Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

What have the courts said?

Courts said
0
Posted

What have the courts said?

0

Library and civil liberties groups won a stunning victory on the CDA at the circuit court level. Judge Stewart Dalzell in Third Circuit Court made two comments in a decision that will probably last long after we are all retired. First, he said, “Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig.” Then: “As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion.” Judge Sloviter of the three-judge panel added his own wisdom: “An Internet user must act affirmatively and deliberately to retrieve specific information online.” He also wrote, “It is highly unlikely that a very young child will be randomly surfing the web and come across indecent or patently offensive material.” Currently, there is no case in the courts involving the use of filtering software in libraries. However, the ACLU, ALA s partner in many intellectual freedom cases, is b

0

• In June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court broadened the authority of public schools to test students for illegal drugs. Voting 5 to 4 in Pottawatomie County v. Earls, the court ruled to allow random drug tests for all middle and high school students participating in competitive extracurricular activities. The ruling greatly expanded the scope of school drug testing, which previously had been allowed only for student athletes. The courts have ruled that students do not have the same privacy rights as adults. In addition, extracurricular activities are elective, and students who choose to participate in them know that being drug-tested is part of the choice they make when they join an after-school program.

0

The Supreme Court of the United States first determined that drug testing of student athletes is constitutional in a June 1995 decision. Voting 6 to 3 in Vernonia School District v. Acton the court upheld the constitutionality of a policy requiring student athletes to submit to random drug testing. In June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court broadened the authority of public schools to test students for illegal drugs. Voting 5 to 4 in Pottawatomie County v. Earls, the court ruled to allow random drug tests for all middle and high school students participating in competitive extracurricular activities. The ruling greatly expanded the scope of school drug testing.

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123