"I ♥ Boobies!" bracelet at center of lawsuit

[ericsnow]

When a federal court in Philadelphia convenes Thursday, lawyers dressed in suits and armed with stacks of legal briefs are expected to appear before a judge, ready to do battle over a seven-letter plural noun that's hard to say without cracking a smile: boobies.

Go ahead, try it. Boobies.

The slang term for a woman's breasts stands trial in a free speech lawsuit between the Easton Area School District and two middle school girls, who were suspended in October for refusing to remove bracelets reading "I ♥ Boobies!" in support of breast cancer awareness.

- http://www.mcall.com/news/local/easton/mc-easton-boobies-definition-20101214,0,1541964.story

What do you guys think of this?

[agitator]

I want one of these bracelets.

[TCE]

Schools are government controlled, government cannot violate First Amendment. It is especially relevant since, because of No Child Left Behind along with Federal Department of Education, public schools are under federal jurisdiction and control. So, legally, the government cannot restrict anyone's speech. However, this will likely be ruled against the girls since every school vs. student involving free speech has gone in favor of the school. Big government at work.

[coastie]

Fuggin' ridiculous.....:mad:

I just found both my daughter's (1st grade) and son's (6th grade) I Love Boobies bracelets, and will be sure to send them to gov indoc school in the morning with them on.;)

That shit isn't remotely an issue in my area(where dude shot up School Board the other day...heh), shit, I'd bet half the schools kids wear them to school down here.:cool:

[BamaAla]

Schools are government controlled, government cannot violate First Amendment. It is especially relevant since, because of No Child Left Behind along with Federal Department of Education, public schools are under federal jurisdiction and control. So, legally, the government cannot restrict anyone's speech. However, this will likely be ruled against the girls since every school vs. student involving free speech has gone in favor of the school. Big government at work.

In loco parentis allows schools to violate all manner of otherwise guaranteed civil liberties. It will be interesting how they rule though.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836

[Bern]

Boobies are great. Boobs can be dangerous.

[fisharmor]

Schools are government controlled, government cannot violate First Amendment. It is especially relevant since, because of No Child Left Behind along with Federal Department of Education, public schools are under federal jurisdiction and control. So, legally, the government cannot restrict anyone's speech. However, this will likely be ruled against the girls since every school vs. student involving free speech has gone in favor of the school. Big government at work.

Yeah? Well how about the radio bands that government owns (ie, all of them)? Am I allowed to say whatever I want on those?
Government can do whatever it wants to do, up to and including paying grown men to rape little boys.
It's not big government, it's government.

[Elwar]

http://www.chrisabraham.com/blue-footed-boobies-dance.jpg

[dean.engelhardt]

Schools are government controlled, government cannot violate First Amendment. It is especially relevant since, because of No Child Left Behind along with Federal Department of Education, public schools are under federal jurisdiction and control. So, legally, the government cannot restrict anyone's speech. However, this will likely be ruled against the girls since every school vs. student involving free speech has gone in favor of the school. Big government at work.

The courts have taken away constitutional rights of children in public schools a long time ago.


Violations of Free Speech

The Supreme Court said in Tinker that "[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." This is the hinge upon which many cases turn when a school violates a student's free speech protections.

In Bethel School v Fraser (478 US 675 [1986]), the Court ruled that a school was not violating a students rights when it suspended a student for the use of crude language in a speech to a school assembly. Said the Court: "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." (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html)

[AxisMundi]

Schools are government controlled, government cannot violate First Amendment. It is especially relevant since, because of No Child Left Behind along with Federal Department of Education, public schools are under federal jurisdiction and control. So, legally, the government cannot restrict anyone's speech. However, this will likely be ruled against the girls since every school vs. student involving free speech has gone in favor of the school. Big government at work.

Firstly, a public school can indeed eliminate "free speech" when the message is considered to be disruptive.

That said, I believe that...

One, it's a poor choice of words on the part of the breast cancer awareness people, as it was sure to cause some controversy somewhere.

Two, the school is over reacting majorly.

[AxisMundi]

http://www.chrisabraham.com/blue-footed-boobies-dance.jpg

LoL

Booooooobies.

[AxisMundi]

The courts have taken away constitutional rights of children in public schools a long time ago.

Let's say a parent is militantly Creationist.

Does that parent have a right to walk into their child's classroom uninvited during school hours and begin haranguing the teacher about Evolution, thus disrupting the class?

Does the child?

[Acala]

Schools are government controlled, government cannot violate First Amendment. It is especially relevant since, because of No Child Left Behind along with Federal Department of Education, public schools are under federal jurisdiction and control. So, legally, the government cannot restrict anyone's speech. However, this will likely be ruled against the girls since every school vs. student involving free speech has gone in favor of the school. Big government at work.

True, government cannot violate the FIrst Amendment, BUT the First Amendment has been applied differently to different government facilities. For example, a courtroom is government controlled but you cannot enter a courtroom with your megaphone and start ranting about jury nullification. Prisons are also government controlled, but you can't organize a riot in prison. If you work in a government office, you can be terminated for calling your supervisor a stupid whore (especially if it is a man). The Supreme Court has categorized government controlled property and applies different standards ranging from no content-based restrictions allowed at all to very tight regulation allowed (as in courtrooms).

The answer, of course, is to get government out of education entirely.

[fisharmor]

One, it's a poor choice of words on the part of the breast cancer awareness people, as it was sure to cause some controversy somewhere

I dunno, the issue was totally not on my radar before they started relating it to me....
Save the ta-tas!

[AxisMundi]

I dunno, the issue was totally not on my radar before they started relating it to me....
Save the ta-tas!

Granted maybe a few people heard about it thanks to this oversensitive school.

But let's face it. Important messages can be lost in a controversy.

[dean.engelhardt]

Let's say a parent is militantly Creationist.

Does that parent have a right to walk into their child's classroom uninvited during school hours and begin haranguing the teacher about Evolution, thus disrupting the class?

Does the child?

I assume you know that the answer to your question is no. An univited parent is not even allowed to enter the high school in my town. let alone teach something. They have a person posted at the door to check everyone coming in. This is in a rural area.

[AxisMundi]

I assume you know that the answer to your question is no. An univited parent is not even allowed to enter the high school in my town. let alone teach something. They have a person posted at the door to check everyone coming in. This is in a rural area.

