‘By that standard, no editorial cartoon worth publishing would ever see print. That is not a reason to suppress a cartoon. That is a reason to publish one.’
I'm very impressed with how these students stood up for their First Amendment rights! The cartoon and article should be reposted. Free speech shouldn't be abridged because of your age or student status!
Kudos to these courageous, principled young Americans! How absurd that these mere public servants would seek to stifle the attempts by young Americans to learn to exercise their sovereignty. Once they turn 18, young people have the same right to vote as other sovereign people. See U.S. Constitution Amendment XXVI. Some states allow them to vote after they turn 17.
The most obviously unconstitutional aspect of the government's conduct is their admitted attempt to control expression because it merely “gives the appearance of endorsing a political candidate or pending ballot issue.” This is an instance in which the SCOTUS majority's opinion in Citizens United in 2010 might do some good.
It might help to remind the public servants in our schools that in our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign,” and our powers as sovereigns necessarily include “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about many public servants and public issues. That “ability” is “essential” to the operation of our Constitution.
“Political speech” (including voting) is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “The Constitution” clearly “confers upon voters” (as sovereigns) the “power to choose” (directly or indirectly) some of our public servants. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” current or potential public servants “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”
“Speech” (including voting) also “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.” “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty). Thinking and speaking about government is the primary purpose and duty of government. It also is the primary power and duty of sovereignty.
“In the realm of protected speech,” government “is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this” is “true” regardless of whether “the speech comes from a corporation” or “an individual.”
“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.” “As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” “The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” So “the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.”
“[T]he worth of speech” cannot “depend upon the identity of its source.” “Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity. “[T]he First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity.
Our sovereignty means that “political speech” (including voting) “must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are ‘subject to strict scrutiny,’ which requires the Government to prove” two important points: first, that “the restriction” actually does support a legitimate “interest” that is “compelling,” and, second, that “the restriction” is “narrowly tailored to achieve that [compelling] interest.” That is a burden of proof that these public servants cannot bear.
Impressive student response! Shane on the school!
‘By that standard, no editorial cartoon worth publishing would ever see print. That is not a reason to suppress a cartoon. That is a reason to publish one.’
I'm very impressed with how these students stood up for their First Amendment rights! The cartoon and article should be reposted. Free speech shouldn't be abridged because of your age or student status!
Kudos to these courageous, principled young Americans! How absurd that these mere public servants would seek to stifle the attempts by young Americans to learn to exercise their sovereignty. Once they turn 18, young people have the same right to vote as other sovereign people. See U.S. Constitution Amendment XXVI. Some states allow them to vote after they turn 17.
The most obviously unconstitutional aspect of the government's conduct is their admitted attempt to control expression because it merely “gives the appearance of endorsing a political candidate or pending ballot issue.” This is an instance in which the SCOTUS majority's opinion in Citizens United in 2010 might do some good.
It might help to remind the public servants in our schools that in our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign,” and our powers as sovereigns necessarily include “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about many public servants and public issues. That “ability” is “essential” to the operation of our Constitution.
“Political speech” (including voting) is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “The Constitution” clearly “confers upon voters” (as sovereigns) the “power to choose” (directly or indirectly) some of our public servants. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” current or potential public servants “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”
“Speech” (including voting) also “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.” “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty). Thinking and speaking about government is the primary purpose and duty of government. It also is the primary power and duty of sovereignty.
“In the realm of protected speech,” government “is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this” is “true” regardless of whether “the speech comes from a corporation” or “an individual.”
“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.” “As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” “The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” So “the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.”
“[T]he worth of speech” cannot “depend upon the identity of its source.” “Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity. “[T]he First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity.
Our sovereignty means that “political speech” (including voting) “must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are ‘subject to strict scrutiny,’ which requires the Government to prove” two important points: first, that “the restriction” actually does support a legitimate “interest” that is “compelling,” and, second, that “the restriction” is “narrowly tailored to achieve that [compelling] interest.” That is a burden of proof that these public servants cannot bear.