#untilitssafe

[philippinelesbiancinema]

Another GL Series! PH queers are winning! 

“#UntilItsSafe Starring @jascurtissmith and @ellalentini Directed by @givemesam Coming Soon #PRIDE2020 “

 - https://twitter.com/givemesam/status/1277571535407120389?s=20

[spaceissobig]

For the ones thinking about walkouts

Do not, Do Not, DO NOT let people tell you that you’ll be punished, detained, arrested, go to juvenile detention or any other thing. The Supreme Court of the United States has got your backs!!

In 1969, In Tinker v Des Moines (393 US 503), the Supreme Court ruled that students wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War couldn’t have them forcibly removed by the school, or be forced to take them off. As written in Tinker, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

This is exactly the same sort of protest that you are talking about here, non-violent, non-inflammatory protesting. Walking out of the school to be sure that your voices are heard.

1967 -  Keyishian v Board of Regents [385 US 589 , they said “ "The classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas.' The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas."

That is EXACTLY who you are, you might be minors now, but You..all of you...are the future leaders of this country.

Schools CAN, in loco parentis, (acting as your temporary parent) violate your right to free speech IF "[conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason — whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior — materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." That was also established in the Tinker case cited above.

THAT is the tipping point where your rights as minors are not protected, so, don’t intrude on the rights of the other students not participating, don’t call ANYONE out for not joining you, don’t sling derogatories at people who don’t share the backbone you do.

In 1986, Bethel School v Fraser (478 US 675), A student was suspended for using coarse, crude language at a school assembly, to which the Supreme Court said "It does not follow ... that simply because the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school... The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board."

So again, no slinging derogatories, insults, or anything else that could be considered crude, coarse, censorship-worthy language. Beyond that, don’t do anything that could be considered illegal, like the destruction of property, even such as breaking your own property on school grounds. In 2007′s Morse v. Frederick  551 U.S. 393, the highest court in the land decided that speech condoning illegal activity (In Frederick’s case, drug use, but expanded in the decision to any illegality) can be suppressed by the schools. So, don’t incite others to illegality either.

Speaking as someone who is not an attorney, but confident that any attorney would have a hard time arguing merit AGAINST the Supreme Court’s own words - don’t do anything illegal, immoral, stupid, or vindictive during your demonstrations and the schools won’t have anything to do but watch as you exercise your Constitutionally protected rights as citizens of this country, they won’t be able to do anything, other than watch you change things for the better!

I hope you all do great things!

[spaceissobig]

About the Walkouts, an update

“Hello everyone and thank you all so much for your support of the few posts I have made about the Letter that I wrote to Congress, and the school walkouts. I wanted to draw attention to a specific point that was brought up by one of the readers. He has a very valid point, so I wanted to offer a rebuttal to it, so you all can consider both sides.

Now first and foremost, before ANYTHING is said, I want you to know that even a quick look at his or her Tumblr lets me know that we are on the same side on this issue, so nobody should respond by saying that’s just a gun nut trying to prove his point. It isn’t.

“ gratefulfrog said: Once the students interfere with the school’s education mission they’re in the wrong. The 9th Circuit’s Corales vs Bennett specifically addresses school walkouts.”

The case in question is here -  567 F.3d 554 (2009) Corales v Bennett

and the court filing can be found here (via google) - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3618306957420834792&hl=en&as_sdt=6,43&as_vis=1 - for those of you inclined to wade through the legalese as such.

First and foremost I am not going to address every point the plaintiffs made, just the one that pertains specifically to the walkout in question, and none of the actions that succeeded it.

In the post it says “ On Tuesday, March 28, 2006, Anthony Soltero, an eighth-grade, fourteen-year-old student at De Anza Middle School (De Anza), Annette Prieto, and "one or two" other middle school students walked out of school around 8:30 or 9:00 in the morning. They did not have prior permission from the school or their parents. They left school to participate in protests against the impending passage of federal immigration legislation that would have made it a crime to assist or help undocumented immigrants. “ 

That’s the background. As to what happened.....

“ Although the students' walkout was ostensibly to protest immigration reform legislation, there is no evidence that the students gave speeches, that they discussed matters of immigration reform, or that they carried placards or signs that conveyed their messages during the walk-out. Rather, the evidence reveals that the students left their school to engage in a protest march, met up with like-minded individuals from a local high school, and walked together to a third school. In the absence of any identifiable speech, these activities, if they are to be protected by the First Amendment, must fall within the definition of expressive conduct. “

I’ve bolded the important point here. In the next paragraph, the court goes on to define it.

“The First Amendment protects conduct that is not speech but is nevertheless expressive in nature. See, e.g., Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969) (wearing of black armband to protest Vietnam War); United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968) (flag-burning). However, First Amendment protection does not apply to all cases in which someone intends to convey a message by his or her conduct; rather, First Amendment protection applies only when "it is intended to convey a `particularized message' and the likelihood is great that the message would be so understood." Nunez v. Davis, 169 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989)). “

As you’ll recall from the post I cited Tinker v Des Moines already, so we don’t need to rehash that, the important part here is bolded as well, it’s importantly to understand that free speech is covered BECAUSE it is speech, verbal or non verbal, there is a particular message, rather than a vague intent. The next paragraph states this eloquently 

“ Here, the record is clear that the students intended to show their opposition to the proposed immigration reform by participating in a walkout. " 

Furthermore 

“Here, the students' expressive conduct, in seeking to participate in immigration protests, occurred entirely off-campus and was not school-sponsored. The students were punished not for any disruptive aspect of their expressive conduct, as expressive conduct, but for the disruption caused by the act of leaving campus without permission. Unlike in Tinker cases, the school was not exercising discretion when determining whether to discipline the student for their infraction of the general rule forbidding truancy. “

Also,

“The record is less clear as to whether the walkout was likely to be perceived as such. Though Bennett admitted he knew of the walkouts taking place in the area, the reason for the students' absence was not discussed in the meeting. “

With the Florida (and the called-for nationwide) walkout(s), their message has been exceedingly clear from its outset, via a widely televised speech and further actions by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students. As I said in my first post, do not be disruptive, and in addition I will say here be very clear in your intent.

I want to give a shout out to GratefulFrog, thank you so much for furthering this discussion! I can’t tell you enough how much I appreciate it, it’s too important not to have a national conversation!