Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on June 25, 2007, 04:02:40 PM
-
Congradulations, Dubya. Your finally getting what you want, first it was no habeas corpus and now no more freedom of speech. I wonder how many more of our constitutional rights will be flushed down the toilet by Bush's legacy.
link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html)
(http://static.flickr.com/112/314136425_c92e5f113d_o.jpg)
-
It didn't have that much to do with free speech...
-
It has everything to do with free speech. What part of "the government does not approve of your speech" did you not understand?
-
Originally posted by rpm
It has everything to do with free speech. What part of "the government does not approve of your speech" did you not understand?
I recall correctly it was the school that disapproved of the banner, promoted drug use or something like that. This was during the Olympic torch parade in Alaska.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Mac
-
It was off school property, after school hours. How is the school in charge of public speech? Is this Dubya's new "Nanny state"?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
A note, the school is also an agent of the government, don't forget.
-
I sincerely hope kids aren't dying to defend those puke's right to do THAT:furious
-
If I was a kid in school I'd probably organize some sort of protest about this... Invite the local tv station, set up across the street from the school, and hold up the same banner plus some sort of reference to the supreme court walking us towards Orwell's 1984.
The school had nothing at all to do with the kid's activities at the time, and this is no different than (for example) the state revoking your drivers license because you put up a sign in your front door saying "vote for proposition xxx" or listening to that song "I can't drive 55" on the radio.
As it is, I'll just wait patiently for "the day they hung the lawyers".
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I sincerely hope kids aren't dying to defend those puke's right to do THAT:furious
Stupid Constitutional rights. The government knows whats best for you.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I sincerely hope kids aren't dying to defend those puke's right to do THAT:furious
Only the right to popular speech is protected, correct?
-
I hope those kids become junk addicts or have a loved one that becomes one in the near future....I doubt that sign will remain "cool" to them.
-
Cav58d: Do you disagree with their constitutional right to say dumb things? If you feel the Bill of Rights are just too darn open for you, I'd love to hear the revisions you suggest, for curiosities sake if nothing else.
-
Chairboy, they can say whatever they want. It's their right. My comment above has nothing to do with challenging what they can and cannot say. However, If they are so confident about how cool their slogan is, i'd like to see them experience a junkie in the family and see if they would still find a sign like that as "cute".
-
It's a stupid banner, but how is it the fault of bush that the court ruled against them? I clicked the link and even watched the video and not once did they say mr. bush is for or against what happened.
And not for nothing, the banner was promoting illegal drugs. The school didn't want that type of message being sent by a student.
If the banner said, rape a woman for jesus, would you still think that there rights were violated?
-
Originally posted by Speed55
If the banner said, rape a woman for jesus, would you still think that there rights were violated?
But uhhh...uhhhhhh....ummmmm thats uhhh.. different. Obviously that wouldn't be appropriate. SHUT UP. uhhhh..... lmao.
-
huh huh.............. huh huh.......... huh huh....... sorry beavis. :D
-
I have a sudden urge to take a bong hit :)
-
Originally posted by culero
I have a sudden urge to take a bong hit :)
WWJD?
:D
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
WWJD?
:D
(http://widerquist.com/hangnwithjesus/bong.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Speed55
It's a stupid banner, but how is it the fault of bush that the court ruled against them? I clicked the link and even watched the video and not once did they say mr. bush is for or against what happened.
Did you see who voted? This is exactly the pro-corporate, pro-government results Bush wanted from the SCOTUS when he appointed Roberts and Alito.
Seriously, this is a a frightening ruling by the highest court in the land, at least for those of us who do feel that our individual civil liberties are essential to a democracy.
Read this from Tinker v. Des Moines School District. This was the 1969 case about students wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War & the principal suspended them. This decidely more liberal Supreme Court (than the current one) felt they were the guardians of free speech. ..... That Supreme Court said: (It's long but it's worth your time to read it.)
"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years."
"The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom--this kind of openness--that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society"
It makes me sad to read that & see how far away from this our current Supreme Court is now. This current Court does not seem to see the Bill of Rights as the individual's constitutional protection from government abuse of power. C'mon, do we really need the gov't, in the form of the school & principal, to tell that kid, in America, he has no right to hold up a banner at a parade that says something as silly as "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"? Is it good for any of us that that kid LEGALLY has no right to put up that silly banner? Where was the harm? What's up next? Thought police? This isn't China or the former Soviet Union.
