A Louisiana school shows an unexpected twist the story of Kaylee Timminey, a standout high school senior who has captured our attention. Her scholarship and student government role were taken away. Call it the emergence of the video showing her dancing at a private party. Kaylee, with an outstanding four point zero GPO and numerous school accolades, now finds herself at the center of a controversy that touches upon
faith, punishment, and do you process. This story has ignited widespread community support for Kaylee, who is bravely facing an unjust question so unjust situation. Dancing and a private gathering should never cost a student to their dreams, and the school's decision has raised an important question about fairness and individual rights. In moments like these, we're reminded that supporting our youth is crucial. No matter the circumstances. Let the girl dance, shouldn't we, Jonathan? We certainly
should let her dance. In my opinion, this principle, who has since retiring after taking leave for the rest of the school year, that's according to the superintendent, Joe Murphy, is not enough. He should have been fired
immediately once this came to light. You know, he did some pretty cringe worthy things when in a meeting he had where her after he saw the video, which was really innocuous, and her mother was at the party and saw everything, said they were just having fun, and he, of course, being a religious bigot, decided that her dancing was not appropriate for a person who was like the representative of the school because of her GPA and being the
president of the student government. So his opinions don't count because this person was off campus at a private event. The video was posted by a DJ who was playing the event. Just not a thing that should have even come up. And if he did see that and he didn't like it, fine, keep that to yourself. Your position as a principal should have nothing to do with So just absolutely insane that this guy would do that. Rachel timin that
the mother made it all clear and said basically apology, not accepted. The scholarship she was going for had a deadline on the third of October. So his apology, which really I didn't think was really an apology, was like a day late and a dollar short, as Rachel also said, and so she didn't get an opportunity for that scholarship because he is a jerk. So in that sense, I think that something should have been done that was even
worse. This is more galling when you read the comments sections on the news Parish news article, which I think is close to her, and this is from a Daisy Burley in the comment he needs to be fired. He abused his power with me seventeen years ago. And again this man called me a spoiled brat after I was sent to the office for an untucked shirt eight years
before. He had covered up the fact that an art teacher at Freshwater Elementary, I'd pinched my brother so hard it left the bruise, which was confirmed by a doctor. One of the commentors summed it up a luke t The fact that the former students are speaking out now is not even slightly surprising. It does show just how little the surrounding adults have taken their students seriously over
the decades. This isn't a rotten apple, The orchard is diseased. What do you think, Kelly, Well, I think a lot about this. I'm actually disgusted by the whole thing. Honestly, that this principle is putting his religious views onto something that didn't even happen at the school. It just seems really egregious to me. And it's the religious overtones that I don't know, if it's dead or something else, that bothers me the most about it.
But does every student who's going to a public high school now have to be Christian and strictly follow with this principle, this particular principle things that are his Christian values. This dudent wasn't a Christian too. Can you imagine if she had belonged to another face, like if she had been a Muslim or something. I don't I think she probably probably would have faced a lot worse
than what's happening to her now. But the thing that really standing out stood out to me was that she was told she was singled out because she was such a good student. She actually got punished badly because she was a good student. And you have to wonder what would have happened if she had just been a c average student. She didn't do any extracurricular activities, she was
just you know, just part of the crowd. And it was this like a misogynist move on this principal's part, you know, you can't have these strong women standing up and being in positions of power like president of the class. So you know, because women they belong in the kitchen. That's where they're supposed to be. They're supposed to be raising kids and serving her husband's
That's what it says in the Bible. So I have to wonder if this was just as conservative male Christian with his misogynist ideas and forcing him basically bullying this little girl over this. I know cross examiner has probably got all kinds of great stuff to say about this, so I don't want to hog the microphone. I'd like to hear what he has to say instead. Well,
I think you guys raised some excellent points and ask some good questions. I think what I did is I went and said, okay, let me refresh my mind on what the rules are here, because this is, as you pointed out, behavior that's outside of school at a non school sponsored event, and the school is a public school. So this is a First Amendment issue one hundred percent, because she was dancing, which is a form of expression.