Yes I am aware, it is merely an example.

However, does that child indeed have some "right of free speech" that would permit them to interrupt the classroom?

[pcosmar]

Yes I am aware, it is merely an example.

However, does that child indeed have some "right of free speech" that would permit them to interrupt the classroom?

And just how is wearing a bracelet to support cancer awareness disrupting the classroom?
Is it making sounds?
Is it so huge that it blocks the view of the students?

Exactly how does a small reminder worn on the wrist cause disruption?

[AxisMundi]

And just how is wearing a bracelet to support cancer awareness disrupting the classroom?
Is it making sounds?
Is it so huge that it blocks the view of the students?

Exactly how does a small reminder worn on the wrist cause disruption?

Mind showing where I supported the school's decision?

[pcosmar]

Mind showing where I supported the school's decision?

Then you have NO point at all, either that or you are being obtuse.

[dean.engelhardt]

Yes I am aware, it is merely an example.

However, does that child indeed have some "right of free speech" that would permit them to interrupt the classroom?


And just how is wearing a bracelet to support cancer awareness disrupting the classroom?
Is it making sounds?
Is it so huge that it blocks the view of the students?

Exactly how does a small reminder worn on the wrist cause disruption?

In loco parentis (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html)

Check out the link. When your kid is in public school, the school has the same rights/responsibilities as a parent. This trumps the child's constistutional rights. The school telling a kid to take off the braclet is at the same standard as a parent in the courts eyes. Most courts would find it reasonable when a parent tells his kid to take off a I Love Boobies bracelet.

I don't support this, but it is important for parents to know what is happening in public schools before they disregard home schooling. Read that student handbook!

[AxisMundi]

Then you have NO point at all, either that or you are being obtuse.

Either that or you're merely a troll who likes stalking me.

Look, it is quite simple, to those who can read.

Schools are certainly permitted to limit free speech if the exercise of that right would be counterproductive to the learning environment and/or promotes violence/illegal activities and/or otherwise be disruptive.

The question here is "What constitutes disruptive behavior'.

Got it now? Or should I write it out in crayon for you?

[pcosmar]

Got it now? Or should I write it out in crayon for you?

Perhaps it is just the times.
It is a long time since I was in school. There were no Cell Phones and pocket calculators would not fit in your pocket (and cost more than a car)
Students in my High School would not have tolerated this. The attempted "dress code" was rejected by the student body and was eliminated after one day.
Good teachers were generally respected, bad ones were forced to leave, or reform themselves.

And the girl that was in front of me in Chemistry class wore very short skirts, and bent over the counter. Her particularly attractive butt (and panties) was a minor distraction, But not a disruption, and I still learned much about chemical reactions in that class. I still use much of that knowledge,, and don't blow anything up. (unintentionally)

But that was a very long time ago.

[BarryDonegan]

The only fair way for a public school to do this type of thing is to outline a specific policy for parents when they register their kids for school. They should have a packet which parents must sign off on before dropping their kids off at school. If the school's policies are offensive to the parent, there should be some remedy for changing to a different program or opting out for a tax refund. The policy, if it is to disallow the use of certain words in clothing or on campus, should specifically outline those terms ahead of time in a packet for parents so judges don't have to rule after the fact because the rules of decent speech are decided essentially arbitrarily by any staff member at the school.

When a complaint is filed against a student for something, there should be an official school policy that can be referenced, and, if it pertains to the use of words, that word should be found in a list that was made available to parents ahead of time. With parents have consented to comply with this policy after registering their kids for a government school, that would allow parents and students to engage in a policy without being forced in violation of the constitution. It is important to have rules of conduct and behavior at school. Government currently runs schools, so that means that school policy often takes on the color of government force. However, a consent based system where parents essentially sign their kids up for the policy would at least mean the parents certainly knew ahead of time what the expectations were.

In this case, it is unlikely that most people would find this offensive, so the punishment feels arbitrary and opportunist. The kids didn't want to take off the bracelets because they were passionate about a good cause, and it is obvious that you can't always trust officials to judge the difference between such intent without having a clearly defined policy as to what language is considered offensive that actually lists every word explicitly. This is why private education is superior; when parents feel their kids are being punished unfairly, they can take them out and place them in a compatible program.

[fisharmor]

Schools are certainly permitted to limit free speech if the exercise of that right would be counterproductive to the learning environment and/or promotes violence/illegal activities and/or otherwise be disruptive.

This argument fails.

If maintaining a learning environment was the point, then at some point in the last 100 years someone may have accounted for students occasionally needing to hear a lesson twice before they get it - instead of making them sacrifice more of their time and possibly money to work with a tutor outside of school hours.

If maintaining a learning environment was the point, then at some point in the last 100 years someone may have fooled around with the notion of abolishing the practice of making children sit idle for 55 minutes at a time, and then run up to a quarter mile through heavy foot traffic in five minutes or be penalized for being late for their next totally sedate 55 minutes.

If it was the point, then someone would question the mandate that children miss classes occasionally to watch some of their scantily clad classmates do backflips and recite nursery rhymes.

Bottom line: they get to do it because they're in charge, they have the full weight of law behind them, they have no competition, and if you don't like it you can cram it with walnuts.

[dean.engelhardt]

Perhaps it is just the times.
It is a long time since I was in school. There were no Cell Phones and pocket calculators would not fit in your pocket (and cost more than a car)
Students in my High School would not have tolerated this. The attempted "dress code" was rejected by the student body and was eliminated after one day.
Good teachers were generally respected, bad ones were forced to leave, or reform themselves.

And the girl that was in front of me in Chemistry class wore very short skirts, and bent over the counter. Her particularly attractive butt (and panties) was a minor distraction, But not a disruption, and I still learned much about chemical reactions in that class. I still use much of that knowledge,, and don't blow anything up. (unintentionally)

But that was a very long time ago.

Am I a dirty old man for wishing this post was longer? Rep added.

BTW, my next post will be number 666. Any suggestions on content?

[dannno]

Am I a dirty old man for wishing this post was longer? Rep added.



Yes, you are. High school girls are not "hot" because they cannot legally consent to having sex with older men, but they can consent to having sex all day long with douchebags their own age. If you have consensual sex with a high school student, you may as well have beaten a 20 year old college student within an inch of her life and forcibly raped her.

