Freedom Of Speech Overturned

[Elfie]

Freedom of Speech has never meant that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want. There have always been some restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

For example you cannot say that your neighbor is a lying, murdering foulmouthed jerk if it is not true. You can successfully be sued. You also cannot say you are going to kill the president of the United States, merely saying that will land you in a federal prison for 5 years.

This particular young man was in the wrong. He violated school policy by advocating illegal drug use at a school sanctioned event. It doesn't matter that he didn't go to school that day. He was absent w/o cause (not sick, no family emergency etc) which means he was still under the schools authority. Since by law, he was still under the school's authority, they had every right to enforce school policy.

[Shamus]

I wonder if some liberal public school administrator who hates guns will feel she has the green light to discipline some kid for wearing a Smith and Wesson shirt?


shamus

[myelo]

Originally posted by rpm
You and I both know the difference between being in attendence and being absent from class. He was absent from class. The school made no attempt to punish him for his attenance status. He was not considered truant.

The fact you want to spin away from the core of the debate only shows your arguement's weakness.

Have any of you read the oral arguements?

Have you?

 JUSTICE KENNEDY: So under your view, if the  
principal sees something wrong in the crowd across the
street, had to come up and say now, how many here are
truants and how many here are -- I can't discipline you
because you're a truant, you can go ahead and throw the
bottle.

 MR. MERTZ: No, I don't think she needs to
do that in the heat of the moment. But later on once
she's discovered the true facts, then at that point I
think she loses a basis for punishing him as a student
if he was not there as a student.

 JUSTICE SCALIA: Because you're both a
truant and disrupter, you get off.

Had you been just a
disrupter, tough luck.

[Seagoon]

Hello RPM,

Well you'll be happy to know that its not just the free speech of high-school students promoting recreational drug use that is under threat. Federal hate crimes legislation is currently being enacted (HR 1592 & S 1105)  that would make it a hate crime for me to preach or publish an accurate sermon on Romans 1:26-29.

This comes on the heels of countless cases both in the US and Canada where any attempts by Christians to provide a biblical viewpoint that contradicts the homosexual agenda is labeled hate crime and removed from the public square by force. George Will has an article in the Jewish World Review describing a recent incident in which a group of government workers were officially sanctioned for attempting to distribute a flier advertising "a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values." this was deemed
"Homophobic" and banned as hate speech by Oakland. The ironic thing is that the group itself Good News Employee Association (GNEA) is made up of black women so we have one minority trumping the civil rights of another. (The article is available online at: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will062507.php3 )

Actually, I expected this legislation a lot sooner, over 10 years ago when I was working computer technical support in Washington D.C., I almost lost my job because I spoke out in defense of another worker who had attended a "diversity day" brown bag lunch and had read from Romans 1:18-32 and stated that this was her belief regarding homosexuality. Supposedly the forum was billed as a "...frank and open discussion of the issues surrounding the Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered lifestyle - all viewpoints are welcome!" As it turned out all favorable viewpoints were welcome all criticisms, on the other hand, were shouted down and treated with contempt and outrage.

So if you'll forgive me, the "Bong Hits..." case is a relative latecomer in the erosion of free speech in this country. Increasingly, speech is only accepted if it conforms to the accepted pattern of progressive thought.

- SEAGOON

[Chairboy]

So Seagoon, what's your opinion on this specific ruling?

[ForrestS]

I dont get it, we dont get to speak freely anymore???

[bj229r]

Has it been stated anywhere who was financing the punk's legal defense? Hope to God it wasn't their parents

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello RPM,

Well you'll be happy to know that its not just the free speech of high-school students promoting recreational drug use that is under threat. Federal hate crimes legislation is currently being enacted (HR 1592 & S 1105)  that would make it a hate crime for me to preach or publish an accurate sermon on Romans 1:26-29.

This comes on the heels of countless cases both in the US and Canada where any attempts by Christians to provide a biblical viewpoint that contradicts the homosexual agenda is labeled hate crime and removed from the public square by force. George Will has an article in the Jewish World Review describing a recent incident in which a group of government workers were officially sanctioned for attempting to distribute a flier advertising "a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values." this was deemed
"Homophobic" and banned as hate speech by Oakland. The ironic thing is that the group itself Good News Employee Association (GNEA) is made up of black women so we have one minority trumping the civil rights of another. (The article is available online at: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will062507.php3 )

Actually, I expected this legislation a lot sooner, over 10 years ago when I was working computer technical support in Washington D.C., I almost lost my job because I spoke out in defense of another worker who had attended a "diversity day" brown bag lunch and had read from Romans 1:18-32 and stated that this was her belief regarding homosexuality. Supposedly the forum was billed as a "...frank and open discussion of the issues surrounding the Gay, Lesbian, and Transgendered lifestyle - all viewpoints are welcome!" As it turned out all favorable viewpoints were welcome all criticisms, on the other hand, were shouted down and treated with contempt and outrage.

So if you'll forgive me, the "Bong Hits..." case is a relative latecomer in the erosion of free speech in this country. Increasingly, speech is only accepted if it conforms to the accepted pattern of progressive thought.

- SEAGOON

Sorry, but I think hiding behind the Bible to promote the killing of people who are born differently than yourself is cowardly and wrong.

Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,

We don't allow religions to perform animal sacrifice or indulge in drugs as a practice either.

[bj229r]

That's a bit of a reach:huh

[Ripsnort]

The opposite of rpm's rant is free speech in the form of Jesus crosses in urine as part of "free speech" and "Artistic expression".  Free speech gone bad turns to hate speech (in the form of expression) as in the example I've given.

I tend to believe that somwhere in the middle of what Repubs consider free speech, and what democrats consider free speech is the true definition of free speech.

[Gunthr]

The school has become the Nanny, Jr.

It enforces state sponsored thought and punishes free speech.

that is because under law the schools actually do act as nannys, in the place of parents.    we also allow schools other exemptions - they can search student's persons or lockers with only reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause.  all for the sake of orderly discipline of minors.  

where have you been rpm?  it has been this way for decades - with good reason.

[Yeager]

true freedom is true anarchy and I want nothing of it.  We live in a structured and law abiding society.  Freedom of speech must have a perimeter defining it, and the court made a decision that defines just a fraction of that perimeter.  I agree with this courts decision.  There are those who do not.  To paraphrase the words of Alexander Hamilton: Tough ****.

[Hap]

Spank 'em all.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Silat
RPM dont you remember them all howling how they couldnt say Merry Christmas anymore? Its an assault on their freedoms when its them. Just not anyone elses.. LOL
The NEO CON 1000 YEAR REICH. They tried for 1 party rule and lost but they got the elitist activist court they really wanted. Even though they lied when they decried so called activist judges.

Well this evil activist court DID free up SOMe new speech:

link

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the First Amendment protects the rights of businesses and unions to fund advocacy ads in the closing months of an election, striking a blow to campaign-finance law and drawing praise from free-speech activists.

The court's 5-4 decision upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads mentioning candidates within 30 days of the 2004 elections, despite restrictions imposed by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act.

"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined the majority.

Sssssoooo....the 4 commie-libs on the court voted to MUZZLE free speech...hmmmm;)

[Thrawn]

Another reason why public schools are ****.