-
Originally posted by rpm
It was off school property, after school hours. How is the school in charge of public speech? Is this Dubya's new "Nanny state"?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong.The event was a school-sanctioned activity during school hours, was supervised by school staff, and school rules of conduct applied. The broader protection for public speech didn't apply. Even the dissenting decision agrees on that point.
The disagreement related to the message. The majority held that the school officials' interpretation that "Bong hits 4 jesus" condoned illegal activity was a reasonable interpretation. The dissenting opinion felt the message was ambiguous and only intended to get on TV and the reference to drugs was oblique and not significant.
-
Sorry, Myleto. You have your facts wrong. The student that made the sign & held it up was NOT in school at all that day & was not accompanied by teachers, & therefore was not at a school event.
-
RPM regardless of wheteher they kids DID or DID NOT have the Constitutional right to do what they did, i'm curious to pick your mind a little and I'd like to know if you think that is a tasteful and appropriate message to use outside of a school, during an olympic event and infront of their peers....Furthermore, would you encourage your 18 year old to do this?
-
RPM, read the court's decision (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-278_All.pdf) , get back with me and we'll talk.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Sorry, Myleto. You have your facts wrong. The student that made the sign & held it up was NOT in school at all that day & was not accompanied by teachers, & therefore was not at a school event.
He cut out of school early that day to go get the banner. So yeah I guess "technically" he wasn't in school. But he was still a student.
============
The incident occurred in January 2002 just outside school grounds when the Olympic torch relay was moving through the Alaska capital on its way to the Salt Lake City, Utah, Winter Games.
Though he was standing on a public sidewalk, the school argued Frederick was part of a school-sanctioned event, because students were let out of classes and accompanied by their teachers.
============
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/4918974.html
Joseph Frederick, who has been teaching and studying in China, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.
-
Fascist activists judges from the far far neoright are apparently good!
Apparently not only DOES free speech end at the school house door, it ends down the block, on the other side of the street, and on days when school is not in session if you’re a student.
We’re really going to miss our democratic republic now that it’s gone.
:cry
-
Originally posted by rpm
It was off school property, after school hours. How is the school in charge of public speech? Is this Dubya's new "Nanny state"?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Republicans are only for freedom if its for a republican.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I sincerely hope kids aren't dying to defend those puke's right to do THAT:furious
They are dying for your right to say what you want too.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
RPM regardless of wheteher they kids DID or DID NOT have the Constitutional right to do what they did, i'm curious to pick your mind a little and I'd like to know if you think that is a tasteful and appropriate message to use outside of a school, during an olympic event and infront of their peers....Furthermore, would you encourage your 18 year old to do this?
Nobody cares about protecting our freedom to speak tastefully. That kind of speech will likely never be challenged, unless we start letting others decide what is tasteful and what isn't.
-
Jesus wasn't white.
-
Before some of you wet yourselves with anti-bush hate splooge go read the case Myelo posted.
It was infact on the sidewalk, in front of the school at a school event.
That is unless you want the wacko lefty circle jerk to continue.
-
For those of you who don't want to read the decision, the key point AFAIAC is:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the
Court.
At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, a
high school principal saw some of her students unfurl a
large banner conveying a message she reasonably regarded
as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with
established school policy prohibiting such messages at
school events, the principal directed the students to take
down the banner. One student—among those who had
brought the banner to the event—refused to do so. The
principal confiscated the banner and later suspended the
student.
Students at a high school are minors. Minors are not, because of their immaturity, full citizens, they are in the custody of parents. Certain parental rights and responsibilities are tranferred to the school while the child attends and that includes enforcing dicipline.
-
(http://www.theshadtaxi.com/graphics/castnet/castnet4.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
It was infact on the sidewalk, in front of the school at a school event.
Don't let something like the facts get in the way, it was across the street from the school, at an olympic torch run (which the school happened to have let out of classes to let kids watch), not quite a school event.
-
Play "it's a troll" all you want. This is a sad day for freedom and one giant leap for censorship.
He was not on school property. He was not on a field trip. He was not under the supervision of any member of the faculty.
He was standing on a public sidewalk.
Up next, No Thought Zones...
-
Does this thread finally prove that Dems are antagonist dopers and Repubs are Nazis?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Play "it's a troll" all you want. This is a sad day for freedom and one giant leap for censorship.
He was not on school property. He was not on a field trip. He was not under the supervision of any member of the faculty.