[Minlawc]

Why does this topic remind me of this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C486j9sWCSo

[oyarde]

http://www.chrisabraham.com/blue-footed-boobies-dance.jpg

There is my blue footed boobie friend , I wonder if they taste like duck .

[TCE]

Yeah? Well how about the radio bands that government owns (ie, all of them)? Am I allowed to say whatever I want on those?
Government can do whatever it wants to do, up to and including paying grown men to rape little boys.
It's not big government, it's government.

Not to get into a Minarchist versus Anarchist debate, but speaking purely from a Constitutionalist standpoint, 14th Amendment not withstanding, the Federal Government cannot limit free speech, period. The states can.


Firstly, a public school can indeed eliminate "free speech" when the message is considered to be disruptive.

That said, I believe that...

One, it's a poor choice of words on the part of the breast cancer awareness people, as it was sure to cause some controversy somewhere.

Two, the school is over reacting majorly.

Firstly, not Constitutionally anymore. It is federal government controlled public property, so the can't shout fire in a movie theatre argument is null and void since there is no private property.

One, absolutely.

Two, definitely.


The answer, of course, is to get government out of education entirely.

That's where I was going with my original post.


In loco parentis

Check out the link. When your kid is in public school, the school has the same rights/responsibilities as a parent. This trumps the child's constistutional rights. The school telling a kid to take off the braclet is at the same standard as a parent in the courts eyes. Most courts would find it reasonable when a parent tells his kid to take off a I Love Boobies bracelet.

I don't support this, but it is important for parents to know what is happening in public schools before they disregard home schooling. Read that student handbook!

I know that case well and actually wrote a 10-page or so paper on it a couple years back. That decision was not based on the Constitution at all. Do you really think our founders would have wanted schools to be able to nullify the entire Constitution? Oh, and you can't opt out or your kids will be taken away.

BarryDonegan: Parents do sign many papers that essentially state you agree to their rules. However, the parent is always under duress. If they don't sign the papers, they can have their kids taken by the government for not enrolling them in school. Sure, Private School is an option, but not for everyone. Parents have no choice and have to give their kids up.

[TCE]

Yes, you are. High school girls are not "hot" because they cannot legally consent to having sex with older men, but they can consent to having sex all day long with douchebags their own age. If you have consensual sex with a high school student, you may as well have beaten a 20 year old college student within an inch of her life and forcibly raped her.

Virtually everyone over 40 who wants to date a high school girl has either never been with one or is living in a fantasy world where they are better than they truly are. /Controversy.

[AxisMundi]

Perhaps it is just the times.
It is a long time since I was in school. There were no Cell Phones and pocket calculators would not fit in your pocket (and cost more than a car)
Students in my High School would not have tolerated this. The attempted "dress code" was rejected by the student body and was eliminated after one day.
Good teachers were generally respected, bad ones were forced to leave, or reform themselves.

And the girl that was in front of me in Chemistry class wore very short skirts, and bent over the counter. Her particularly attractive butt (and panties) was a minor distraction, But not a disruption, and I still learned much about chemical reactions in that class. I still use much of that knowledge,, and don't blow anything up. (unintentionally)

But that was a very long time ago.

Most of my elementary school experience was before forced busing.

If a kid came to school wearing, say, shorts, he was sent home. Same with a printed t-shirt.

Yeah, times have changed, in some cases majorly. But if anything, schools have gotten much too soft on students. IMHO.

Sorry about the reply as well, perhaps it was a little over the top..

[Heimdallr]

That's bullshit indeed. Especially because it's breast cancer!

[AxisMundi]

This argument fails.

If maintaining a learning environment was the point, then at some point in the last 100 years someone may have accounted for students occasionally needing to hear a lesson twice before they get it - instead of making them sacrifice more of their time and possibly money to work with a tutor outside of school hours.

If maintaining a learning environment was the point, then at some point in the last 100 years someone may have fooled around with the notion of abolishing the practice of making children sit idle for 55 minutes at a time, and then run up to a quarter mile through heavy foot traffic in five minutes or be penalized for being late for their next totally sedate 55 minutes.

If it was the point, then someone would question the mandate that children miss classes occasionally to watch some of their scantily clad classmates do backflips and recite nursery rhymes.

Bottom line: they get to do it because they're in charge, they have the full weight of law behind them, they have no competition, and if you don't like it you can cram it with walnuts.

So you support disruptive behaviors?

Please clarify.

[pcosmar]

So you support disruptive behaviors?

Please clarify.

So you support Strawman arguments?

There is no "Disruptive Behavior" in wearing a bracelet.

[fisharmor]

So you support disruptive behaviors?

Please clarify.

You asserted that this is disrupting education.
I am countering that by arguing that the point of compulsory state schooling has never been primarily education.

Remove the free speech element for a minute and just examine the schools themselves.
Schooling has barely changed in 100 years, yet it gets consistently worse.
If education was the goal, fundamentals about this system - like those I mentioned - would come into doubt.
They do not.
Therefore education is not the primary goal. We are left to assume that whatever the goal is, it is still being met by the schools.

Since the system actively lies to us on a regular basis - asserting that education is the goal when it is clearly not - I don't need to look into what the goal is to favor disruption to the system.
If it was sold on a lie, then it deserves to be disrupted, regardless of whether the true goal is in any way noble.

The goal is not noble, however - it is nefarious. I therefore support disruptions to compulsory state schooling.

In short - disruptive behaviors are desirable because the system is evil.

I also laugh audibly when I hear that this girl's interference with their goals will not be tolerated.
In cracking the whip on any who dare think as freely as to don an amusing bracelet, they are simply creating more of us.

[AxisMundi]

Not to get into a Minarchist versus Anarchist debate, but speaking purely from a Constitutionalist standpoint, 14th Amendment not withstanding, the Federal Government cannot limit free speech, period. The states can.

Firstly, not Constitutionally anymore. It is federal government controlled public property, so the can't shout fire in a movie theatre argument is null and void since there is no private property.

One, absolutely.

Two, definitely...

Yes, it can.

Try going down and calling for the assassination of the POTUS in front of the White House. Try publicly accusing your neighbor of crimes they did not commit. Try playing loud music during a court session. Try demonstrating on school property during class hours.

