Friday, June 13, 2008



No freedom to cheer

We read:
"When school officials in Rock Hill, South Carolina, tell graduation ceremony crowds to hold their applause until the end, they mean it - Police arrested seven people after they were accused of loud cheering during the ceremonies.

Six people at Fort Mill High School's graduation were charged Saturday and a seventh at the graduation for York Comprehensive High School was charged Friday with disorderly conduct, authorities said. Police said the seven yelled after students' names were called.

"I just thought they were going to escort me out," Jonathan Orr told The Herald of Rock Hill. "I had no idea they were going to put andcuffs on me and take me to jail."

Orr, 21, spent two hours in jail after he was arrested when he yelled for his cousin at York's commencement at the Winthrop University Coliseum.

Source

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

The story makes it clear that they were told the rules before they decided to break them. This isn't censorship, it's just some jerks whining about having to pay a price for their deliberate misbehavior.

Longview

Anonymous said...

Hello Good gentles All!

"Last year in Galesburg, Illinois, five students were denied diplomas from the city's lone public high school after enthusiastic friends or family members cheered for them during commencement. Students could get their diplomas after completing eight hours of public service for the school district."

This is the most interesting paragraph of the entire article.

These students are being punished for the behavior of other people. I suspect a lawyer could have a great deal of fun with this.

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

Disorderly Conduct

A typical statutory definition of disorderly conduct, in this case Indiana's, defines the offense in this way:

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

commits disorderly conduct. . . [1]

Indiana's definition of "disorderly conduct" is modeled after the Model Penal Code's definition, and is typical, but not identical, to similar laws on the statute books of other U.S. states.

Anonymous said...

Very good point Pax. I hope these kids pursue it.

preponderant1 said...

Just curious...is clapping, horn blowing, whistling, feet stomping, or any other kind of celebratory noise allowed at deaf school graduation ceremonies?

All to often we read about these graduation ceremonies gone bad because of the need for the administration to keep this one last bit of control. Ugh.

Anonymous said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello Preponderant1!

"Just curious...is clapping, horn blowing, whistling, feet stomping, or any other kind of celebratory noise allowed at deaf school graduation ceremonies?"

I suppose the equivalent offense would be to wave a gigantic foam "We're #1!" hand. :-)

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

It's sad, but the schools must get these ceremonies under control. There is a sub-culture of families that blow horns, dance in the aisles, scream, hoot and holler. This continues for 2-3 minutes. The families of the graduates who are announced after that child, cannot hear their child's name announced. It ruins videos, etc. that other parents are taking.

Until some people in our society learn that it's not all about them, and learn to have some consideration, our schools will have to depend on such strong-arm tactics.

Anonymous said...

Pax,

This is not the same as the case you stated. In this case they have the people who were causing the disruption and are therefore not punishing the innocent.

Longview

Anonymous said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello Longview!

"This is not the same as the case you stated."

I was aware of that. That is why I included the text which named the city and state. However, I can still see that I failed to be clear in my post and that was my fault. There are indeed two cases being mentioned in the article.

The reason why I commented on this specific paragraph is that I have no problem with what happened in the other case.

Stan B's posting of a typical disorderly conduct statute speaks directly and most eloquently to the matter of the first case.

If I break the rules I should expect to be held accountable for my actions. If someone else, over whom I have no control and with whom I am not complicit, breaks the rules I should not expect to be held accountable for his actions.

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

Infides,

"If I break the rules I should expect to be held accountable for my actions. If someone else, over whom I have no control and with whom I am not complicit, breaks the rules I should not expect to be held accountable for his actions."

Guilt by association maybe? It's is as if they are saying that if your friends and family cannot control themselves then they should not be here & their being here is your fault so you will be the one punished. I agree with you 100% but administrators today tend to be targeting those easiest to intimidate & letting the real culprits go. The exception being the original article.

Anonymous said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello McNasty!

"Guilt by association maybe?"

Common practice, but not supported in law. That is why a lawyer could have so much fun with this.


"... but administrators today tend to be targeting those easiest to intimidate & letting the real culprits go. ..."

I never put it past anyone in authority to abuse or attempt to abuse that authority. Lord Acton was entirely correct on that score.

However, rights must be defended if they are to exist at all. I would not allow the school administration to blacken my name with this feckless aspersion and I would demand all record of it be expunged from files.

I say that these students, amply aided by council and in front of a jury, tear the school administration a new one.

This would be a slam dunk.

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

Infides,

"I never put it past anyone in authority to abuse or attempt to abuse that authority."

IMHO there are way too many people in "authority" today. Oh, for the days when people took care of their own problems and did not go crying to the authorities whenever they felt the slightest insult or injury. Whatever beacme of survival of the fittest? Now the stronger in society have to carry the weaker who often times have little or no appreciation for those that would help them. The greastest failure of LBJ's "Great Society" was that it created a class of people that felt entitled and in that they never fully learned to apprecaite what they have. So there are generations now that have no sense of respect for their fellow man but should that same fellow man disrespct them themn it's off to the nearest authority figure to whine.

Anonymous said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello McNasty!

All true.

The 'Great Society' was not great. Nor even good and certainly not just.

It was not a 'Great' society but an entirely new society.

LBJ created an entire permanent under-class of millions of mendicant whiners, who like a mill stone, have been perpetually tied around the necks of the tax payers for generations.

As the wealth of those who work has been plundered by avaricious politicans allied with those for whom an honest day's work is as foreign to them as the backside of the moon the nation drifts ineluctably into penury and destruction.

I can only advise you to protect your wealth in ways that the government can not plunder, either by direct siezure or taxation or through the thoroughly contemtpable fiat currency by which, through inflationary fiscal and monetary policies, they erode the value of all your hard work.

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be more reasonable for the police to merely eject the offending individuals rather than arrest them? This seems rather heavy handed.