Trump not appropriate for schools?

[Gweneivia]

My son is 11 now and he felt he was a little too old for the traditional Valentines from stores. He wanted to have something funny (he is a major class clown - and actually pretty funny, enough to win over his teachers and not be disrespectful with it). So we printed out the below Valentine. I figured - it's our President. He really wants to build a wall. If you support Trump, then hey, there he is. If you don't, then hey, it's still kind of funny. But apparently not. The teacher notified the Principal who came in and confiscated all of them, called me about it, and sent out an email to the parents in his class. The funniest part of all this to me is that he is our President and apparently he is too offensive for our schools.

http://i.imgur.com/kOEAeWM.png

[Tgo01]

I think it's funny.

[Warriorbird]

Only reason I'd have ever confiscated it would be if it was used to troll my Mexican student who's family will be deported.

I was quite amused by all the Trump/Harambe Valentines that got passed out by my Republican students.

[Pin]

My son is 11 now and he felt he was a little too old for the traditional Valentines from stores. He wanted to have something funny (he is a major class clown - and actually pretty funny, enough to win over his teachers and not be disrespectful with it). So we printed out the below Valentine. I figured - it's our President. He really wants to build a wall. If you support Trump, then hey, there he is. If you don't, then hey, it's still kind of funny. But apparently not. The teacher notified the Principal who came in and confiscated all of them, called me about it, and sent out an email to the parents in his class. The funniest part of all this to me is that he is our President and apparently he is too offensive for our schools.

http://i.imgur.com/kOEAeWM.png

I think the message is what's questionable, not the fact that it's Trump.

[chalion]

That MS paint job is offensive to me, who made that? Frunk? IS THIS A FRUNK JOB !?

[Gelston]

That MS paint job is offensive to me, who made that? Frunk? IS THIS A FRUNK JOB !?

I agree. Student should be expelled, parents should be sent to Gitmo.

[Parkbandit]

My son is 11 now and he felt he was a little too old for the traditional Valentines from stores. He wanted to have something funny (he is a major class clown - and actually pretty funny, enough to win over his teachers and not be disrespectful with it). So we printed out the below Valentine. I figured - it's our President. He really wants to build a wall. If you support Trump, then hey, there he is. If you don't, then hey, it's still kind of funny. But apparently not. The teacher notified the Principal who came in and confiscated all of them, called me about it, and sent out an email to the parents in his class. The funniest part of all this to me is that he is our President and apparently he is too offensive for our schools.

http://i.imgur.com/kOEAeWM.png

That's hilarious. Sorry your kid is in that hypersensitive school.

[Dhe'nar Witch]

While confiscating them all does seem like an overreaction, surely you realize that it is not the picture on the card, but the message, that was objected to.

[Stumplicker]

In a matter of months there have been news stories talking about horrible children telling other children they're going to be deported. This doesn't affect just the children involved, but the school districts in which they reside, and a slew of other people, who all receive hatred, mails, and threats as a result. Erring on the side of caution by keeping adult political matters out of the hands of 11 year olds is not something you should be complaining about. If 11 year olds could be trusted to make adult decisions, we wouldn't consider them children.

You may consider your son and his comedic stylings respectful, which, he's 11. No it isn't. Not all the time. But even if it is, he is not the only child in his class. Handing out heated political issues on valentines day cards to a group of 11 year olds is a horrible, stupid idea. They were right to confiscate them.

[Neveragain]

Had it read "I want to be gender fluid with you" with a picture of an ISIS member, your son would have been given a gold star for the day.

P.S. Everybody would have received a gold star, can't have winners or losers.

[ClydeR]

My son is 11 now and he felt he was a little too old for the traditional Valentines from stores. He wanted to have something funny (he is a major class clown - and actually pretty funny, enough to win over his teachers and not be disrespectful with it). So we printed out the below Valentine. I figured - it's our President. He really wants to build a wall. If you support Trump, then hey, there he is. If you don't, then hey, it's still kind of funny. But apparently not. The teacher notified the Principal who came in and confiscated all of them, called me about it, and sent out an email to the parents in his class. The funniest part of all this to me is that he is our President and apparently he is too offensive for our schools.

