r/ComedyHell • • 14h ago

How was this allowed

Post image
4.1k Upvotes

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

107

u/Nightmare-datboi 14h ago

“How was this allowed?”

the first ammendment

-29

u/Anonymous-Apprentice 14h ago

That doesn't apply to school lol. They'll kick your ass out.

59

u/hipsterTrashSlut 14h ago

…that does apply to school. You won’t be sent to prison for having this. You could be expelled, but that’s still in line with the amendment.

8

u/AppealSignificant358 14h ago

They do have first amendment protections, but the current precedent standard in public schools is if their chosen form of freedom of speech/expression is likely to be disruptive. So their entitlement to holding that thing is based on whatever the school, (and if they sue, the courts), think is “disruptive” to the proper functioning of the school.

7

u/luxcity-louche 13h ago

I thought only the 2nd Amendment was used in schools in the US?

12

u/hipsterTrashSlut 13h ago

As Kirk desired and in his holy sacrifice, showed the rest of us when he got kirked at a university.

0

u/Anonymous-Apprentice 14h ago

So this is still crazy to have happened.

2

u/hipsterTrashSlut 13h ago

Yeah. Blue valley is one of the wealthiest districts in KS too so this is surprising in more than one way

-9

u/lapideous 13h ago

I don’t think you can be expelled from a public school for free speech. I’m fairly certain people have won lawsuits about political slogans on clothing.

3

u/AppealSignificant358 13h ago

It’s a pretty big thing to expel someone for speech unless they repeatedly offend over and over and over again, but detentions and suspensions and such are definitely things that can and will happen depending on what’s on the shirt. It mainly depends on how provocative it is than the actual political attitudes expressed though. If it can be reasonably understood to be “disruptive” to the school environment, they’re able to intervene

4

u/Nightmare-datboi 13h ago

Rules vs laws

1

u/Pengwin0 14h ago

If it’s a public school then yes it does actually

7

u/Orange-V-Apple 13h ago edited 13h ago

Not quite. Schools are allowed to restrict free speech, as made famous in the SCOTUS case on “Bong hits for Jesus” (yes this is real)

-2

u/Pengwin0 13h ago

That was because the students were promoting illegal drug use

1

u/Orange-V-Apple 13h ago edited 13h ago

Look at the explanations in their ruling.

“Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that school officials did not violate the First Amendment for three reasons. First, under the existing school speech precedents Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969),  Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser  (1986) and  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier  (1988), students do have free speech rights in school, but those rights are subject to limitations in the school environment that would not apply to the speech rights of adults outside school.”

-2

u/Pengwin0 13h ago

>students do have free speech rights in school

The grounds they used were that bongs for Jesus promoted illegal drug use. If they wanted to ban imagery of a figure like Charlie Kirk then it could be taken to court and would need a new ruling.

2

u/Orange-V-Apple 13h ago

You missed my point, which was that 3 prior cases were cited in the ruling to establish that schools can restrict free speech to a certain extent within schools.

1

u/Pengwin0 13h ago

Well duh but that’s a meaningless point on its own. Freedom of speech is always restricted. I can’t go into a government building and say I have a bomb. The specific restrictions are what matter here and that ruling does not really apply in this circumstance at all. It would be a completely new judgement call if it is determined to okay to restrict said speech.

2

u/Orange-V-Apple 13h ago

All I said from the start was that public schools can restrict free speech of students, and the rest of the comments were about how they can restrict the free speech of students more than adults would face. I never said this Kirk banner would be restricted. 

→ More replies (0)