Free Speech was meant to preserve language critical of the government, not some imagined carte blanche for people to say whatever they wish, especially where school children are concerned. A few relevant SCOTUS cases have already been noted that support this.

And you will notice it was not I that brought up the failed theater argument as well. Schools are indeed permitted, and it is even desirable, to eliminate disruptive behavior that would impact the learning environment. As I noted above, the question is not a school's responsibility, or right, to do so. This has not only been established, but proven through several court cases. The question is what constituted disruptive behavior.

And IMHO, these bracelets do not qualify, especially for the level of punishment given.

[AxisMundi]

So you support Strawman arguments?

There is no "Disruptive Behavior" in wearing a bracelet.

This is why my previous post was so abrasive. You refuse to read my posts, instead applying the worst of ideals to my comments, and then arguing from that standpoint.

Please show any quote from me suggesting that I support this school's actions where these bracelets are concerned.

[pcosmar]

This is why my previous post was so abrasive. You refuse to read my posts, instead applying the worst of ideals to my comments, and then arguing from that standpoint.


No
I have followed your posts in several threads and am convinced that you are a troll.
Expect abrasive. Short and Rude.

Or adjust yourself.
Or just stop and go away.

[AxisMundi]

You asserted that this is disrupting education.
I am countering that by arguing that the point of compulsory state schooling has never been primarily education.

Remove the free speech element for a minute and just examine the schools themselves.
Schooling has barely changed in 100 years, yet it gets consistently worse.
If education was the goal, fundamentals about this system - like those I mentioned - would come into doubt.
They do not.
Therefore education is not the primary goal. We are left to assume that whatever the goal is, it is still being met by the schools.

Since the system actively lies to us on a regular basis - asserting that education is the goal when it is clearly not - I don't need to look into what the goal is to favor disruption to the system.
If it was sold on a lie, then it deserves to be disrupted, regardless of whether the true goal is in any way noble.

The goal is not noble, however - it is nefarious. I therefore support disruptions to compulsory state schooling.

In short - disruptive behaviors are desirable because the system is evil.

I also laugh audibly when I hear that this girl's interference with their goals will not be tolerated.
In cracking the whip on any who dare think as freely as to don an amusing bracelet, they are simply creating more of us.

Your stance is wrong from one simple and obvious fact, well known to anyone here who went to school when bible reading and forced prayers were mandatory, and was forced to completely rethink Math when they changed the formulas on us.

Schools have most certainly changed over the past one hundred years.

There has been a fundamental shift in education ideology, just within the past four decades. No longer is learning by rote considered desirable, no longer is elementary education considered a foundation for higher education, and preparation for the working world. Kids aren't even held back anymore when they fail a grade in many municipalities, including my own.

Change must come from several different sources, and certainly NOT by the students themselves as such behavior only goes to distract from the effort to improve schools.

Here are some of my ideas that I push in my own home town...

1. Targeted multi-media educational advertising campaigns directed at parents to urge them to become more involved in their children's education. Make sure homework is done; ensure their children are dressed properly; keep in constant contact with educators over concerns; make sure their kids are actually attending school and not hanging out on the corner; etc. IOW, get parents involved, as parents are a big part of the break-down, or the ultimate success, of our schools.

2. Remove the near tenure teacher's unions have developed for educators. Bring back some accountability. If a person continually fails at their job, they are generally fired and that person really needs to rethink their career choices. This should apply to teachers as well. While there are certainly outstanding educators out there, the system fails them by grouping these educators who see their chosen profession as a career with people who look at it as only a 9-5 job, people who do not really care for the children under their care.

3. A fundamental shift in education ideology must occur. Elementary, junior high, and high school education curriculum must be returned to what is known to work. Education must be about providing children with a fundamental education for success in their adult lives, be it exposing them to a multitude of employment possibilities or preparing them for higher education. Current politics are emphasized way to much IMHO, for one example, and "lifestyle tolerance" programs, besides being an oxymoron, take up valuable time that could be used for learning the Three R's, for another example among many.

These are part of the factors explaining why private schools, parochial or secular, succeed where public schools fail. Private schools, being a business, realize the value of a good, solid, foundational education and stick with things known to work.

I understand that kids don't like school. Part of that problem isn't "sitting vacantly for 55 minutes", but a lack of their educators, and parents, providing that spark of interest in learning. Kids are much to interested in who likes who, whose wearing what, whats hot or not in new music, et cetera ad nauseam. But when one examines simply history, one will find that we did indeed do much better in the past, and not a century ago, but a few scant decades prior to today before more progressive ideas invading our education system.

[AxisMundi]

No
I have followed your posts in several threads and am convinced that you are a troll.
Expect abrasive. Short and Rude.

Or adjust yourself.
Or just stop and go away.

Then I retract my apology, and I will prepare the crayons for you.

BTW, considering that each and every time you "argue" against me, you are unable to provide a simple quote to substantiate the comments you have invented for me, who is the troll?

[Agorism]

No surprise this became the most popular thread lol.

[pcosmar]

Then I retract my apology, and I will prepare the crayons for you.

I do my best work with spray paint.
:D

[idirtify]

1. Firstly, a public school can indeed eliminate "free speech" when the message is considered to be disruptive.

2. it's a poor choice of words on the part of the breast cancer awareness people, as it was sure to cause some controversy somewhere.

3. Two, the school is over reacting majorly.

1. Ahhh, the old “disruptive” accusation; possibly the most arbitrary and selectively enforced of all rules. How nice! A favorite of rule-makers everywhere, esp schools and internet discussion forums. They love it so much because it leaves open such a wide array of possible violations (invites abuse). Heck the suspect doesn’t even have to actually disrupt anything to be accused; he/she only has to be unique or controversial enough, to where the actual disruption is caused by the overreactions of the observers. I mean it’s so efficient for rule-makers; since virtually anything can be characterized as “disruptive”, all they really have to do is have this ONE rule. Don’t you just love it!

2. Since the latter is certainly true, the former is probably false. Look at all the more people who are now more aware of breast cancer because of the controversy. I would call getting lots of free advertising a “wise choice”. Now maybe it was accidental on the part of the breast cancer awareness people, but I doubt it.