If it's a public school, call the ACLU. You might get your name in the newspaper! That's the only way I'll believe it really happened.

[ClydeR]

Erring on the side of caution by keeping adult political matters out of the hands of 11 year olds is not something you should be complaining about.

What part of the Constitution puts an age limit on free speech?

[Tgo01]

What part of the Constitution puts an age limit on free speech?

It's hard to tell when Clyder is trolling because this is actually 100% apt.

[Gelston]

It's hard to tell when Clyder is trolling because this is actually 100% apt.

Could you consider voting speech? That has an age limit. There are a lot of things in the Constitution that were just "understood" when it was written.... Which isn't a great thing. That is why we have so much disagreement on what some things mean... It is a living document, however, and the meanings of things can and do change as society does, and I imagine most people have come to reason that the age of majority is when your full rights under the Constitution come to bear. There are youth advocacy groups that disagree though.

[Tgo01]

Could you consider voting speech? That has an age limit. There are a lot of things in the Constitution that were just "understood" when it was written.... Which isn't a great thing. That is why we have so much disagreement on what some things mean... It is a living document, however, and the meanings of things can and do change as society does, and I imagine most people have come to reason that the age of majority is when your full rights under the Constitution come to bear. There are youth advocacy groups that disagree though.

The Supreme Court has ruled that students don't lose their free speech on school property, but they did make exceptions for things like disrupting the learning environment and all that jazz. Not saying the school wasn't in their rights in this particular case (although I think they overreacted), I was just noting that Clyder's comment was correct, which confused me since he's, you know, Clyder.

[Stumplicker]

What part of the Constitution puts an age limit on free speech?

The same part that allows truant officers to apprehend children and bring them back into the custody of the school lest the school be blamed, sued, and its administrators fired/arrested for negligence that resulted in the disappearance, kidnapping, or in other way harm of children who are legally supposed to be in their care at that time. Children in schools are not afforded the same full list of rights as American Citizens because they're in the care of someone who will be punished if something happens to them.

In a world of helicopter parenting, intense scrutiny and internet outrage resulting in death threats, loss of employment, or worse, you're damn well right schools should be and generally are acting pro-actively in order to prevent the possibility of shit going down that will put a target on them. I worked for educational law firms back in the early 2000s and it was bad then. It's got to be downright insane now, with everyone always connected and news travelling instantly everywhere now.

[Tgo01]

The same part that allows truant officers to apprehend children and bring them back into the custody of the school lest the school be blamed, sued, and its administrators fired/arrested for negligence that resulted in the disappearance, kidnapping, or in other way harm of children who are legally supposed to be in their care at that time. Children in schools are not afforded the same full list of rights as American Citizens because they're in the care of someone who will be punished if something happens to them.

In a world of helicopter parenting, intense scrutiny and internet outrage resulting in death threats, loss of employment, or worse, you're damn well right schools should be and generally are acting pro-actively in order to prevent the possibility of shit going down that will put a target on them. I worked for educational law firms back in the early 2000s and it was bad then. It's got to be downright insane now, with everyone always connected and news travelling instantly everywhere now.

So you're arguing that kids in public school lose their freedom of speech for their own good and for the school's own good?

[Stumplicker]

So you're arguing that kids in public school lose their freedom of speech for their own good and for the school's own good?

No. I'm saying that sending your kid to school with politically charged bullshit from any political faction is stupid regardless of constitutional rights and you're a bad parent for doing so because your kid is an idiot. And if your kid is not an idiot, one of his classmates is, and it's a recipe for bullshit.

Do you really not understand?

[Gelston]

I personally don't feel a child has any rights until they are either emancipated or reach age of majority. Most of the law agrees. Truancy and curfews exist for them at 16 and under here.

Obviously I don't mean they lack the right to live or whatever. Laws exist that address crimes against minors.

