Hmm -- so in the Eleventh Circuit a school
district could ban atheist speech with no evidence of disruption? How is
that reconcilable with Tinker?
I do recall a Confederate flag case, and perhaps it's the one
Frances is referring to, in which the court of appeals held that the Confederate
flag was something like an epithet, and thus Fraser rather than Tinker
governed. I think that's an overreading of Fraser, but surely it wouldn't
apply simply to speech that criticizes a religion (or absence of
religion). Or else, as I asked, what happened to
Tinker?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----In a message dated 11/6/05 3:39:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 12:51 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Should atheist arguments by students be suppressed in publicschool?
Under current doctrine, I take it that the school must tolerate such
speech unless it's actually likely to start a fight.
You'd take it wrong in the Eleventh Circuit. School officials do not need Tinker's threat of material disruption (or any disruption at all) to ban student to student speech.
Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Leadership
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