3. Agreed.

[RoyalShock]

I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, but anyone who doesn't think those bracelets will cause a disruption in a middle school full of pubescent boys has been out of school too long. They see it as a sexual reference. Would a bracelet in support of cervical cancer awareness that said I Love Pu__ies be ok in the same setting? Hey, it's for a good cause, right?

The parents of these girls really should have known better than to send them to middle school wearing a bracelet with a sexual, albeit common, euphemism. I don't agree with all of my local school district's policies (we're dealing with one now where a good kid may be expelled for 180 days because he didn't drop his hunting rifle off at home before going to school), but I have no problem with a public school having a policy that prohibits clothing and other items that contain sexual referecnes, even if they are seemingly innocent or for a good cause.

Fire away.

[MelissaWV]

I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, but anyone who doesn't think those bracelets will cause a disruption in a middle school full of pubescent boys has been out of school too long. They see it as a sexual reference. Would a bracelet in support of cervical cancer awareness that said I Love Pu__ies be ok in the same setting? Hey, it's for a good cause, right?

The parents of these girls really should have known better than to send them to middle school wearing a bracelet with a sexual, albeit common, euphemism. I don't agree with all of my local school district's policies (we're dealing with one now where a good kid may be expelled for 180 days because he didn't drop his hunting rifle off at home before going to school), but I have no problem with a public school having a policy that prohibits clothing and other items that contain sexual referecnes, even if they are seemingly innocent or for a good cause.

Fire away.

I actually agree with you to a certain extent. If schools weren't on our dime, I wouldn't care if they were collectively offended by the letter "i" and decided to ban all shirts with an "i" anywhere on them. What stinks, though, is that the schools are worrying about this, failing to educate a great deal of the students they "process," and more involved with the social aspects of the kids than any hint of preparing them for the future.

[AxisMundi]

1. Ahhh, the old “disruptive” accusation; possibly the most arbitrary and selectively enforced of all rules. How nice! A favorite of rule-makers everywhere, esp schools and internet discussion forums. They love it so much because it leaves open such a wide array of possible violations (invites abuse). Heck the suspect doesn’t even have to actually disrupt anything to be accused; he/she only has to be unique or controversial enough, to where the actual disruption is caused by the overreactions of the observers. I mean it’s so efficient for rule-makers; since virtually anything can be characterized as “disruptive”, all they really have to do is have this ONE rule. Don’t you just love it!

2. Since the latter is certainly true, the former is probably false. Look at all the more people who are now more aware of breast cancer because of the controversy. I would call getting lots of free advertising a “wise choice”. Now maybe it was accidental on the part of the breast cancer awareness people, but I doubt it.

3. Agreed.

1. Certainly it is occasionally abused. Obviously you haven't read my posts stating this incident is one of them. To reiterate, schools are permitted to limit free speech where it is disruptive. Also where the promotion of illegal activities are concerned as well.

HOWEVER...

The question is not IF the schools can (or should), it is what constitutes disruptive behaviors. No where will you find a quote of mine stating that I supported the school's decision on this matter.

2. Any important concern that becomes politicized, from abortion to religious freedoms, looses out when the bulk of attention is steered away from the message. The same goes when controversy arises.

Are there more people aware of the breast cancer message because of this controversy? Certainly. But how many people fully understand the message and have acted upon it, as opposed to discussing the controversy?

3. Cool.

[dannno]

I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, but anyone who doesn't think those bracelets will cause a disruption in a middle school full of pubescent boys has been out of school too long. They see it as a sexual reference.

Sexual? Sorta.. I think more likely they see them as awesome.. I remember being 4 years old and some woman with big breasts looked like they were going to pop out of her blouse and that was all I could think about. I certainly wasn't thinking about sex, I just wanted to see them pop out.

I dunno, I don't see breasts being at the same level as genitalia at all. Girls of all ages put their breasts on display, they present their breast area like a stage for an up-scale play with frilly stuff, making a big canyon to emphasize their size, etc. Of course their nipples are covered up, but checkout the clothes girls wear sometime, the whole neckline is usually built to emphasize and draw attention to the portion of the breasts that you can show. On the other hand, I don't see a lot of girls displaying their pussies for everyone to see.




Would a bracelet in support of cervical cancer awareness that said I Love Pu__ies be ok in the same setting? Hey, it's for a good cause, right?

The bracelet should say "I love Pussy!" instead of I Love Pussies.

I wouldn't let my daughters wear something like that, but I'm not going to stop other kids from doing it. What's the real harm, anyway? A lot of kids in my middle school were having sex already, repressing them in school is just going to make them rebel even more.

[lynnf]

http://www.chrisabraham.com/blue-footed-boobies-dance.jpg


I love your boobies! (the birds, that is)

lynn

[coastie]

Sexual? Sorta.. I think more likely they see them as awesome.. I remember being 4 years old and some woman with big breasts looked like they were going to pop out of her blouse and that was all I could think about. I certainly wasn't thinking about sex, I just wanted to see them pop out.

I dunno, I don't see breasts being at the same level as genitalia at all. Girls of all ages put their breasts on display, they present their breast area like a stage for an up-scale play with frilly stuff, making a big canyon to emphasize their size, etc. Of course their nipples are covered up, but checkout the clothes girls wear sometime, the whole neckline is usually built to emphasize and draw attention to the portion of the breasts that you can show. On the other hand, I don't see a lot of girls displaying their pussies for everyone to see.




The bracelet should say "I love Pussy!" instead of I Love Pussies.

I wouldn't let my daughters wear something like that, but I'm not going to stop other kids from doing it. What's the real harm, anyway? A lot of kids in my middle school were having sex already, repressing them in school is just going to make them rebel even more.


+1776

They most certainly are. At my son's middle school, there are 4 pregnant girls-two of them in 7th grade, the other in 8th. Just ONE of the the four local high schools has 10 this year. 10 pregnancies at ONE high school out of four. Ho.ly. Shit

The problem with the whole 'boobies" thing is it's just like the people who scream "child porn" at wal-mart when they develop your kids bathtub photos. I never thought of pics of babies in bathtubs as "porn"...so why are they???


ETA: I really, really love boobies.

[TCE]

I wouldn't let my daughters wear something like that, but I'm not going to stop other kids from doing it. What's the real harm, anyway? A lot of kids in my middle school were having sex already, repressing them in school is just going to make them rebel even more.

