Actually you have the ‘right’ to peaceful political speech in public school (gov’t org/property).
Truancy is illegal.
It is political speech that is protected, on government property.
Hasn’t anyone actually read the US Constitution?
I don’t see where you got the freedom of speech only being protected on government property from that…
Well, there is more to the Constitution than that short excerpt. Ever read it?
Think about it, how can the govt censor your speech in your own home?
It is about gov’t not abusing its power of stewardship of ‘public’ property! The gov’t can’t restrain peaceable political speech on the people’s property.
No one can come into your home and say what they like. You can censor any speech you like on your own property. The govt is in charge of public property and it is restrained from ‘censorship’ in that context.
Thats how the courts have read and uphold the Constitution…
I assumed you were quoting the part of the Consitution that supported your point…silly me.
I did.
Silly you (for missing it).
Feel free to peruse the supreme court rulings regarding definitions and contexts. There’s a lot that you might find interesting, if you are really interested.
It matters not a whit to me as I assume no ‘rights’.
Carry on…
I’m getting bored with this nonsense. I quoted the Constitution to show that it was POLITICAL SPEECH that is allegedly ‘free’. What I quoted certainly made that point. You want to wander from that point fine. I’m uninterested. Go look it up for yourself. It appears that you are just being needlessly argumentative, and have also 'moved the goal-posts from the ‘speech’ (which was the topic) to the ‘ground’ which is defined in court proceedings.
Not knowing this is your ignorance, not mine. Don’t do your own research, I don’t care. I guess that if you don’t live in the US, our Constitution may be of little relevence to you. Otherwise, your education has been ‘lacking’.
Either way, I’m done with this conversation.
Happy trails.
Peace
You’re right, I am being argumentative.
I didn’t think what you quoted showed the point you were trying to prove. When I stated such, you implied I was right, then later denied it. I was just pointing out your obvious contradiction. It’s what I do. It’s useless and bad for discussion, but it gives me a sick pleasure.
Anyways, I did think you made some good points. First of all, the Constitution isn’t as clear as it could be, which is why the Supreme Court, as you mention, is here to interpret it.
I do have a few questions about this.
First, you said the government is in charge of public property. By that, do you mean government owned property, or is property owned by, say, a corporation, considered public property?
Also, are you sure it’s restricted to political speech, or is it also protecting any speech that isn’t hateful or that incites violence? You undoubtedly know more about the subject than I. I’ve read the Constitution, but didn’t understand it. I think immigrants know more about the Constitution, and appreciate it it more, than most Americans…
‘Government owned’ = ‘We the People’ owned, as we are, ostensibly, the ‘govt’.
There are laws regarding speech ‘inciting to riot’ for instance.
I’m ‘pretty sure’ (I’d bet a dollar!) that it refers to ‘political expression’ while on public ground. Think of ‘why’ this would be specifically so.
I would guess that people that are studying for citizenship know much more than most Amerikans. But, what little I do know, this ‘free speech’ thing has been researched (by me, once upon a time) because everyone and their mother quotes ‘free speech’, but that, generically, is not constitutionally supported. It is as described. Unless Bush went and changed it, and I know that he would if he could. He hates ‘dissention’.
Later d00d
Peace