So just to do a quick review, the first case that we have is from nineteen sixty nine Tinker versus des Moines, where you may remember the students wore black armbands protesting our participation in the Vietnam War. Principles suspended them, and that was the first time the Supreme Court said no. The thing quote is neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. And that was from nineteen sixty nine. That's
been on the books and been controlling ever since. We've had cases since then, especially kind of recently where they've sort of tried to tamp that down a bit. You may remember the Bong Hits for Jesus case, Kelly, I know you discussed it. You're a fan. I see. So this was a case where a student was at a school event that was outside and he was across the street from a school during a two thousand and two Winter of Olympics torts relay, and he held up a sign that says Bong Hits for
Jesus. And I love the Supreme Court opinion that has a little sick after it because of the four was a form. They just wanted to make sure you understood what the sign was. But they they upheld the principal taking action against that student because he was promoting, in their opinion, illegal drug use and it was close enough to the school, so they didn't find that the student had the right to do that at that time, in that close to
the school. But the most important case is from only two years ago. So we're this is a case that was heard by the current court, the ultra conservative court, and that is Mahonai Area School District versus a minor. They're anonymous, but we all know who she was. This was the student who sent vulgar voice and image messages to her friends on Snapchat saying, you
know, f the cheerleading squad that she belonged to. The school found out and suspended her, and in an eight to one opinion in the current court eight to one, they said absolutely not. That is utterly unconstitutional. Now, they didn't create a firm rule, but they gave us a list of factors that I think we can apply to the current case. First factor relation to how close you are to the campus. If you're off campus, then
the school likely has no right to be doing what they're doing. They won't stand as they say in loco parentis, they won't be replacing the parents. And here they were in an off school location at a party that was private that was paid for by the parents. The second factor they said was when you regulate a student's speech off campus, you are also regulating their speech on campus, which means twenty four hours a day the school is regulating their speech,
and that goes against our democratic principles. So you have to have a really important reason to regulate behavior off side of campus. Here the girl was dancing, so I don't think you meet that one. And finally, the third says, the school has to protect a student's unpopular expression because nobody fights against popular expression, and this expression was unpopular with one person, one person
in this whole story, and it was the principle. So I think if this went to court, utterly those three factors speak that it would fail entirely. It's utterly unconstitutional. The school knew it and immediately got this guy to resign. So that's where I am on this. It's disgusting even if you don't even you don't even have to touch the religious issue, it's unconstitutional just on the face of him banning her for dancing. So what do you what's
your take? Phoebe so falling on from what you're saying it reminds me of two other cases that are adjacent but don't particularly do school free speech, but they do do free speech in school and free speech outside like this, so it reminds me of the famous Jehovah's Witnesses case of West Virginia B. Barnett, where you are entitled to turn around and say no, I do not take part in the pledge of allegiance, which is where this principle could end
up if you take this to its logical conclusion. Does he start to then go into the classroom and say I don't like this, I don't like that, And then you have the famous Onion article brief for Novagua, City of Palma, which allows someone to basically say whatever they like and the police can't
come after you. So I bring up those two cases because the logical conclusion of this is if the principle is not sued into oblivion and the school district don't sack the backside out of it, that is the logical conclusion of where this slippery slope could end up with, because you could end up with satire that one person doesn't like being attacked, whether that be on campus or just from a general public point view, or do we start to chip away at
the right to turn around and say, my religious points of view do not align with yours, but I think mine's better. Christo fascism in its one oh one, Chrysto fascism in its one oh one coming along and saying I
believe this. But what really pisces the backside of me off of all this crap is the schools and employers nowadays, but particularly schools, think that they have an ownership of the students who decide to go to these schools because they just so happened to live in the district that they are required to go to that school. When I grew up, I hated the fact that the school
would follow me home with homework. In my opinion, when you step out of school, you shouldn't be required to go and do more school at work. When you leave your employment at the office, you should not be required to go home and do more work when you your own business. But that's different taking yourself out of the public sphere. There. If you decide to homeschool your children, that's completely different. So the small business and the homeschool
are the equivalents. Is here? If you go to work for a company, and that company turns around to you and says, I expect you to work nine to five plus five to nine at home as well. You would get pissed off. So why does schools think it's acceptable to say, do you work all day at school? Now go and do more work at home.
Why is that an acceptable thing? And this is where it ends up with our souls, like this principle turning around and saying I dislike what you do in your free time because you go to my school, and I think I own you. John, you have another comment? Real quick? Yeah, real quick? Well that is the word thing'd be all out for a
second. Yeah, take a breath, Phoebe. No, I did have something that I noticed that in one of the articles that I read that the you know, I talked about the mother saying apology not accepted when he tried to have her come to a meeting. I guess like that Sunday or something. He uh, you know, she turned him down on advice of counsel. So I'm thinking that this might go a lot farther, but I'm gonna let the cross examiner do that after Kelly has his next remarks. You know,
what one quick thing I want to say. I think we need to call out the principle here for something else too. Jason Saint Pierre was enough of a Christian to bully this young girl, but not enough of one to stand up for his beliefs when called out for it. He didn't show up for work the day after this hit the local news. He just kind of ran away from it. He's the worst kind of bully, acting tough, picking on an easily defenseless target while running away from real criticism and opposition.
