I wonder how the student would have reacted if the school administration had posted a blog entry calling her a douche bag or other derogatory name.

Or how differently would the school have reacted if she posted a mature complaint about the administration and its actions. If she had acted like an adult instead of a 12-year old, had simply expressed her views in a adult fashion, as part of a debate, than I doubt the reaction would have been as harsh. Even if it was, it is far more likely that the courts would have found it to be protected speech.

Agreed. Bahaving like a child results in being treated like a child, no matter what the age and issue. Name calling and whining about unfair treatment will seldom get the result you want--a lesson most of us learn without having to take it to court.

Only douche bags would agree with this decision!

Why is it so harsh not to be a class secretary?

This does however set a potential precedent for future cases.

With free speech, people are free to act like 12 year olds or mature adults. If they limit her free speech off school property because it could cause disruption ON school grounds, who is to say that this analogy could not then be extended to the workplace? There is now case precedence for such an argument.

If I call my boss a d*ckhead on my blog from my home, it could cause disruption and insubordination at my job from others. Should I be stopped from doing such?

How about if I call my Senator a fart blossom?

Or the President a brain dead zombie?

It can be dangerously easy to keep this ball rolling.

First of all you are not a student which puts a different swing on things.

More importantly, if you call your boss a d**khead on a blog, than he should have the right to fire you.

The ruling didn't say she couldn't make such statements only that the school had the right to react to the statements the way that they did. That the statements she made were not "protected" in some way that others couldn't react to them.

You should be able to call your boss a d**k head on a blog if you like, he may find out and make you suffer, but the law shouldn't get involved. Profanity and insults should not be the domain of the government, not even when kids are involved.

You're not understanding or I'm not understanding what you are saying.

If you call your boss a d**khead than your boss should have the right to fire you.

No law, no courts, no government involved. that is the way it is now.

That is basically what this was about. The only reason the courts got involved is the student and her family felt that "freedom of speech" means "free from consequences".

That is all.

She called the administration a name.
They responded by removing her from her non-academic school function. A position that she doesn't have a constitutional right to (unlike an education).
She and her family sued the school thinking that she should be free of any repercussions for her statements.
The courts decided that she was wrong and that the school was within their rights.

Period. That is all. The government is not stepping in and getting involved with a case of name calling - they were dragged in.

The government is not making name-calling illegal.
The government is simply saying that the person you called a name may have the right "to make you suffer" as you put it.

In other words, the ruling and my comments all were saying what you just said.

Sounds reasonable.