free speech for who?

Not too surprising. Yesterday they hauled off a Saudi Arabian graduate student in Idaho who is alleged to have provided info and support to terrorist groups. Well, maybe he has, but the way TV news reported it, he was already tried and convicted.

This kind of acticity makes a group like the ACLU all the more important right now, IMHO.

Well, from my 'foreign view', this sounds not surprising regarding the sentiments in the USA.

This reminds me of the "Stoppt Strauss"-stickers actions in 1980.("Stop Strauss", the conservative Bavarian Prime Minister, former Federal Defense Minister and in the 80's canditate for chancellor). A student had this sticker at/in high school. She had to leave school months before her final exams, because she didn't want to remove it. It took years until the Federal Constitutional Court finally decided that all that was illegal. (She is now a very engaged lawyer, btw.)

What is wrong in reporting about arrest of the alleged terrorist? If the police or FBI do not object to such a report on secrecy ground, then it is perfectly legal to give the people information on this. And if the perpetrator was a White Christian belonging to the ultra-right militant group, do you think that his arrest would not be reported in media?

I'm talking about how the arrest was reported. As though there was no question that the man was guilty. That's not how it normally works in this country...

The school has the legal right to restrict the speech of teachers while acting "in their capacity as teachers". I encountered this legal principle when I was a teacher.

I believe this is the right policy because teachers are acting as an agent of a government entity. The free speech of citizens does not apply when you are acting on behalf the government.

This is a bit complicated because the student encoutered this speech outside of the building. It could be argued that the teacher-student relationship still applies outside of the classroom and that controversial political statements are not appropriate in this case. I know there are cases like this involving religeous speech.

I also know that for religeous speech, the law requires fairness. An employer can forbid religeous expression (especially with clients or customers). However this prohibition must be applied equally to all religeons.

The law strongly supports the free speech rights of students. Because of the position of responsibility and government supported respect, the speech of teachers must be restricted to the sensibilities of the community.

I think in this case a community discussion is appropriate.

steissd: i am thinking that the point D'artagan was making that we in the USA purport that one is innocent until proven guilty and that determination of guilt is not the role of the press. Yeah its just an ideal but worth remembering.

... As far as the Senate bill ensuring the right to display "patriotic symbols".

I would argue that the "He's not my president" button *is* a patriotic symbol and may make this teacher's case moot.

ebrown_p point well taken however i have this "gut feeling" thats not within the pervue of the intent of this bill.

OK, press does not decide who is guilty and who is not. But when someone is arrested as suspicious in committing some serious crime, a report about this may appear in the media.

dyslexia
You left me hanging. What happened, did the teacher have to remove the button?

ah au1929 the union (you know those socialist folks that are ruining america) stepped in due to the fact that the teacher did not wear the button in school the whole issue was thrown out, however there is a parent group that plans to push the issue even though the teacher wore the button in her "civilain" life. thus my statement that free speech is a question of who is speaking and what they say.

I agree with the school. If the teacher wore the button, off hours, on her own social "turf", I would see no problem. But if she wore it on her coat, which would been seen by the students entering and leaving school, IMO, there IS a problem.

I agree with ebrown_p as the teacher, acting as an agent of the government, was NOT behaving appropriately!

um well Phoenix if the same teacher wore a button (in class) saying something like "god bless our president" would that be different? or if she drove a French car and a parent felt that was not being patriotic, after all the student could also see what car she drove.

Well, the link for the article is here:
Anti-Bush sentiment a hot-button issue

Parents may try to act against the teacher, but if she wears the "illegal" button outside school, they will lose the case. But surely, she is not supposed to abuse possibilities resulting from her occupation for promotion of her personal political agenda.

steissd, it is normal to use the word "alleged" in context with an arrest!

I know. Anyone being arrested is an alleged perpetrator, and only the court of justice may decide whether he/she actually breached the law or not. But such allegations may be made public by means of media.

"in her civilian life"? According to the article Walter linked to she wore it on her coat during a school field trip. Off school property? Certainly! But still while performing her government job.

Why shouldn't her ability to wear it be limited? Schools were able to limit a teacher's ability to bring a bible into the schools and store it in their desk drawer even if a student never saw it. The principle here is the same.

perhaps it is fishin' but the bill i also mentioned in the same post proposes that anyone can wear what may be deemed "patriotic" in their workplace not excluding schools. is there an inherent contradiction here or is it just me?