[Parkbandit]

No. I'm saying that sending your kid to school with politically charged bullshit from any political faction is stupid regardless of constitutional rights and you're a bad parent for doing so because your kid is an idiot. And if your kid is not an idiot, one of his classmates is, and it's a recipe for bullshit.

Do you really not understand?


http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/14/wtf_2.jpg

[Tgo01]

No. I'm saying that sending your kid to school with politically charged bullshit from any political faction is stupid regardless of constitutional rights and you're a bad parent for doing so because your kid is an idiot. And if your kid is not an idiot, one of his classmates is, and it's a recipe for bullshit.

Do you really not understand?

What I don't understand is why you think the school can squash any free speech they want. At least that's what your other post implied, this post you seem to be backtracking slightly and are just saying it's a stupid thing to do. Wonderful thing about free speech; it allows one to be stupid.

[Tgo01]

I personally don't feel a child has any rights until they are either emancipated or reach age of majority. Most of the law agrees. Truancy and curfews exist for them at 16 and under here.

Obviously I don't mean they lack the right to live or whatever. Laws exist that address crimes against minors.

I wouldn't say they should have no rights. The fifth amendment sounds important.

[Gelston]

I wouldn't say they should have no rights. The fifth amendment sounds important.

Children can be and are held without any convictions until they are an adult. It is legal.

If you mean deprived of life, I already addressed that. They sure as fuck are deprived of liberty, legally.

[ClydeR]

Could you consider voting speech? That has an age limit. There are a lot of things in the Constitution that were just "understood" when it was written.... Which isn't a great thing. That is why we have so much disagreement on what some things mean...

Exactly! The Constitution has an explicit age limit on voting. It has other age limits too, such as minimum ages to be in the House or Senate or to be President. The people who wrote the Constitution knew how to write age limits. Yet they didn't put any age limit on free speech.

[Tgo01]

Children can be and are held without any convictions until they are an adult. It is legal.

They are? :/

[Tgo01]

Exactly! The Constitution has an explicit age limit on voting. It has other age limits too, such as minimum ages to be in the House or Senate or to be President. The people who wrote the Constitution knew how to write age limits. Yet they didn't put any age limit on free speech.

Why do I get the feeling Clyder is in fact trolling and this has something to do with guns and since there is no age limit mentioned for the second amendment he is trying to make some sort of point by saying since the government put an age limit on guns they should be able to put age limits on free speech.

I'm on to you, Clyder.

[Gelston]

They are? :/

A lot of communities don't have active truancy officers and enforcement, but it is completely legal. They snatch up the kid for missing school and the parents are charged.


Exactly! The Constitution has an explicit age limit on voting. It has other age limits too, such as minimum ages to be in the House or Senate or to be President. The people who wrote the Constitution knew how to write age limits. Yet they didn't put any age limit on free speech.

Maybe because they considered the ages for everything else to be common sense, while the ages for those positions were higher?

[ClydeR]

Why do I get the feeling Clyder is in fact trolling and this has something to do with guns and since there is no age limit mentioned for the second amendment he is trying to make some sort of point by saying since the government put an age limit on guns they should be able to put age limits on free speech.

At the time the Constitution was written, there were a lot of reasons why children would need guns in school. Walking miles through the woods to get to school was dangerous, with grizzlies and other large predators about.

[Stumplicker]

What I don't understand is why you think the school can squash any free speech they want. At least that's what your other post implied, this post you seem to be backtracking slightly and are just saying it's a stupid thing to do. Wonderful thing about free speech; it allows one to be stupid.

No. I'm reiterating my original point because at this point you're trying to take the argument down a rabbit hole of no import where you hope I'll word something improperly so you can argue it, since you obviously can't for what I said in my first post.

But no, children do not have a free right to speech if they want to remain in the public education system, if you want to get needlessly complex. Send your child to school with an instruction to say "FUCK YOU" in every spoken or written sentence and see exactly how long it takes for that child to be removed (suspended) from the school. An adult can say that as much as they want, and there are consequences for doing so if the speech is not appropriate for the location you're using it, such as in your workplace. If you punctuate every sentence in your job with "FUCK YOU", yes, you are in fact free to say that, but you will likely not have a job for long. This extends to children in schools.