Your strategy is actually debunked by you later in the paragraph. It's the prohibition argument. Ban girls from wearing the clothes they want to wear and they will just change into them when they get to school. Either that or have a friend bring them.

[pcosmar]

I'm sure I'll get ripped for this, but anyone who doesn't think those bracelets will cause a disruption in a middle school full of pubescent boys has been out of school too long. They see it as a sexual reference. Would a bracelet in support of cervical cancer awareness that said I Love Pu__ies be ok in the same setting? Hey, it's for a good cause, right?

The parents of these girls really should have known better than to send them to middle school wearing a bracelet with a sexual, albeit common, euphemism. I don't agree with all of my local school district's policies (we're dealing with one now where a good kid may be expelled for 180 days because he didn't drop his hunting rifle off at home before going to school), but I have no problem with a public school having a policy that prohibits clothing and other items that contain sexual referecnes, even if they are seemingly innocent or for a good cause.

Fire away.
Ok.
The story said Ninth grade. That is Freshman High School. (or was when I was in school)
In 9th grade I was dating a girl with 48" chest. I was still a virgin, she was not. As I remember (I am old,forgive my memory) Most girls had visible breasts at about 6th grade and had been wearing bras since 4th grade.
And most boys were well aware of those facts.

I like breasts (boobies), I spent a lot of time in a hospital when I was dating my wife (she was having breast surgery) it was not cancer, but she was quite worried at the time.
My Mother is in her mid 80s and is a Breast Cancer survivor..

And stories like this show (clearly) the stupidity of the public school system.

Oh yeah, Students back then regularly brought rifles to school too. I was on the school rifle team. And deer season was an excused absence.

[idirtify]

1. Certainly it is occasionally abused. Obviously you haven't read my posts stating this incident is one of them. To reiterate, schools are permitted to limit free speech where it is disruptive. Also where the promotion of illegal activities are concerned as well.

HOWEVER...

The question is not IF the schools can (or should), it is what constitutes disruptive behaviors. No where will you find a quote of mine stating that I supported the school's decision on this matter.

2. Any important concern that becomes politicized, from abortion to religious freedoms, looses out when the bulk of attention is steered away from the message. The same goes when controversy arises.

Are there more people aware of the breast cancer message because of this controversy? Certainly. But how many people fully understand the message and have acted upon it, as opposed to discussing the controversy?



1. I’m not sure what you are accusing me of accusing you of accusing or supporting. I was more-or-less just accusing the school of making false accusations. Now that that’s perfectly straight, let’s continue to discuss the issue:

Yeah, it’s all about what constitutes disruptive behaviors. But sadly, it’s fairly common for rule-makers to waffle between detailed explanations of specific rules, and merely claiming the right to eject anyone for anything at any time. And then there is the “disruption rule”, which more-or-less serves as both a specific rule AND a catchall.

2. Often with advertisers, the values are: politics and controversy = wider awareness = foot-in-door = mission accomplished (benefit from foot-in-door outweighs risk from controversy).

[oyarde]

The fact that there is a lawsuit over some very effective breast cancer awareness is disturbing ......

[idirtify]

Not to be crass, but is there an ass-cancer or vagina-cancer awareness group? Aside from the many humorous approaches, how exactly would ANY reference to said diseases be non-controversial in middle school? And let’s not forget testicular cancer. Maybe awareness’s of those unfortunate diseases are simply not appropriate for middle school.

[idirtify]

The fact that there is a lawsuit over some very effective breast cancer awareness is disturbing ......

Or maybe not, considering the potential for even more awareness (free advertising). Just think: it goes to trial, gets on big-times news, generates huge sympathy for awareness advocates (and awareness). Brilliant!!

[MelissaWV]

Not to be crass, but is there an ass-cancer or vagina-cancer awareness group? Aside from the many humorous approaches, how exactly would ANY reference to said diseases be non-controversial in middle school? And let’s not forget testicular cancer. Maybe awareness’s of those unfortunate diseases are simply not appropriate for middle school.

They should be addressed in anatomy/science classes, no? I don't think it's "inappropriate" for middle school. Chances are that at least one of those kids (or more, really) will have a parent who eventually dies of an "inappropriate" cancer. I wonder if dads nearing the end of their days due to testicular cancer really avoid talking about it with their kids. If so, what a shame, and how dangerous when the child grows up and needs to know they likely carry the same genes and need to be looking out for warning signs.

[dannno]

Your strategy is actually debunked by you later in the paragraph. It's the prohibition argument. Ban girls from wearing the clothes they want to wear and they will just change into them when they get to school. Either that or have a friend bring them.

You're right in a sense, if they want to wear it that bad they will wear it.. but I'm not going to encourage it. I would hope if I had kids that they would feel like the decisions I help them make would be for their benefit.

[AxisMundi]

1. I’m not sure what you are accusing me of accusing you of accusing or supporting. I was more-or-less just accusing the school of making false accusations. Now that that’s perfectly straight, let’s continue to discuss the issue:

Yeah, it’s all about what constitutes disruptive behaviors. But sadly, it’s fairly common for rule-makers to waffle between detailed explanations of specific rules, and merely claiming the right to eject anyone for anything at any time. And then there is the “disruption rule”, which more-or-less serves as both a specific rule AND a catchall.

2. Often with advertisers, the values are: politics and controversy = wider awareness = foot-in-door = mission accomplished (benefit from foot-in-door outweighs risk from controversy).

1. Glad that was cleared up. Moving on...

Agreed. However, one cannot be too specific, I think you will agree, as that would result in School Handbooks to rival War and Peace in volume. Thus educators are forced to make general rules, and basically wing it.

Sometimes that bird hits the window, so to speak, as in the OP.

2. Part of my college course centers on advertising, from graphics to development of spreads and entire advertising campaigns. I am certainly aware of the idea that controversy, like sex, sells products.

However, it is my firmest opinion that for fine organizations such as those promoting breast cancer awareness, controversy is, itself, a cancer that will kill the message.

[Brett85]

Schools are government controlled, government cannot violate First Amendment. It is especially relevant since, because of No Child Left Behind along with Federal Department of Education, public schools are under federal jurisdiction and control. So, legally, the government cannot restrict anyone's speech. However, this will likely be ruled against the girls since every school vs. student involving free speech has gone in favor of the school. Big government at work.

