Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Education Privacy United States News

Strip-Search Case Tests Limits of 4th Amendment 1240

Posted by kdawson
from the stand-and-deliver dept.
langelgjm writes "The US Supreme Court has agreed to review a case involving the strip-searching of a 13 year-old girl who was accused of possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen on school grounds, in violation of the school's zero-tolerance drug policy. The case has gained national attention because of the defining role it will play in determining which, if any, parts of the Constitution apply on school grounds. In Morse v. Frederick, the Supreme Court has already upheld the right of school administrators to restrict students' free speech at school-sponsored events that take place off school property. The school described the strip-search as 'not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction.' The Supreme Court's last decision about searches on school property dealt only with searching a student's purse. Incidentally, the girl was found not to be in possession of any drugs, illegal or otherwise."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Strip-Search Case Tests Limits of 4th Amendment

Comments Filter:
  • I'm really hoping to see a large bitch-slap style ruling against the school district. This whole thing is just shameful.
    • by jcr (53032) <jcrNO@SPAMmac.com> on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:24PM (#27320319) Journal

      The perps should be on the sex offenders' registry for the rest of their lives.

      -jcr

      • by Max Littlemore (1001285) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:08PM (#27321197)

        Yep. I would say it's only fair for schools to be allowed to strip search students if parents are allowed to skin teachers/administrators with rusty vegetable peelers.

        Anything less is cause for revolution.

        Actually, come to think of it, isn't this exactly what that part of your constitution about carrying guns is for?

        • by WhiplashII (542766) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @07:26PM (#27322547) Homepage Journal

          If the girl's parents had done this to her, the child would be forcibly removed from the home.

      • by oftenwrongsoong (1496777) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:15PM (#27321327)
        Agreed. This is not an adult suspected of illegal drug trafficking while crossing an international border. This is a 13 year old girl. THIRTEEN! And she was not suspected of trafficking in illegal drugs. Ibuprofen is a common medication in widespread use and is perfectly legal. The fact that something like this takes place in the United States of America is proof that this country is corrupt.
        • by ZosX (517789) <zosxavius@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @07:27PM (#27322559) Homepage

          Every day we start looking more and more like soviet russia. Just look at the slippery slope that the British have fallen down. They are getting ever so close to the bottom. Funny that they still value the things that americans should abhor. Royalty, excessive taxation, empire building, disarming the population, Orwellian surveillance....where do I stop? Some smart guys fought for independence from such tyranny and generations later their offspring have fallen back into the same well worn path as their european ancestors with gleeful abandon. We embrace everything we revolted against and why? Because we have let greed and the corporations assume control. Disarm the corporation as a legal entity. Make people responsible for their companies. Take their overwhelmingly loud voices out of the room and let the people speak for once. I'd love to taste an ounce of the freedoms we used to enjoy as privileged citizens of this fine country. Maybe our day will finally come. I look forward to that glorious day.

      • by Pinckney (1098477) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:19PM (#27321421)

        The perps should be on the sex offenders' registry for the rest of their lives.

        Lots of people are assholes. Many sex offenders are assholes. Being an asshole should not be sufficient to cause us to throw away our principles to crucify them. In this case, by all means, charge them with any applicable crimes. However, I, and many others, object to sex offender registries because they make it difficult or impossible for individuals to successfully re-enter society, by barring individuals from living in many areas, and for effectively punishing them beyond the time they serve in prison. So no, sex offender registries should not exist, and nobody should be put on them.

        • by nasor (690345) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:59PM (#27322167)
          While I tend to agree with you, if you're going to have people end up on registries for things that don't actually harm anyone in a meaningful way like streaking or having sex in semi-public places, surely people like these school officials who cause genuine harm to a minor by sexually humiliating them should be on the list.
          • by mathmathrevolution (813581) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @12:09AM (#27325191)

            I agree that our society is prone to hysteria about sex-offenders. However, if you think that's a basis for letting these administrators off the hook then you are entirely missing the point:

            Situation 1: A school administrator strip-searches a 13 year old honor student upon the flimsiest pretext. The student is forced to show her vagina and spread her legs.

            Outcome: The defiant school district defends its administrators all the way to the Supreme Court. School officials and prosecutors solemnly testify about the incalculable harm created by drugs and the necessity of a zero-tolerance policy.

