones. . . Consider also that one of the plaintiffs to this case, who was involved in a verbal confrontation with another student, testified that after he was called a “dumb redneck,” he did not respond because “it’s not worth my time beating somebody’s butt because they’re just acting stupid.” . . . Though a confrontation short of a violent altercation could amount to a disruption within the meaning of Tinker, not every disagreement or incident of name-calling will support the suppression of speech.
Judge rejects student's blog claim, allows T-shirt issue to proceed
A former Connecticut high school student who was punished for a blog entry lost her First Amendment claim in federal court over her online speech but won the ability to pursue another, less-publicized part of her case involving censorship of student T-shirts at her school.
Avery Doninger’s case has garnered national attention in part because it presents a fascinating student-speech issue that has not been resolved by the legal system — what legal standard should a court use to evaluate a student-speech claim that arises from online speech created off-campus. In Doninger’s case, on Jan. 15 U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz once again sided with school officials on the online issue, though he allowed the T-shirt claim to proceed to trial in his court….
Kravitz acknowledged “that there is evidence in the record — particularly when viewed in the light most favorable to [Doninger] — that suggests that Ms. Niehoff may have punished Ms. Doninger because the blog entry was offensive and uncivil and not because of any potential disruption at school.” Kravitiz suggested that the dispute over the true motivation for punishing Doninger created a fact question that ordinarily would prevent the granting of summary judgment.
However, the judge still ruled for school officials because of the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from liability even for unconstitutional actions if they have not violated clearly established constitutional or statutory law….
T-shirt claim_Doninger did gain a partial victory when the district court rejected school officials’ claim regarding the censored “Team Avery” T-shirts.
School officials had argued that they were simply enforcing a “general ban on electioneering materials” rather than censoring a particular political viewpoint — the support of Avery Doninger. But Kravitz wrote: “It is undisputed that there was no written policy that would have prohibited the t-shirts and there is no evidence that Ms. Niehoff was confiscating any other electioneering materials at the doors to the school auditorium.”
The judge also noted that because school officials had barred Avery from running for office, it was wrong to characterize the T-shirts as electioneering materials in the first place. Kravitz further rejected the qualified-immunity defense on this claim, because it was clearly established that students had a right to engage in nondisruptive, nonoffensive political speech on school grounds.
Kravitz wrote: “At trial, Ms. Doninger will have to prove that her speech was chilled and also will have to prove the amount of damages, if any, that she suffered as a result of any First Amdendment violation that is found.”
Complete report:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21133
Coach Charged With Criminal Negligence in Football Death
A Kentucky high school football coach was criminally charged in the death of Max Gilpin, a 15 year-old offensive lineman at Pleasure Ridge Park high school who died last summer after collapsing at practice. The charge is reckless homicide.
Not many facts have emerged. But it seems that the coach, David Jason Stinson, was directing practice on August 20, during 94 degree heat, when Gilpin collapsed and was brought to the hospital with a body temperature of 107 degrees. No autopsy was performed, reports the AP, but it appeared Gilpin died from complications from heat stroke, according to the coroner’s office. According to a report on MSNBC, coaches had refused to let players take water breaks.
More info:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/23/after-players-death-high-school-football-coach-charged-with-homicide/
You have read this article with the title Jan #6. You can bookmark this page URL http://universosportinguista.blogspot.com/2009/01/jan-6.html. Thanks!
No comment for "Jan #6"
Post a Comment