It especially extends when you are in a job where allowing that to go could potentially turn into something negative. Imagine you're a teacher. Don't worry. We're glad you're not, but imagine. A child brings in a Valentine's day card with Trump mentioning the wall. It seems mostly harmless. Nothing will probably come of it. So you let it go. Then that asshole kid in the class gets a valentine's card and he repurposes it as a means to bully the hispanic girl in the class. That student goes to the office because he did something bad. Problem solved, right? Well, no not exactly. That gossipy bitch secretary at the front desk thinks it's hilarious, so she snaps a picture of the card and writes a short blurb, posting it to facebook. Some clickbait news site gets ahold of it, which then all the others pick up because that's how the internet and apparently news works now, fast forward two days and now the Principal wants to know why the fuck you would let such a thing go in your class because the school board members are now getting death threats from the internet and now you no longer have a job, and probably will have trouble getting a job anywhere else because your teaching degree is now basically worthless.

Do you let it go? Or do you maybe just stop the probably-not-a-problem-but-maybe-total-shitstorm card before it can potentially become an issue?

[Tgo01]

At the time the Constitution was written, there were a lot of reasons why children would need guns in school. Walking miles through the woods to get to school was dangerous, with grizzlies and other large predators about.

Good point. I would say walking the streets of Chicago is more dangerous than any danger kids faced back then. Maybe kids should be allowed to own guns.

[Tgo01]

No. I'm reiterating my original point because at this point you're trying to take the argument down a rabbit hole of no import where you hope I'll word something improperly so you can argue it, since you obviously can't for what I said in my first post.

But no, children do not have a free right to speech if they want to remain in the public education system, if you want to get needlessly complex. Send your child to school with an instruction to say "FUCK YOU" in every spoken or written sentence and see exactly how long it takes for that child to be removed (suspended) from the school. An adult can say that as much as they want, and there are consequences for doing so if the speech is not appropriate for the location you're using it, such as in your workplace. If you punctuate every sentence in your job with "FUCK YOU", yes, you are in fact free to say that, but you will likely not have a job for long. This extends to children in schools.

It especially extends when you are in a job where allowing that to go could potentially turn into something negative. Imagine you're a teacher. Don't worry. We're glad you're not, but imagine. A child brings in a Valentine's day card with Trump mentioning the wall. It seems mostly harmless. Nothing will probably come of it. So you let it go. Then that asshole kid in the class gets a valentine's card and he repurposes it as a means to bully the hispanic girl in the class. That student goes to the office because he did something bad. Problem solved, right? Well, no not exactly. That gossipy bitch secretary at the front desk thinks it's hilarious, so she snaps a picture of the card and writes a short blurb, posting it to facebook. Some clickbait news site gets ahold of it, which then all the others pick up because that's how the internet and apparently news works now, fast forward two days and now the Principal wants to know why the fuck you would let such a thing go in your class because the school board members are now getting death threats from the internet and now you no longer have a job, and probably will have trouble getting a job anywhere else because your teaching degree is now basically worthless.

Do you let it go? Or do you maybe just stop the probably-not-a-problem-but-maybe-total-shitstorm card before it can potentially become an issue?

There are a couple of problems with your post. Firstly students do indeed have freedom of speech in public schools, certain criteria must be met in order for the school to curtail free speech, but the treacher/principal just having a feeling something bad might happen isn't enough. If that were the case then kids would indeed have no free speech because the school could just rely on that flimsy reasoning. Even WB (being a teacher) would back me up on this if he wasn't busy insisting I was a Nazi.

Also there is a big difference between a private employer and the government when it comes to your rights. For all intents and purposes a public school is the government.

[Stumplicker]

Even WB (being a teacher) would back me up on this if he wasn't busy insisting I was a Nazi.


No. No teacher in 2017 would back you up. They like their jobs, and they want to keep them.

[Dhe'nar Witch]

The right to free speech does not and never has equaled "I can say whatever I want; whenever, wherever, however I please."