Shame shame, shame on him, looking for a spine right looking at So I'm more, I'm actually more interested in the legal aspects of this from our two esteemed colleagues. So I'm just going to pass it right over to a cross examiner for more of what he has to say. Oh sure, So I'm glad you mentioned the potential for a lawsuit, because public officials do this
all the time. The courts have said, hey, you can't infringe upon your rights to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness, And that's an exact quote from Tinker again fifty something years ago. To avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompanies an unpopular viewpoint. That was their statement in Tinker, that's why you're doing this. It's a shortcut. You know that you're breaking the law, at least you do now. Now the tinker's out, So that's been out
for fifty four years. The principal knew this. But I don't think, and I agree with you, the principle really needs to pay. Unfortunately, he's going to be immune from personal suit because he's operating as a principal, as an official of this. I don't think that. I don't think the immunity doctrine applies here. I don't think it applies here because it is so far outside his duties as a principle here and it is retaliatory against the First
Amendment. To this point that I think the immunity suit fails. We'll have to see, because, for example, immunity suits have failed against police officers who have prohibited the filming of them, and I think that this is in the same league as that, because it is so far beyond his role as a principle, that he is invading a private function of a private event in a private space that he was not invited to on the basis of third party
information. Given to him that he himself did not witness that. I believe that the immunity so he sovereign immunity doctrine that police officers get because their public officials will not apply here because it is so far outside the realms of anything that he should be doing as a school administrator at any description. That's one take. I think that, given the Mahoney fact pattern, and given that this happens a lot, that off campus behavior is regulated when it's associated with
the school. Probably, if I were a betting man, I would say that he will be if sued personally, that the courts would grant him immunity, and that the only defendant would be the school system. So it'll still cost him because he'll have to hire attorneys, he'll have to defend himself, he'll have to file motions to dismiss because he's got immunity, all of those
sorts of things. But I don't think he's going to be on the hook for the full pen Who will be on the hook will be the citizens of that district, because if they sue and win, I don't know what the damages are going to be. Certainly, certainly if she loses on a scholarship. She would have otherwise gotten that emotional distress. She's a four point zero
student, she's the president of the student government association. Her mother described her as the quote hood ornament of the school, so she was taken down. She's probably just beside herself thinking her life is over because she's not going to get any schools during this period. So I definitely think that that's what's going to happen. Is i'm if i'm their attorney, I think they have a great case. I just don't know what the damages are going to be.
It's not going to be millions, but it's going to be something they should pursue. I think if they can. I think what will happen is that the immunity side of this will go a long way, because I think that there will be appeals against this, and I think this is the kind of First Amendment retaliation case that the Supreme Court is actually looking for. The other cases that you mentioned. I know it does happen a lot of the time, but this has a clear fact pattern of it is religiously based. It's
freedom of religion that he will argue that he was expressing. She will argue that she was expressing her freedom of expression, two elements of the First Amendment that the Supreme Court seem to like to want to take on at the moment. And I can see this being rather than police officer cases, because police officer cases they're very emotive. Oh, the police officer was defending himself, et cetera, et cetera. Police officer feared for his life, etcetera.
He can't make any of those claims in this here. And I think that this is the kind of case the Supreme Court is actually looking for to try to answer this kind of question because they made it up. They made up public official immunity themselves. The Supreme Court made it up. And I think they have now realized that it has got to the point where you've now got
public officials doing things that are egregious and going well. I'm public officials through the school, through the city, and the city is now left on the hook and the taxpayer is left on the hook for actions that should never have
been done in the first place. And I think the Supreme Court is now seeing that cases are coming along where the ordinary taxpayer is suffering for the actions of people who are going so far beyond their role so far beyond their position and are using religion as an excuse that It's the kind of case I think that this Supreme Court, with its six to three makeup of its very conservative,
very religious jurists, will want to take. But I fear that they would side with the principle and say it's fine because he was expressing his freedom of religion through his job and he believed truly that this is what he was doing. And that's where I fear this will go. Personally, it should go towards the student, and I don't think he should get immunity because I think what he did preserve absolutely outrageous. Yeah, I don't think the Court's
gonna do anything with this case. I think every single court that views this will will probably be unanimous that this was unconstitutional, especially in light of mahone excuse me, MAHNOI the Snapchat case, which was an eight to one opinion under this exact same court with less egregious facts. So this is an open and shutcase. I don't think it'd even go to trial. I think the the County will just settle this case. That's where I think will happen.
But if it does go federally. It is the sixth Circuit in the sixth Turkey is not a court. It's not a court circuit. I would ever bet money on anything normal happening in Yeah, it's it's it's always. You'd never like to say I know what's going to happen. But with this one, this is like one of the ones I tossed on. It's eight Circuit Tennessee. But anyway, yeah, that's that's sort of take on things.
I agree with everybody the principle with a bad actor, I will point out that without the religious again, i'll repeat, without the religious overtones, this is still an open and shutcase. Adding the one fact where he said that they discussed religion, that does bring it into a sort of worse realm of
motivation, But it's so solid that you don't even need that. The fact that he reached out his governmental hand to harm this person's life unconstitutionally is enough to just rightly be fired, which he was given the chance to resign. I regret that, but he's gone. Hopefully they get a better official in there. Well, shame on him, and shame on you, dear viewer, if you don't check out more of nonprofits,