            Situation 2: A 13 year old girl uses her cell phone to take a scandalous photo of herself and sends it to her boyfriend. The school discovers this after confiscating the boy's cellphone when it rings in class.

            Outcome: Both kids are criminally prosecuted for trafficking child pornography. School officials and prosecutors solemnly testify about the incalculable harm created by 'sexting' and the necessity of a zero-tolerance policy.

            Obviously the real issue is not the sanctity of our children's bodies. The real issue is that some of our school administrators are using every possible pretext to expand and consolidate their power over students. By crassly exploiting the "think of the children" sentiment, schools institute ever more invasive and authoritarian policies. We are turning our schools into a police state. Instead of teaching our kids how to be responsible citizens, we are priming them for a totalitarian society.

      • by lethargic8 (1179029) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:22PM (#27321491)

        If I had found out that some school official strip searched my kid, regardless of age or sex; the officials involved would never have made it to trial.

        For those that didn't RTFA:
        After she had stripped to her underwear, "they asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side," she said. "They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear."

        School is supposed to be a place where kids are safe. When the solution is worse then the crime you have a system out of control.

      • by merreborn (853723) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:44PM (#27321917) Journal

        The perps should be on the sex offenders' registry for the rest of their lives.

        No they shouldn't. Barred from working with children? Probably. But that's about the extent of it.

        This incident shows incredibly poor judgment, and suggests that the morons involved got way too caught up in their "no drugs in school" policy, but it does not, in any way, indicate a likelihood of the perpetrators seeking to abuse children for sexual pleasure.

        Cavalierly throwing people on the registry is how we got to where we are now, where peeing in the bushes gets you marked with the scarlet letter for life, and Georgia's even started throwing non-offenders on the list [ajc.com].

        The registry is questionable enough in the first place; treating it lightly like this just makes it worse.

        • by kencurry (471519) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @07:09PM (#27322317)

          The perps should be on the sex offenders' registry for the rest of their lives.

          No they shouldn't. Barred from working with children? Probably. But that's about the extent of it.

          ...but it does not, in any way, indicate a likelihood of the perpetrators seeking to abuse children for sexual pleasure...

          you don't know why the admin was strip searching the student.

          Giving the benefit of doubt to an extremely poor act of judgment makes me glad you have nothing to do with my kids.

        • by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @08:04PM (#27323049) Homepage

          This incident shows incredibly poor judgment, and suggests that the morons involved got way too caught up in their "no drugs in school" policy, but it does not, in any way, indicate a likelihood of the perpetrators seeking to abuse children for sexual pleasure.

          Oh I don't know about that. I'm not saying rush to prosecute them for sexual abuse... But at the point at which they have the girl alone, stripped to her skivvies, and then demand that she spread her legs and pull her underwear away from her body so that they could look down her panties, I begin to suspect that one or both of those bitches were getting off on it.

          I have a hard time believing even the stupidest of school officials -- and not for lack of good examples -- would really think that after failing to find pills anywhere else that they'd find them stashed down the front of her panties. I find it 100% impossible that even the stupidest of school official in the 2000s wouldn't have blazing red warning alarms going off in their head at the thought of forcing a minor to expose her genitals. That they were doing what in any other context outside a doctor's office would have resulted in them being arrested for sex crimes. They can't possibly have been unaware of that. Nor could they have been unaware that they were humiliating the poor girl, even though the nurse says she never appeared embarrassed. Yeah fucking right! I don't buy it for a second. Even if they aren't kiddie-pervs, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, and these bitches sure lorded their power over the girl. Maybe making her expose herself was just their way of punishing her for thwarting them by not having drugs on her. I don't know, I just know that no normal person would think making the girl expose herself was a reasonable and entirely non-sexual execution of their duties.

          Nor do I believe this was a unique case, because it was not an exceptional case. Someone accused someone else of having drugs, and the person didn't have an drugs in their locker, bags, or pockets, and there was no other reason to believe they had drugs but the accusation. Yeah bet that's never happened before.

          Look, I don't know, I'm just saying this thing reeks to hell of something a lot worse than just poor judgement.

    • by Sylver Dragon (445237) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:27PM (#27320363) Journal
      Amen.

