sorry the discussion is about you saying my statement was not true and that being false, you lose again
heres my statement:
Here Soctus proving you wrong and me right
Main article: Bethel School District v. Fraser
In Fraser, a high school student was disciplined following his speech to a school assembly at which he nominated a fellow student for a student elective office. The speech contained sexual innuendos, but not obscenity. The Supreme Court found that school officials could discipline the student. In doing so, it recognized that "[t]he process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order." Recognizing that one of the important purposes of public education is to inculcate the habits and manners of civility as valued conducive both to happiness and to the practice of self-government, the Supreme Court emphasized that: "Consciously or otherwise, teachers--and indeed the older students--demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class."  Under the Fraser standard, school officials look not merely to the reasonable risk of disruption—the Tinker standard—but would also balance the freedom of a student's speech rights against the school's interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Schools have discretion to curtail not only obscene speech, but speech that is vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive.my statement was 100% trueMain article: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
The Hazelwood School District case applies the principles set forth in Fraser to curricular matters. In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court upheld a school's decision to censor certain articles in the school newspaper which was produced as part of the school's journalism curriculum. Echoing Fraser, the Supreme Court observed that "[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with 'its basic educational mission' ... even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." School authorities and educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
facts and the thread history prove you wrong again.
tell me that cool line about losing again?
sorry you lost, your argument was destroyed lol
my statement was 100% true
like i said if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide and factual proof to the contrary