[Kembal]

There are a couple of problems with your post. Firstly students do indeed have freedom of speech in public schools, certain criteria must be met in order for the school to curtail free speech, but the treacher/principal just having a feeling something bad might happen isn't enough. If that were the case then kids would indeed have no free speech because the school could just rely on that flimsy reasoning. Even WB (being a teacher) would back me up on this if he wasn't busy insisting I was a Nazi.

Also there is a big difference between a private employer and the government when it comes to your rights. For all intents and purposes a public school is the government.

Almost certain that there was a Supreme Court case on the issue, and students' free speech rights were limited by the decision. It was the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/

This specific scenario isn't addressed in the decision, but I have the feeling that precedent would end up giving the school the win were this to go forward as a case.

[Tgo01]

Almost certain that there was a Supreme Court case on the issue, and students' free speech rights were limited by the decision. It was the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/

This specific scenario isn't addressed in the decision, but I have the feeling that precedent would end up giving the school the win were this to go forward as a case.

Yeah there are other restrictions on student free speech as well; such as advocating drug use, which I assume is the reason the student in that case lost.

The school can also restrict speech that is offensive, such as using bad words that Stumplicker mentioned.

[Gelston]

Yeah there are other restrictions on student free speech as well; such as advocating drug use, which I assume is the reason the student in that case lost.

The school can also restrict speech that is offensive, such as using bad words that Stumplicker mentioned.

Dhe'nar Witch makes a good point. Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want without consequences... You just won't be arrested by the Government.

[Tgo01]

Dhe'nar Witch makes a good point. Free speech doesn't mean you can say what you want without consequences... You just won't be arrested by the Government.

Not just arrested by the government, any sort of government sanction. But a public school is basically the government which is why students are afforded free speech, albeit not completely free. A private school would have a lot more leeway in punishing students engaging in free speech.

[Gelston]

Not just arrested by the government, any sort of government sanction. But a public school is basically the government which is why students are afforded free speech, albeit not completely free. A private school would have a lot more leeway in punishing students engaging in free speech.

Private schools can boot you out completely. It really comes a point there, is the child exercising free speech, or is the parent using that child for their own purposes? Sure, a 14 years old having a little political thought and all that... Understandable.. No way in hell a 5 or a 6 year old does though.

[Pin]

Not just arrested by the government, any sort of government sanction. But a public school is basically the government which is why students are afforded free speech, albeit not completely free. A private school would have a lot more leeway in punishing students engaging in free speech.

FWIW:

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) pretty much agrees with you; in fact, the main ruling itself states that "students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

However, it does go on to clarify that "... applies limiting the authority of schools to regulate the speech, whether on or off-campus, unless it would materially and substantially disrupt classwork and discipline in the school."

Handing out a racially charged Valentines Day card could be argued that it falls under the later.

[Tgo01]

FWIW:

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) pretty much agrees with you; in fact, the main ruling itself states that "students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

However, it does go on to clarify that "... applies limiting the authority of schools to regulate the speech, whether on or off-campus, unless it would materially and substantially disrupt classwork and discipline in the school."

Handing out a racially charged Valentines Day card could be argued that it falls under the later.

Yes, I addressed this earlier that the school could limit free speech if it disrupts the learning environment. I disagree that it's "racially charged" because it mentions a border wall and our president.

[Gelston]

Yes, I addressed this earlier that the school could limit free speech if it disrupts the learning environment. I disagree that it's "racially charged" because it mentions a border wall and our president.

Crux of the matter. Democrats see it as a racism, keeping Mexicans out, Republicans see it as securing the borders, regardless of the color or culture of the people it is keeping out.

[Tisket]

My son is 11 now and he felt he was a little too old for the traditional Valentines from stores. He wanted to have something funny (he is a major class clown - and actually pretty funny, enough to win over his teachers and not be disrespectful with it). So we printed out the below Valentine. I figured - it's our President. He really wants to build a wall. If you support Trump, then hey, there he is. If you don't, then hey, it's still kind of funny. But apparently not. The teacher notified the Principal who came in and confiscated all of them, called me about it, and sent out an email to the parents in his class. The funniest part of all this to me is that he is our President and apparently he is too offensive for our schools.

http://i.imgur.com/kOEAeWM.png

Brilliant. I wish I'd thought of it.

