Videos tagged with Student Speech Rights

This video discusses the Supreme Court's denial of review for two significant cases: Morrison v. Town of Middbor, concerning student speech rights, and Apache Stronghold v. United States, regarding religious land use. The speaker, William Kirk, highlights the implications of these denials, particularly the dissent from Justices Alito and Thomas in Morrison and Justices Gorsuch and Thomas in Apache Stronghold, suggesting a concerning trend in the Court's approach to constitutional rights beyond the Second Amendment.

This video discusses a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against a student's First Amendment rights for wearing a 'Come and Take It' AR-15 hat to school. The court cited concerns about potential disruption stemming from the Oxford High School shooting, a decision the speaker argues constitutes a 'heckler's veto' and a misapplication of Tinker v. Des Moines. Potential next steps include seeking en banc review or a US Supreme Court appeal.

This video discusses a First Amendment case, CS v. McCrum, heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case involves a third grader who wore a 'Come and Take It' hat featuring an AR-15 to school. The host, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, analyzes the legal arguments concerning student speech rights, referencing Tinker v. Des Moines and the 'heckler's veto' doctrine. He expresses pessimism about the plaintiff's chances due to the perceived bias of the three-judge panel.

This video analyzes the case of CS v. McCrum, where a student's First Amendment rights were allegedly violated by a school's ban on a 'Come and Take It' hat. The discussion highlights how schools may attempt to suppress pro-Second Amendment speech by targeting the First Amendment, referencing the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines case and subsequent legal interpretations. It emphasizes that schools need more than a 'mere desire to avoid discomfort' or an 'undifferentiated fear of disturbance' to censor student expression.

A judge ruled against a third-grader's pro-Second Amendment hat, stating it was not protected speech under the First Amendment. The school cited its weapons policy, deeming the 'Come and Take It' slogan and AR-15 embroidery disruptive and offensive. The ruling contrasted with the Tinker case, emphasizing subjective interpretation of offense and potential disruption over student expression.