So a kid at school should have the constitutional right to wear a shirt that says "F*ck you?" This is just ridiculous. It's not like these kids got thrown in jail for wearing these bracelets. Children have to abide by the rules that are set by the schools. If you had some case where children were actually getting thrown in jail for wearing something offensive, that would obviously be a violation of the 1st amendment. But obviously a school has the right to take disciplinary action against a student if they wear something offensive.

[dannno]

So a kid at school should have the constitutional right to wear a shirt that says "F*ck you?" This is just ridiculous. It's not like these kids got thrown in jail for wearing these bracelets. Children have to abide by the rules that are set by the schools. If you had some case where children were actually getting thrown in jail for wearing something offensive, that would obviously be a violation of the 1st amendment. But obviously a school has the right to take disciplinary action against a student if they wear something offensive.

You're right, kids shouldn't be able to express themselves in school in any way, shape or form. It could offend someone, afterall.

They should also be forced to be in this state of complete and utter suppression all day long.

[dannno]

I knew this guy in high school who wore a shirt that said, "Rehab is for Quitters."

What are you gonna do?

[Brett85]

You're right, kids shouldn't be able to express themselves in school in any way, shape or form. It could offend someone, afterall.

They should also be forced to be in this state of complete and utter suppression all day long.

I never said that, but apparently you want to allow kids to express themselves in any way they please without facing any kind of disciplinary action. In your world the 1st amendment protects a student who shouts "F*ck you" over and over again at a teacher.

[ARealConservative]

these threads get so old.

We are in two camps

One camp is willing to allow sovereign states to govern the way they see fit, and want to see more power returned to the states, counties, and cities as the original understanding of the constitution was outlined. This camp will defend local communities from banning bracelets that say FU.

The other camp is a little more divided. some want no state at all at any level, others seem to favor a strong Federal Government that incorporates the declaration of independence. In either case, they always argue on the side of allowing the FU braclets.

The old part is we are always repeating the same arguments. the bracelet always changes, the argument never does.

[pcosmar]

We are in two camps

.

Yup,
I don't want this camp.

http://history.verdeserve.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/3.jpg

http://alexandermassa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pledgeofallegiance.jpg

:mad:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The Government can do whatever the hell they want because:

1) People either knowingly, or unknowingly give their consent to their actions.
2) The Government has an army of loyalists ready and willing to kill, murder, rape, and pillage anyone who rises against the tyranny.
3) It is a monopoly, and secession has been demonized by the State in their indoctrination centers for a good 140 years. People do not even realize the sillyness of the argument as we were born as a country through secession! Oh the stupidity of the people and rapacity of Government propaganda.

This whole argument is pointless, misses the underlying problems, and serves as one giant distraction. It's time to end compulsory schooling once and for all!

[Icymudpuppy]

I LOVE THEM TOO!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MfsZp6tveUs/TClX7WfO7KI/AAAAAAAACSI/c8sm0heVJ1A/s1600/blue_footed_boobie.28974724_std.jpg

[speciallyblend]

boobies ahhhh i feel all tingly:)

[Pauls' Revere]

Do they refer to the bird?

http://0.tqn.com/d/goaustralia/1/0/z/h/boobie-bird.jpg

:cool:

[dannno]

I never said that, but apparently you want to allow kids to express themselves in any way they please without facing any kind of disciplinary action. In your world the 1st amendment protects a student who shouts "F*ck you" over and over again at a teacher.

Well I don't believe in compulsory education, but as long as we have it I don't mind disciplinary actions for bad behavior by students. I don't see how wearing a particular shirt with a particular slogan is 'bad behavior', yelling at the teacher or being verbally disruptive during class is bad behavior.

If you don't want your kids in that kind of environment, send them to private school or home school.

[Brett85]

Well I don't believe in compulsory education, but as long as we have it I don't mind disciplinary actions for bad behavior by students. I don't see how wearing a particular shirt with a particular slogan is 'bad behavior', yelling at the teacher or being verbally disruptive during class is bad behavior.

If you don't want your kids in that kind of environment, send them to private school or home school.

Most parents can't afford to send their kids to private school, and they don't really have the time or expertise to home school their kids. That's why I support having public schools, though I do believe that the federal government should stay completely out of it. As far as I know all schools have limits on what kind of clothes students can wear and the slogans that are on them. There's always a dress code. When I was in middle school, I had to change my shirt because it contained language that said "You're a pussy." I had no idea what that word even meant. It was a shirt that had a Kansas State wildcat on it, which was why that word was used. Each local school board usually decides on what is and isn't appropriate, and the decisions on these kind of issues should be left up to them, not the courts.

[AxisMundi]

Most parents can't afford to send their kids to private school, and they don't really have the time or expertise to home school their kids. That's why I support having public schools, though I do believe that the federal government should stay completely out of it. As far as I know all schools have limits on what kind of clothes students can wear and the slogans that are on them. There's always a dress code. When I was in middle school, I had to change my shirt because it contained language that said "You're a pussy." I had no idea what that word even meant. It was a shirt that had a Kansas State wildcat on it, which was why that word was used. Each local school board usually decides on what is and isn't appropriate, and the decisions on these kind of issues should be left up to them, not the courts.

Quite agreed.

The Feds should stay out of public education, except where the Constitution already mandates their involvement.

[heavenlyboy34]

Most parents can't afford to send their kids to private school, and they don't really have the time or expertise to home school their kids. That's why I support having public schools, though I do believe that the federal government should stay completely out of it. As far as I know all schools have limits on what kind of clothes students can wear and the slogans that are on them. There's always a dress code. When I was in middle school, I had to change my shirt because it contained language that said "You're a pussy." I had no idea what that word even meant. It was a shirt that had a Kansas State wildcat on it, which was why that word was used. Each local school board usually decides on what is and isn't appropriate, and the decisions on these kind of issues should be left up to them, not the courts.

Where, may I ask, do you find the "right" to public education in the Constitution? If it's not there(it's not), why should it be paid for by public monies (aside from donations)?

[heavenlyboy34]

Quite agreed.

The Feds should stay out of public education, except where the Constitution already mandates their involvement.

The constitution doesn't have any Federal mandates regarding education whatsoever. It is left to the States.