      I'm glad that the Ninth Circuit had the insight to say that this was wrong, I only hope that the Supreme Court is picking this up so that they can more firmly put this in the "Not Allowed" category. Schools need to understand that these are not their children and that for anything more intrusive than a locker search the parents should be involved.
    • by ZenDragon (1205104) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:27PM (#27320367)
      Agreed. Though technically(and legally) student is in the care of the school while at school, it is important to understand the distiction between this and something like a prison. Just because the student was 13 doesnt mean she doesnt have constitutional rights. I think it would be reasonable to argue a 4th ammendment violiation in this case. Posession of an over the counter medication is NOT by any means probably cause for a strip search. I mean, come on people use some common sense. Now if she was accused of having a kilo of cocaine, and there was sufficient evidence to support that claim, then call the freakin police and have her arrested. By no means whatsoever should she be strip searched on the premises, especially not by school administration.
      • by jcr (53032) <jcrNO@SPAMmac.com> on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:29PM (#27320423) Journal

        I think it would be reasonable to argue a 4th ammendment violiation in this case.

        It's not just an illegal search, it's a goddamned felony. If these assholes go free while someone like Charlie Lynch goes to jail, then the law in the USA is a complete joke.

        -jcr

      • by Martin Blank (154261) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:32PM (#27320487) Journal

        The accusation was that she had prescription-strength ibuprofen, which is not OTC medication.

        But I agree that the police should have been involved for any form of invasive search. There also shouldn't have been a zero-tolerance policy to begin with, as the enforcement of these often removes the gray area of judgment of when to enforce a policy and moves the gray area into how to enforce the policy, often erring on the side of draconian.

        • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:42PM (#27320707)
          Either way, does it matter? The question when you are going to act on all laws/rules is, did anyone get hurt or their rights violated. If the answer is no, and someone wasn't acting recklessly (like going 50 in a 25 mph zone), then the law/rule should not be enforced or it should carry little to no punishment. In this case it is quite obvious the girl was not high on painkillers, wasn't selling them, and didn't even have solid evidence she even had them when she was accused. Such things should be dismissed with no consequence. A 13 year old should be perfectly allowed to carry ibuprofen, even prescription strength (which is only equal to like 3 regular pills) on their person especially if there was some need for them.
        • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:48PM (#27320839)

          Just so you know...
          Prescription strength ibuprofen is 800mg of ibuprofen in one pill.

          As opposed to OTC ibuprofen which is 200mg of ibuprofen in one pill.

          i.e., if you have 4 advil, you have the equivalent of one prescription strength ibuprofen.

          ---

          In ANY case, school administrators should not (and probably DO not) have the legal authority be able to strip search a minor.
          That's a police matter. And even then, I think the parents should be present.

          • by ColdWetDog (752185) * on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:01PM (#27321075) Homepage
            Just to be perfectly pedantic, the article states that the 'prescription strength' ibuprofen was equal to two OTC pills. There are 400 and 600 mg prescription pills but they are hardly prescribed anymore (at least in the US) because it's hardly worth it...

            Of course, that makes this whole thing even more stupid.
          • by Locke2005 (849178) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:57PM (#27322137)
            Where I am, "prescription" ibuprofen is 600mg per tablet, or the equivalent of 3 OTC ibuprofen. I even had a doctor tell my wife who had neck pain after an accident, "I could write you a prescription for ibuprofen, but it is exactly the same as taking 3 over the counter ibuprofen, which you probably already have." So yes, there should be no such thing as "prescription" ibuprofen. And strip-searching someone who denies having ibuprofen on the basis of so-and-so said she got a couple pain relievers from her does violate all standards of reasonableness. So what if they DID find it on her? My daughter takes 4 different prescription meds -- I would insist that she has every right to carry these with her to school, and that the school has no right to confiscate them from her. After all, if she doesn't take them, she dies -- it is that simple!
        • by Deadstick (535032) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @08:56PM (#27323627)

          Zero tolerance is an abdication of responsibility. "I enforce a policy of zero tolerance" means, quite literally, "I don't know how to do my job".

          rj

      • by whoever57 (658626) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:37PM (#27320623) Journal

        Posession of an over the counter medication is NOT by any means probably cause for a strip search.

