quote:


In addition to failing to receive credit for his art project, A.P. also received a detention when he tore the grading policy in Millin’s presence during class. Cortman defended A.P.’s action as “symbolic speech,” which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in several cases, including the 1990 case that legalized burning the American flag.

quote:

ORIGINAL: henny

I think the constitution is on the student's side as well, so it's good that the school board changed the policy.

It's interesting that they are arguing for "symbolic speech" in reference to his tearing up the grading policy, based upon the 1990 case that legalized burning the flag:

quote:


In addition to failing to receive credit for his art project, A.P. also received a detention when he tore the grading policy in Millin’s presence during class. Cortman defended A.P.’s action as “symbolic speech,” which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in several cases, including the 1990 case that legalized burning the American flag.

I hope some of the people cheering over this would still be as adamant in defending the student if he had expressed some "symbolic speech" that they disagree with.

quote:

I hope some of the people cheering over this would still be as adamant in defending the student if he had expressed some "symbolic speech" that they disagree with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I hope some of the people cheering over this would still be as adamant in defending the student if he had expressed some "symbolic speech" that they disagree with.

I would absolutely have defended the right of a student to paint a burning flag.

quote:

Thank goodness the school didn't also prohibit representations of fire, or such a student would still be in trouble.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I hope some of the people cheering over this would still be as adamant in defending the student if he had expressed some "symbolic speech" that they disagree with.

I would absolutely have defended the right of a student to paint a burning flag.

quote:

The Parties have now conferred and reached a permanent settlement that will dispose of the entire case, and which includes the following terms:
a. Defendants have revised the challenged Policies by removing the prohibition against student religious expression in response to class assignments. Defendants have fully implemented the revised Policies and agree to permit student religious expression in response to class assignments when the response meets stated assignment guidelines.
b. Defendants have graded Plaintiff’s landscape drawing assignment containing the cross and John 3:16 scripture reference, which was previously assigned a “zero” grade.
c. Defendants have removed any and all references to, or indications of, Plaintiff’s two disciplinary detentions from Plaintiff’s school records.
d. Defendants agree to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.
e. The Parties will bear their own costs incurred in this matter. (stipulated dismissal, page 2)

quote:

I just thought it was interesting (and encouraging) that this Christian legal organization would argue that the first amendment protects other forms of more symbolic speech beyond just representation in the narrowest sense (i.e. only written or spoken words) -especially when this symbolic speech occurs within the context of protest (which the lawyer argued this was).