قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / After Trump canceled the stimulus bill, Democrats aim to increase relief checks

After Trump canceled the stimulus bill, Democrats aim to increase relief checks



New York Times

The vulgar message of the cheerleader suggested that the showdown was corrected for the first time

Washington-This is a Saturday in the spring of 2017, and a ninth grader in Pennsylvania has a hard time. She just learned that she did not participate in the college cheerleading competition, but continued to stay in junior high school. The student expressed frustration on social media and sent a message to about 250 friends on Snapchat. The message includes images of students and a friend with the middle finger raised, as well as text expressing similar emotions. The student used curse words four times to express dissatisfaction with “school”

;, “softball”, “cheers” and “everything”. Although the “New York Times” Snapchat message was short-lived, another student expressed dissatisfaction. The screen shot was shown to her mother, a coach. The school suspended the student’s cheerleading competition for one year. He said that to avoid “chaos” and maintain a “teamwork environment”, punitive measures are needed. The student sued the school district and won the overall victory of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Philadelphia. The court said that the First Amendment did not allow public schools to punish students for the right to speak outside the school. Next month, in the first private meeting after the holiday, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the case, Mahanoy Area School District v. BL, No. 20-255. The ruling of the Third Circuit is closely related to the rulings of several other courts, and such differences are often reviewed by the Supreme Court. When urging the justices to hear the case, the school district stated that administrators across the country need the Supreme Court to make a final ruling on it. A brief introduction to the school district’s students said: “The issues raised continue to emerge, and because COVID-19 has forced schools in Online operations have become more urgent.” “Only this court can solve the First Amendment threshold of approximately 100,000 public schools nationwide.” Yale University Law Professor, “School Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court, and the Battle of American Ideas” Justin Driver, the author of “Justin Driver”, said: “To some extent, consistent with the school district. It is difficult to exaggerate the stakes of this constitutional issue.” But he added that the school has no business to tell students that they are not there. What do you say at school. “In the modern era, a large part of the speeches of minors take place outside of campus, but online,” he said. “Judicial rulings that allow schools to standardize and criticize public schools’ off-campus speeches are contrary to the First Amendment. Such rulings allow schools to enter any student’s residence and make critical statements, which should deeply attract the attention of all Americans. .” Precedents come from different eras. In 1969, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court allowed students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, but stated that at least destructive speech on school grounds may be punished. In 1969, before the rise of social media, campus and campus traffic became easier. Today, most courts allow public schools to discipline students for posting social media articles, as long as they are linked to school activities and threaten to disrupt their activities. The three-judge chamber of the Third Circuit took a different approach, declaring that the rules appeared to limit public schools’ ability to deal with students’ disturbing comments on social media, including racist threats and cyberbullying. reason. He said that as long as her speech is protected by the “First Amendment”, it is enough because it will not interfere with school activities. He said that most people are wrong to protect all off-campus speeches. In a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the school district’s appeal, the Pennsylvania State Board of Education Association said that the boundaries set by the Third Circuit were too crude. Destructive or harmful tweets sent from the school cafeteria, or tweets generated when students cross the road while walking home, have the same impact. “The formalist rules of the Third Circuit make the school powerless to send out annoying messages outside the campus. “A student represented by an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer told the Supreme Court that the “First Amendment” protected her “colorful frustration, on temporary Snapchat on personal social media, and outside campus on weekends without threats. Harassed or referred to her school and did not cause or threaten to cause any damage to her school. “The summary focuses on the last point. The Supreme Court does not have a reputation for defending the rights of the First Amendment. When Chief Justice John Roberts appeared in law school last year, he described himself as “maybe the The most radical defender of the First Amendment. “But since the Constitution, the court has been orderly reducing the rights of students in the First Amendment. Tinker made a decision in 1969. In the last major decision of the court on student freedom of speech, Roberts wrote the majority opinion in 2007 and stood with a principal who had been suspended for displaying a banner marked “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” He said: “At least in one major field , Chief Justice Roberts’ lax defense of the “First Amendment”: student speeches. “I earnestly hope that Roberts will regain his love for the First Amendment when the court finally resolves this urgent issue.” “This article was originally published in The New York Times. (C) 2020 New York Times Company


Source link