[MelissaWV]

If all the kids are facing front and paying attention during class, how are they seeing the shirts/bracelets in question? Why not send kids who aren't paying attention to in-school detention, or to the principle's office, or... oh wait! That's not allowed!

Perhaps if teachers were "allowed" by the happy-go-lucky Government to get rid of kids who are genuinely distracting (or distracted, which is more to the point, isn't it?), this wouldn't even come up.

As for the "camp" Pete is showing pictures of... isn't that itty bitty girl's skirt a bit north of the knee?

[pcosmar]

If all the kids are facing front and paying attention during class, how are they seeing the shirts/bracelets in question? Why not send kids who aren't paying attention to in-school detention, or to the principle's office, or... oh wait! That's not allowed!

Perhaps if teachers were "allowed" by the happy-go-lucky Government to get rid of kids who are genuinely distracting (or distracted, which is more to the point, isn't it?), this wouldn't even come up.

As for the "camp" Pete is showing pictures of... isn't that itty bitty girl's skirt a bit north of the knee?

Why yes it was. And when she was leaning over the counter it was north of ,,,,other things.
And I was facing forward.

That was the style of the day.

[MelissaWV]

Why yes it was. And when she was leaning over the counter it was north of ,,,,other things.
And I was facing forward.

That was the style of the day.

She should have been sent home for being distracting!*


*Proof positive that "distracting" is redefined from one generation to the next, for sure, and between cultures.

[pcosmar]

She should have been sent home for being distracting!*


*Proof positive that "distracting" is redefined from one generation to the next, for sure, and between cultures.

A minor distraction. and I was still able to learn in that class.
I also have some fond memories.
;)

[AxisMundi]

The constitution doesn't have any Federal mandates regarding education whatsoever. It is left to the States.

The "general welfare" clause applies.

Not to mention that the Federal level is superior to all levels of government in those items enumerated within the Constitution.

Example? No level of government may enact legislation requiring bible study and religious doctrines, such as Creationism, to be taught in Public Schools, as they are a government institution.

Strange how so many people quote the First Amendment in this thread, but some still refuse to acknowledge that Federal level involvement.

[AxisMundi]

Where, may I ask, do you find the "right" to public education in the Constitution? If it's not there(it's not), why should it be paid for by public monies (aside from donations)?

Again, general welfare clause.

And as a certain level of education is required by law, then the government must supply the service to those who cannot otherwise afford it.

Been that way in some areas of the Americas since before we were a Nation, and the origins can be found in the English Common Law we inherited.

[oyarde]

Where, may I ask, do you find the "right" to public education in the Constitution? If it's not there(it's not), why should it be paid for by public monies (aside from donations)?

It is in my state Constitution . Half of all state tax and nearly all property tax goes to pay for this . Avg of about 10,000 per kid per year k -12 . No federal money should be spent on education. It is not in article one section eight .

[oyarde]

Most parents can't afford to send their kids to private school, and they don't really have the time or expertise to home school their kids. That's why I support having public schools, though I do believe that the federal government should stay completely out of it. As far as I know all schools have limits on what kind of clothes students can wear and the slogans that are on them. There's always a dress code. When I was in middle school, I had to change my shirt because it contained language that said "You're a pussy." I had no idea what that word even meant. It was a shirt that had a Kansas State wildcat on it, which was why that word was used. Each local school board usually decides on what is and isn't appropriate, and the decisions on these kind of issues should be left up to them, not the courts.

In my state , you could send a kid to private school for half the tax money spent on a public school kid .

[dannno]

Again, general welfare clause.

And as a certain level of education is required by law, then the government must supply the service to those who cannot otherwise afford it.

Been that way in some areas of the Americas since before we were a Nation, and the origins can be found in the English Common Law we inherited.

LOL, you're not going to get anywhere using the "General Welfare" clause to back-up your position 'round here..

Unless you're a Hamilton guy, you shouldn't use it either..


*Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[8][9]

* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[10]


I see a lot of room for tyranny in Hamilton's version, which is why I am against it. It's basically saying "we can do whatever we want because it's for your own good!"

[Brett85]

Where, may I ask, do you find the "right" to public education in the Constitution? If it's not there(it's not), why should it be paid for by public monies (aside from donations)?

I never said that there was a "right" to public education in the Constitution. But the Constitution doesn't prohibit a state from providing public education for kids. I said that the federal government should have no involvement in it. But I don't think that public schools should be abolished at the state level. I just believe in local control of education much like Ron and Rand.

[AxisMundi]

LOL, you're not going to get anywhere using the "General Welfare" clause to back-up your position 'round here..

Unless you're a Hamilton guy, you shouldn't use it either..



I see a lot of room for tyranny in Hamilton's version, which is why I am against it. It's basically saying "we can do whatever we want because it's for your own good!"

Then use any State Constitution as well.

http://www.mcsba.org/mcec/POSITIONS/Issues%20statements%20-%20constitutional%20mandate.pdf

I'm sure you can find it in your own State Constitution as well.

[agitator]

I never said that there was a "right" to public education in the Constitution. But the Constitution doesn't prohibit a state from providing public education for kids. I said that the federal government should have no involvement in it. But I don't think that public schools should be abolished at the state level. I just believe in local control of education much like Ron and Rand.

Do the State constitutions authorize public education? I don't know, but it seems to go against liberty eitherway. Why should I pay for another's child's education?

[Brett85]

Do the State constitutions authorize public education? I don't know, but it seems to go against liberty eitherway. Why should I pay for another's child's education?

I believe that most of them do anyway. But most libertarians I know don't want to abolish public schools. That seems to me to be somewhat of an anarchist position rather than a libertarian position. We have to provide our kids with the education that they need so that they can become productive members of society later on. If we didn't educate kids, our society as a whole would spiral downwards, and we would lose our competitive advantage over other countries. I do support vouchers for private schools, charter schools, etc, but I just don't support abolishing public schools. I don't support the income tax, but I think that there should be a sales tax to pay for public schools. I'm just opposed to taxing people and redistributing income, like we see the federal government do all the time with programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Things like public schools and roads are common resources that everybody benefits from, so I have no problem with those things at the state level.

[MelissaWV]

Strangely, I actually *HAD* boobies when going through school, and somehow managed to get an education.

[oyarde]

Strangely, I actually *HAD* boobies when going through school, and somehow managed to get an education.

Ha , Ha , yes you did !