FantasySCOTUS.org

ConSource Badge

Nathan — Wed, 02 May 2012 20:30:09 +0000

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution does NOT permit schools to punish students for statements they make outside of school on the internet. Although there are certain instances where schools are able to punish students for statements outside of school. Such as a 1-to-1 school, my school Sioux Central for example, where every student has their “own” MacBook to take home with them. The school really owns all the laptops and should have the ability to punish the students if the statements about the school where made on the school laptop either at home or any other place. If the object(laptop, iPad, or other device) is owned by the school and is letting the students use them, the school should have the ability to discipline any student doing any act on the school’s device in which violates the schools rules in their handbook or elsewhere. If the student posts a statement regarding the school on the student’s own or friend’s computer off school campus, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the student’s freedom of speech rights.

225 years ago, in the year 1787, the original Constitution was proposed in Philadelphia as The Bill of Rights. When they wrote the first ten amendments, I don’t think they had computers, cell phones, or the internet in mind. They weren’t expecting all the technology we have now. So it’s hard to base court cases now with all the technology we have with the Amendments which seem old to some of us.

Social networking is an amazing resource when used properly. Of course, like all things, there are some people who abuse their ability to use it. Social networking is a new way people use to vent their problems and stress, which can be very bad. The venting online could consist of insulting bosses, co-workers, teaches, or fellow classmates. When back in the day, people would get with their best friends and discuss their problems and stress. That group of 2-4 people are the only ones that find out about your stress. When you post your furies on Facebook and Twitter, the whole world can now see what your stressing with in life. And this of course, starts gossip.

If schools really want to be able to punish students for statements they post about their school or teachers, the schools should be able to put a section in their handbooks about off campus speech harassing. When the student signs and hands in the book at the beginning of the year, it gives the school the right to be able punish students for any remarks about them in any form on the internet. This is one possible solutions to regulating off camps Internet harassing speech. Schools with the 1-to-1 system do need to take the extra step and regulate what a teen can do and say on his or her computer to other students which can harm the student. Schools should have all social networking websites blocked at school for the purpose of harassing other students or teachers or remarks about the school.

Amicus Brief- Cecilia Thomas

ap-us-government-2b1 — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:58:45 +0000

The court should consider the interests of my client, Hosanna-Tabor Church, because they were clearly exercising their right to free exercise, which is written in the first amendment. The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Amicus Brief, Tee Martin

ap-us-government-8c — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:58:30 +0000

As being said several times, the First Amendment states that there is freedom of religion meaning that the church can exercise religion and choices being made freely. The Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) states no employer can discriminate againt a worker with a disablity in several ways. Nowhere did the Act include those that abide by the First Amendment, so it gives a religious school the right to exclude itself from the Act.

Amicus Brief Assignment- Zack Hamilton

ap-us-government-7f — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:57:49 +0000

Recently the case of the Hosanna-Tabor Church vs. the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been stiring up controversy. Many people, I’m sure, have been writing in with their own opinions on how this case should go, concerning whether or not the Church’s decision was fair or whether Perich’s condition would limit her from teaching effectively. I, on the other hand, have a more vital issue. I represent the United Athiests of America, and I urge the Court to consider the larger implications of what will happen if they do not approve the Lower Courts decision. Preserving the freedoms of individuals while seeking employment in no way infringes on the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion. Multiple cases, chief among them Hastings College of Law vs. Martinez, serve as a precedent that Perich should be able to keep her job without infringing on anyones rights. The fact that the Church didn’t even wait to see if her disability would affect her teaching abilities only further proves that they have abused their power and ministerial exception granted to them by the Americans with Disabilities Act. I hope that the Court will remember how many injustices will continue unpunished if this decision is not affirmed. Thank you for your time.

Amicus Briefe

ap-us-government-121 — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:57:40 +0000

I am writing on behalf of an athiest organization in regard to the court scae of Mrs. Perich. The church should not be able to plead ministerial exception for employment issues that involve positions not not directly affiliated to the religous part of the church. Mrs. Perich held a secular teaching position at the school, so why should the church have an exception for somthing unrelated. If the lower court’s ruling stands then any school related to a church will be able to fire employees for an unjust reason and have no consequences. A church affiliated school could descriminate ethnically, sexually, religiously, and even by gender, and the people being discriminated against wouldnt beable to do anything about it.

Amicus Brief – David Brauda

ap-us-government-222 — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:57:29 +0000

I am writing on behalf of Hosanna-Tabor Church in the defense that they have the right to fire Mrs. Cheryl Perich on the grounds of the Ministerial Exception Clause because Mrs. Perich’s job is under the Hosanna-Tabor Church and even though her teachings are mostly secular they focus their teachings and ethics around their central religious beliefs. Mrs. Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy and with this problem she is very likely to fall asleep during class which interrupts and effects the students learning capabilities and this leaves a bad impression on the Hosanna Tabor Church which then effects them religiously because many of the people their go their because this is a religious church school. Just like in the case of

Friend of the Court- Amicus Brief

ap-us-government-2cc — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:57:19 +0000

Let it stand that I agree on the side of an atheist group, but I am not myself an atheist. Perish wants to sue the church, yet the church claimes it violates their First Amendment Rights. I want to agree that yes church’s have the right to their ministerial exception but involving the case of Perisch’s unemployment, it does not account for that. The ADA act states that “no employer shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, training, and other terms.” Hosanna-Tabor Church is using their First Amendment Rights to disregard the ADA yet given that all school’s or hiring zone requires that you take into account those with disabilities.

Friend of the court- Amicus Brief

ap-us-government-25 — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:57:06 +0000

As a lawyer for a religious group i feel that the Hosanna-Tabor Church is being wrongfully sued. in this case i believe that Cheryl Perich was preforming church duties when she worked there. She is wrongfully suing them and you should take this case to make it so that this will not happen again. she worked for the church, doing duties of the church so they have a right to fire her under the ministerial exception. where the ADA does say that no employer can fire an employee on the grounds of a disability, the ministerial exception allows the church to fire their employees as they see fit because of the free exercise clause of the first amendment. because she was preforming church duties the church has the right to be fired by the court. if the disability

Amicus Brief Badge

ap-us-government-9e — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:56:53 +0000

In the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC case, it is very plausable and suitable that the lower courts decision is to stand. For an example in the case of Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004), the court decided that only those choosing a degree in a ministerial position would not qualify for a scholarship. Davey was denied funds after he chose a ministerial degree, and sued on the motion that the invasion of his first amendment right had occured. The court disagreed on the invasion of the first amendment and ruled that it was not discrimination. This relates to the Hosanna-Tabor case because Perich was not in a ministerial position. Therefore, the termination of Perich would not fall under the first amendment of free practice. This decision not only affects Perich, but will layout a fine line for employee’s working in all christain schools around the nation. Any employee whether it being in a Christain School, or Public School should not be discriminated against. Not only will Perich be affected by this court’s ruling, but all employee’s involved in schooling will. The right of free practice is being over used by the Hosanna-Tabor Church, and is unconstitutional to do so.

Amicus Brief

ap-us-government-3a5 — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:56:43 +0000

I am representing an athiest organization stating that Perich should be able to file a lawsuit against the church under the Americans with Disabilities Act. No church should be able to disobey the laws of this country just because they are a religious organization.