        She did not have any drugs in her posession. All the school officials had as reason was the accusation of another girl who had been caught and was trying to shift blame.

        But their attitude was clearly "guilty until proven innocent":

        The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant.

        "Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."

      • by fm6 (162816) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:15PM (#27321347) Homepage Journal

        Just because the student was 13 doesnt mean she doesnt have constitutional rights.

        I don't disagree with that. But all this focus on legalities (I'm tempted to go into my usual "slashdotters think too highly of their own legal expertise" rant) kind of misses the most important point: these school administrators humiliated a 13-year-old, all in the name of verifying that she wasn't "smuggling" some pills that aren't even for a drug of abuse! Rather than parsing the fine points of case law, we should be asking what kind of mentality makes this acceptable, legal or not.

    • by Matheus (586080) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:34PM (#27320533) Homepage

      Agreed. I grew up with Migraines. Pre- the wonderful better drugs we have now I needed to take massive amounts of Ibuprofen to keep them in check and hell-yeah I had it with me at all times including at school. "Prescription Strength" means 800mg = 4 over the counter pills = 1/2 what I needed to bring down a bad migraine.

      Their mention of the "not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction" what.. she's a girl so we can strip search her? She's 13 so we can strip search her? She might, heaven-forbid, have *Advil* so we can strip search her?!?

      Let them burn.

    • by ztransform (929641) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:36PM (#27320591)

      "role it will play in determining which, if any, parts of the Constitution apply on school grounds"

      I love how America has so many laws and yet regardless of how many patriotic movies it creates it still believes the constitution has limited application.

  • by NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:16PM (#27320133)

    Is a teenager having a fucking ibuprofen such a monstrous and immediate security threat that we need to strip search her? Or was somebody just a little too eager to strip search a 13 year old? Hmm?

    I wonder if the court would have upheld the 13-year old's right to strenously kick school officials in the balls for forcibly removing her clothing?

    It seems to me that, since she *wasn't* found to be in possession of any drugs at all, she's in a good position to make somebody's life really, really uncomfortable for a while.

  • by CannonballHead (842625) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:17PM (#27320155)
    why some families homeschool and believe their kids get a better education.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:28PM (#27321613)

      As someone who went to high school during the Columbine event, and saw the heavy-handed knee-jerk reactions from administrators, I now home school my son. School administrators are getting mad with power, though they're in a tough spot. If they turn their back on it, and a kid overdoses on drugs, then the school is sued by the parents. If they fight it, then they're sued by the parents. They're in a very hard spot.

      Then again, there are just some DUMB administrators like this case.... and my old school vice-principal that tried to get brown slacks (such as those worn by farmers... in our small, rural, dairy-farm town) as gang clothing.

      No more, I don't want to deal with the headache and stress of raising a kid in those environments, waiting to see what BS they put them through.

      If you check around, you'll undoubtedly find many homeschool co-ops in your area. We have a very nice co-op here, where everyone gets together once a week for group learning and interaction, taught by parents. And I can teach computer classes to kids, kids who actually WANT to learn.

  • by Alcimedes (398213) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:18PM (#27320171)

    Don't forget, it wasn't just that it was prescription strength OTC medication (she could have taken a handful of "regular" pills for the same effect)

    The entire thing was based on the accusations of another student. No one actually saw her with any pills of any kind. A strip search for what amounts to over the counter medication based on the accusations of another student.

    If a student had accused the vice principal of the same thing, would they be expected to submit to a strip search?

    Zero tolerance policies are the same as "I just don't want to make hard decisions" so instead you make f'ing stupid ones.

  • by Faizdog (243703) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:20PM (#27320223)

    ... so that when they're older, they'll accept this and even more serious breaches of privacy from the government. Because it's to protect the children!

  • sexual assault (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Slippery (47854) <tms.infamous@net> on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:20PM (#27320227) Homepage

    A "strip-search" performed by anyone other than a police officer acting with probable cause is a sexual assault.

    People, including teens and children, have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary against such an attack, and should be trained to do so.

    After some pervert principal gets his testicles crushed and his eyes gouged by a student he's trying to attack, perhaps we might see an end to this bullshit.

  • Not excessive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by noidentity (188756) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:22PM (#27320265)

    The school described the strip-search as 'not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction.'