He was standing on a public sidewalk.
Up next, No Thought Zones...
So your saying that SCOTUS not only got the constitution wrong, but were wrong on the basic facts of the case?
A school sanctioned activity, (Which is what SCOTUS says it was and even the 9th Circuit agreed with that) usually does not mean that "He was not under the supervision of any member of the faculty."
-
He was NOT IN SCHOOL. What part of that is hard to understand? The position the majority took was the procecutions assessment that anytime during school hours your children are property of the school and subject to any and all whims of the district whether in class or not.
The school is now a police force with unlimited jurisdiction.
-
Originally posted by rpm
The school is now a police force with unlimited jurisdiction.
Said who?
-
Originally posted by rpm
He was NOT IN SCHOOL. What part of that is hard to understand?
If a school sanctions a prom at the local hotels ballroom, then have no responsibility for it?
The students are not in school, they are not on school property...
-
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If a school sanctions a prom at the local hotels ballroom, then have no responsibility for it?
The students are not in school, they are not on school property...
They are under the supervision of faculty. If a kid does not go to the prom but is hit by a car while standing across the street from the hotel is the school responsable for him?
-
So you are saying that this banner had nothing to do with the sanctioned activity and just happened to be there by coincidence....
I mean what are the odds?
On January 24, 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay passed
through Juneau, Alaska, on its way to the winter games in
Salt Lake City, Utah. The torchbearers were to proceed
along a street in front of Juneau-Douglas High School
(JDHS) while school was in session. Petitioner Deborah
Morse, the school principal, decided to permit staff and
students to participate in the Torch Relay as an approved
social event or class trip. App. 22–23. Students were
allowed to leave class to observe the relay from either side
of the street. Teachers and administrative officials monitored
the students’ actions.
-
I remember when I was in high school, I could get into trouble if I was caught smoking on the way to or from school. I always thought that was silly because I wasn't on school grounds or at a school function. Apparently, even back then, the school was responsible for me while I was coming or going to school or some function of the school.
I had some trouble once when I set off a string of firecrackers on the way to school as well. When I got home, my parents didn't phone up the ACLU and complain that my right to artistically express myself with my light and sound show had been stifled. They actually got miffed that I was out in public acting like an bellybutton and took the principal's side. I was outraged, of course. It's a free country, isn't it?
This was way before teh boosh.
-
Hence the phrase "freedom of speech". This is the United States, not Tiananmen Square.
Holden, you are convieniently ignoring the fact the kid was not in school that day. He wasn't in the class that was given permission to go outside.
-
Originally posted by rpm
He was NOT IN SCHOOL. What part of that is hard to understand? The position the majority took was the procecutions assessment that anytime during school hours your children are property of the school and subject to any and all whims of the district whether in class or not.
The school is now a police force with unlimited jurisdiction.
The word is "prosecution".
And by the way, in many states, your child, who is enrolled in the school system, IS under the control of the school system during school hours. If he/she is absent without excuse, they can send the truant officer to pick him/her up, and if you interfere, or allow him/her to skip school, they can pick you up too. Been that way for a good 50+ years around here, and in many other states. So yeah, if he skipped school, and then violated school policy as well, he can be punished for BOTH offenses.
And the truth is, if he'd skipped school, and then went out in front of the building next door to the school and held up a sign saying "Pray, God is Great!", and the school busted him, half the liberals wouldn't give a **** about it.
Oh, and "free speech experiment" my ass. He likes pot, and got busted for it. He thought it would be cool to hold up his pot head slogan and get on TV, and got busted. The "free speech experiment" crap came later, after he got his stupid bellybutton busted.:rolleyes:
-
Thank you, Virgil. You prove my point for me.
If it had been a PC message he was displaying it would have been just fine. It was the "thought" behind the message that made it illegal.
Watch for freedom of the press to be the next casualty.
-
Originally posted by myelo
RPM, read the court's decision (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-278_All.pdf) , get back with me and we'll talk.
I take it that you've read it then?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Thank you, Virgil. You prove my point for me.
If it had been a PC message he was displaying it would have been just fine. It was the "thought" behind the message that made it illegal.
Watch for freedom of the press to be the next casualty.
And at this particular school sanctioned activity, during school hours, the faculty used its responsibility as charged by its legal control and charge of the child in lieu of and as a substitute for the parent.