Fucking funny as hell.

[Gelston]

Brilliant. I wish I'd thought of it.

Fucking funny as hell.

It was all over FB man! There was a post floating aroun with like 20 Trump themed pictures.

[Tisket]

It was all over FB man! There was a post floating aroun with like 20 Trump themed pictures.

I guess I don't have the right kind of friends on facebook.

[Gelston]

I guess I don't have the right kind of friends on facebook.

Obviously not. Get better ones.

[Stumplicker]

Crux of the matter. Democrats see it as a racism, keeping Mexicans out, Republicans see it as securing the borders, regardless of the color or culture of the people it is keeping out.

And 11 year old children are 11 year old children. Generally speaking at that age, the most they know about Democrats and Republicans is what their parents say. And being 11 year old children, they invariably pick out just the horrible bits and then say them to or at each other, because children are horrible to one another.

Nobody would bat an eyelash at it being removed if it were a Valentine's card with a middle eastern looking woman saying "I la-la-la-la-la-la-love you!". Nobody would bat an eyelash if it were a card with a picture of Jesus saying "If you accept Jesus Christ the lord our savior into your heart, everyone has love on valentine's day". Nobody would bat an eyelash if it was a card picturing Obama saying "Bring black back! #blacklivesmatter!".

Democrats shouldn't give their 11 year olds political shit and send it to school. Republicans shouldn't give their 11 year olds political shit and send it to school. Nobody should. You're giving a child at best case scenario a potential headache to deal with for every person they encounter by saying "Here's some political bullshit. Be responsible with it. You're 11 now. That's basically adulthood. Also make sure all your friends act equally responsible with it, because you'll be giving it out to them.".

If you really need proof that children should not be trusted to act responsibly with potentially problem-causing material, just read some PC forum threads between 200whatever..2? Whenever it started, and 2005 or so. Arguably up through 2017.

[Gelston]

And 11 year old children are 11 year old children. Generally speaking at that age, the most they know about Democrats and Republicans is what their parents say. And being 11 year old children, they invariably pick out just the horrible bits and then say them to or at each other, because children are horrible to one another.

Nobody would bat an eyelash at it being removed if it were a Valentine's card with a middle eastern looking woman saying "I la-la-la-la-la-la-love you!". Nobody would bat an eyelash if it were a card with a picture of Jesus saying "If you accept Jesus Christ the lord our savior into your heart, everyone has love on valentine's day". Nobody would bat an eyelash if it was a card picturing Obama saying "Bring black back! #blacklivesmatter!".

Democrats shouldn't give their 11 year olds political shit and send it to school. Republicans shouldn't give their 11 year olds political shit and send it to school. Nobody should. You're giving a child at best case scenario a potential headache to deal with for every person they encounter by saying "Here's some political bullshit. Be responsible with it. You're 11 now. That's basically adulthood. Also make sure all your friends act equally responsible with it, because you'll be giving it out to them.".

If you really need proof that children should not be trusted to act responsibly with potentially problem-causing material, just read some PC forum threads between 200whatever..2? Whenever it started, and 2005 or so. Arguably up through 2017.

I already said this with way less sentences in the last page.

[Stumplicker]

I already said this with way less sentences in the last page.

You did. But I'm nothing if not long winded. I wasn't arguing against what you said. Just using it as a springboard to be excessively verbose.

[Tisket]

I already said this with way less sentences in the last page.

Seriously. He should just post, "Words. Moar words." Who has time to read his voluminous crap.

[Tisket]

It was all over FB man! There was a post floating aroun with like 20 Trump themed pictures.

Just to be clear, it wasn't the meme that I thought was hilarious. It was creating valentines from it and sending them to school that I thought was brilliant.

[Tisket]

I wish my son was still young enough to take Valentines to his class :(

[Gelston]

I wish my son was still young enough to take Valentines to his class :(

do it anyways.