    So what could excessively intrusive have been in this case? Surgically cutting her open and checking all internal organs?

  • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot@@@hackish...org> on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:25PM (#27320343)

    Maybe our legislators who are always so worried about sexual exploitation of children as an excuse to censor the internet and everything else, might want to look into whether prohibiting the government from forcibly stripping children naked shouldn't be a higher priority.

  • by aaandre (526056) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:30PM (#27320449)

    What I think is of importance here is how our culture treats children.

    When does a child become a citizen if not at birth?

    And, if children are citizens, what is the excuse of running schools with a level of oppression more appropriate of POW camps? Or making a child do something they are not ready or willing to?

    Many parents resort to spanking their child to give them a lesson. When was the last time your boss spanked you or grounded you for not meeting the project deadline?

    Our culture promotes treating children as property, making it "OK" for adults to abuse children verbally and psychologically and physically, just recently (in the last 100 or so years) addressing sexual abuse. Physical abuse is still widely accepted and even recommended. The right to privacy, the right to eat when and however much you want, the right to sleep when you are sleepy and use the bathroom when you are ready, are taken away from you when you are a child.

    Strip searching a 13-year old girl is just a symptom of tour collective habitual disrespect for children's core dignity.

    I suggest you check out this http://is.gd/oMQM [is.gd] and this http://is.gd/lQwS [is.gd]

    Incorrect: "I was spanked as a kid and I turned OK."
    Correct: "I was spanked as a kid and I grew up to believe that spanking is OK."

    • by CannonballHead (842625) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:44PM (#27320749)

      Strip searching is completely different from, say, sending a child to bed without dinner.

      The day that children are allowed to do anything they want regardless of the parents is the day that children rule the world. Have you ever seen a two year old? Completely selfish. Would not at all be interested in helping "open source software." Haven't you seen 12 year olds act like two year olds? And 22 year olds act like 12 year olds? If they don't get their way, they whine and cry and throw tantrums because they expect to get their way, because that's how it's happened all their life.

      The world doesn't work that way. It is not incorrect to say I was spanked as a kid and I turned out [sic] OK. On the other hand, many people seem to think that if children's desires were just gratified more as a child, they wouldn't be so problematic. We are having more and more kids have everything the want, and it's been that way increasingly for a while now. Seen any improvements in "bad things" such as greed, poverty, violence, sexual assault, etc.?

      I would venture to guess that school officials such as these two female ones that strip-searched a 13 year old girl based on an accusation from a kid (who, by the way, when faced with real consequences of his actions, thought he would just get out of it by lying - something some kids are spanked for and learn is not good. Hm...) are not accustomed to not getting what they want, and likely would have gotten quite mad if the girl had refused to do what they told her to. Authority "complexes" don't come from not having every desire fulfilled as a child. "Spoiled brats" are usually quite bossy and get quite angry when they don't get their way. Seems like that behavior continues into adulthood.

      Curbing that behavior in a child is pretty important. It has nothing to do with dignity, it has to do with wanting the child to behave well and not simply float around, expecting (WRONGLY) everything to be his for the ordering. That is letting the child grow up in a lie. Very respectful of his dignity, I'm sure.

      • by aaandre (526056) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:58PM (#27322153)

        "The day that children are allowed to do anything they want regardless of the parents is the day that children rule the world. Have you ever seen a two year old? Completely selfish. "

        Children naturally grow through different phases which make adults uncomfortable in different ways. Habitually, adults try to make children responsible for their comfort and change their natural behaviors. But children are not our emotional caregivers, it's the other way around.

        A two year old is not selfish. This is a projection happening because we adults do not properly understand the psychology of the undeveloped human brain. Some skills develop before others, and that's predetermined by nature, not the child's choice. At the age of two the sense of "self" starts emerging. The child starts feeling their own will. Lots of experimentation, discovery of the world. Strong feelings and desires unmanageable for the child. A 2-year old does not have control over these and it will be years before it learns to self-regulate.

        Saying that a child is selfish presumes that this is just a small-ish adult who acts selfishly. Incorrect. The social skills develop after the sense of "self" develops.

        For instance what parents call temper tantrums are overwhelming floods of feelings which change the child's brain chemistry and often disables their ability to reason and even understand language.

