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?
Well, the 11th Circuit gave it lip service (and emphasized the Fraser's Court's findings regarding teaching civility (hey, the 11th Circuit is in the deep South) along with the school's authority over students (I don't recall if they actually used the words custodial and tutelary from Acton--but they came mighty close if they didn't). Subsequently, the 11th Circuit held that a Florida school district could remove student's religious art work on temporary barricades erected to conceal construction even though the school had solicited students to paint murals on the barricades. In that case, the court brought in more of Kuhlmeier (in addition to relying on its Confederate flag cases) because the students had a faculty member assigned responsibility for the artwork. So I'm reading that if they can punish speech for its potential offensiveness and remove student religious artwork, it is likely they could suppress speech critical of religion.
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.
