EDHS Contemporary World Affairs

I agree with this, there are better  more appropriate ways to raise awareness

come on really i don't see the harm in a braclet like that

The more its said and worn, the more common and trivial it becomes.

The money is for a good cause...

Is it really that bad? Are people being over-sensitive...

I mean look at the video games kids are playing anyway...

It's not that bad and it isn't very provocotave so I say let them wear it

I think its ok, and most of the objections that are coming from this bracelet aren't from other children
in the school who feel uncomfortabl, its mostly school administrators.

If you want to do something for a cause, to get the best outcome or most effective you usually have
to present something outside the normal realm of "fundraising". The article is right, most kids don't want to turn in pink labels,
to be able to buy something you can wear makes it feel like you're contributing more.

Plus, to present something to kids/teens that grabs your attention is the only way to gain their support.

honestly, if you look around, how many people actually wear the bracelet to raise awareness and support breast cancer? odds are, not too many. many wear them to look "cool" and have the word on their wrist. i agree with shelby and noah, i think there are other ways to raise even more awareness. (Dont get me wrong, i think its a great support in raising awareness, im just saying..) i just dont think some people wear them for the right reasons

-- Edited by stephanieayers on Tuesday 31st of May 2011 06:09:53 PM

this is ridiculous

you have be so immature to be offended by i <3 boobies

do i really need to buy one of these, walk around everywhere, and when there is an attempt to deny my freedom of speech... yada yada yada.. SUPREME COURT!

i just think its BA how THEY decide stuff and give it a name/court case for later reference, and honestly, i think i would win

Even if the kids wear it for the "wrong reason" it means they bought it so the money is still going to the cause. So i say let them wear bracelets.

oh thats wierd,

if you remember Tinker v. Des Moines...

"1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.

***2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.

3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514."

 

This is what Mrs. Cavaluzzi told me earlier in week 2:



"Students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door" - The Supreme Court, Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969

(though Justic Thomas, on the present Court, disagrees: "Justice Clarence Thomas isnt having any. He concurs with the majority [in Morse v. Frederick] in its holding for Principal Morse, but he rejects the context within which both the majority and the minority make their points. In short, he rejects Tinker and the idea that schoolchildren have any First Amendment rights at all. Why? Because 'originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.' " (more here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/morse-v-frederick/)

Morse v Frederick overrides Tinker V. Des Moines... 'nuff said.

Alas, Alan, Alex is correct (but he has a head start on you, being at the end of AP GAP instead of at the beginning, like you).

As ALL of you who had me for gov should have remembered,

Students DO have LIMITED free speech rights in schools, per the landmark and still-precedent case of Tinker v. Des Moines.

Morse v. Frederick used the Tinker standard and found that "Bong Hits for Jesus" was unprotected because it was nonsensical in nature.  The Clarence Thomas quote was from a concurring opinion, which is written by a justice who votes with the majority but for a different reason.  Concurring opinions, unlike majority opinions, are not binding and have no stare decisis attached to them.  Justices write them because they hope it will be the basis for a future majority opinion :).  So, Tinker still prevails, at least unless and until Justice Thomas can get for black-robed pals from the Court to join his team in a future case.