        There are many ways to prevent children from harming themselves or others without harming the children. There are ways to maintain boundaries without turning children into prisoners.

  • by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (939585) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:30PM (#27320455)
    Wait. Not excessively intrusive in light of her age and sex? What the hell does THAT mean? Since when does a person's gender or age mean that a strip search is less intrusive? You're making somebody who's dramatically underage, BUT old enough to know what's going on, strip naked. If anything, the fact that she's young and female makes it MORE intrusive (I think the average boy would shrug it off better than a girl would; I might be wrong in that assumption, though). It sounds like whoever said that thinks young girls are worth less than other people, but I hope they're not actually saying that.
  • by honestmonkey (819408) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:33PM (#27320505) Journal

    that "Zero Tolerance" policies are absurd. There is a reason why we have judge and juries. Laws do not apply evenly. Regardless of the policy, any reasonable person would see how stupid it was to trust another student's accusations and then harass a student with a good record over one pill of OTC pain relief.

    Just say no to zero tolerance.

  • by hoggoth (414195) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:36PM (#27320597) Journal

    If I was the girls father I would now be facing my own charges of assault and battery for beating the shit out of the school assistance principle and the two staffers who strip searched my daughter for suspicion of having a fucking aspirin.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:51PM (#27320881)

    Okay, being 13 is perhaps not the same as being 18 or 21. But, at 13, you know damn good and well not to let some teacher or other adult force you into a situation where you feel violated or dirty.

    I have a little girl who is turning five tomorrow. My wife and I have made the decision to not subject my child to the whims and such of any school officials. If my kid is ever put into a situation where these types of events are about to occur, then she is to immediately leave the school, call us, and damn what the fucking school board or local law enforcement says.

    I have this child, and she is my prime responsibility in life. I don't care what some misguided school moron says is their right and the correct procedure. If nothing else, my kid can change school districts, and I'll go get my gun.

    I feel sorry that this happened to this girl. However, I don't understand why she let it happened. Do any of us really think that the two female officials were going to hold her down and strip her naked in order to look for some crappy $4.00 pills?

    Here's a simple maxim:

    My kid. Not yours. Treat well and with respect. You hurt her, you commit a crime towards her, I get my gun. You die. I am bigger, and smarter, and I win, especially when I have the gun.

  • Found this nugget (Score:5, Interesting)

    by esocid (946821) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:51PM (#27320887) Journal
    quite cringe-worthy (from TFA):

    "They didn't even look at my records," she said. "They didn't even know I was a good kid."

    The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant.

    "Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."

    While I also think it is irrelevant, that just sounds really bad coming from a school official. You stay class Safford, AZ school district.

  • by BrookHarty (9119) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @05:52PM (#27320901) Homepage Journal

    Anyone want to place bets the supreme court will agree with the state, and restrict a students rights?

    After reading Morse v. Frederick, only John Paul Stevens understood the right for first amendment rights to protest illegal behavior. (aka Vietnam and medical marijuana as examples)

    Chief Justice Roberts went along the normal "war against drugs" lie, that they had to punish the student to "SEND A MESSAGE"...

    Justice Clarence Thomas viewed schools have no free speech and "Teachers commanded, and students obeyed."

    /sigh

    It's crazy. I think I understand the issue better than then most of the Supreme Court, the most educated, the best of the best? They agreed to strip a fundamental right away for a war on drugs, and to make a teachers job easier. To allow a child to be randomly strip searched without proper cause? To prevent protests in a non-disrupting behavior off school grounds? wow.. just wow...

    Why am I always disagreeing with them on most issues. I talk to co-workers, family and friends, and we seem to be in the same beliefs and values. Yet, I read the Supreme Courts views and I disagree, most of the time. I very rarely agree with the court. Few times have I cheered decisions about cases. Take Lawrence v. Texas which effectively legalized being gay. And of course, Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas dissented. My favorite comment roughly (I cant find it) from Texas "We dont discriminate against Gays just Gay Sex", and a justice asked "What is the difference?"

    I'll end this lengthy topic that means much to me with a Scala qoute.

    "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best ... But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else." --Scalia.

  • by hrvatska (790627) on Tuesday March 24, 2009 @06:03PM (#27321113)

    The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant. "Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."

    I would never want anyone from a school with this attitude to be involved in the education of my children.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...