We are not talking of full citizen rights here; we are talking of children in custody of parents and the parents agents (the school). Parents are fully within their rights for correcting behavior of their children, and when that right is transferred to the school, the school is within the parental right umbrella.
-
He did not go to school that day, at all. M'kay??
-
Originally posted by rpm
He did not go to school that day, at all. M'kay??
Well then he should have been sanctioned for truancy... the brat.
He is a student at that school, showed at a school sponsored activity. The school had authority under their assumed guardianship to do what they did.
I think they did not go far enough. They should have wrestled the brat into class and made him learn some algebra.
-
He was on a public street off campus not while in class attendence. You support the unlimited jurisdiction theory, I see.
-
Would it be alright to prevent the students from displaying a banner that stated Man Made Global Warming is a Hoax?
-
I can't wait to hear you guys howl when the school dictates what you can feed your kids at home. One local district already refuses to let kids take "homemade" lunches to school. However, "Lunchables" are acceptable.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Would it be alright to prevent the students from displaying a banner that stated Man Made Global Warming is a Hoax?
That is disruptive and may cause free thought and discussion. ILLEGAL!!!
-
I support the school asserting parental authority. As they have the legal right and responsibility to do.
The parallel I drew about the prom at the hotel ballroom comes back into play here.
If some kid shows up at the prom (the bong kid showed up at a school sanctioned activity) the faculty has the right and responsibility to control the situation the way a parent would.
If some kid shows up at the field trip to the museum, (the bong kid showed up at a school sanctioned activity) the faculty has the right and responsibility to control the situation the way a parent would.
If some kid shows up at the championship basketball game held at the local civic center, (the bong kid showed up at a school sanctioned activity) the faculty has the right and responsibility to control the situation the way a parent would.
Unlimited police power is not what the school has, the school has parental authority.
-
While the laws regulating behavior at schools undoubtedly vary from state to state, they all follow a general pattern. If a child is absent from school without a plausible excuse he is considered truant. If that is the case, he is technically still considered to be under the care and authority of school officials.
Being truant is a violation of the law. If a truant student were to show up at a field trip or other school function under supervision of school officials, they are empowered to have him reported to authorities and picked up.
The location of the incident is of no consequence. The students standing with the spoiled brat were participating in a school function. The student body was standing on both sides of the street to see the olympic flame pass. Some of its members helped him hold the banner.
His refusal to comply with the principal's direction to take down the banner can be construed as an attempt to incite other students to flout school authority. Whether absent or not, when he stepped into the group of his fellow students, he was technically under school authority. Being truant would make the offense even worse.
I've had students who were excluded from one of my field trips because of personal misconduct skip school and try to intercept the group I was sponsoring. Some of them have given me some sass because I wouldn't let them on the bus....evidently thinking that since they weren't in school, I couldn't do anything about it.
Wrong. They've got to come back to school eventually or be in violation of state law. When they do, I march them to the office with a smile on my face.
The punk was still under school authority, whether he wants to admit it or not.
-
The school has become the Nanny, Jr.
It enforces state sponsored thought and punishes free speech.
“This decision seems to create a drug exception to First Amendment with respect to student speech without any real justification about why the student free speech can be censored..."
“t is one thing to restrict speech that advocates drug use,” Stevens wrote. “It is another thing entirely to prohibit an obscure message with a drug theme that a third party subjectively — and not very reasonably — thinks is tantamount to express advocacy.”
-
Originally posted by rpm
He did not go to school that day, at all. M'kay??
It doesn't matter if he went to school that day. Don't you get the fact that if he's supposed to be at school, and his absence is not excused, the school has jurisdiction over him? (of course not, that little fact doesn't fit your agenda so you conveniently ignore it) If he was supposed to be at school, and the school allowed the other students out for the torch deal, and he interacted with other students, he's even further in the wrong.
And the only thing I proved in the other post is that you'd take the bait. You did. Try spitting the hook.
It doesn't matter what his message was, he was in violation of school policy, on several levels, and got busted. His sad attempt to drag "free speech" into it AFTER the fact just makes him stupid, and anyone that falls for it just as stupid.
-
Shuckins, I completely agree with refusing to let them on the bus. They are not in class. However if the kid was across the street from the site of the trip wearing a "Bong hits 4 Jesus" shirt he is exempt from your, the principal or school administrations authority.
This is just another right urinated upon by Bush and his "comrades".
-
Let's see... nanny...a person, usually with special training, employed to care for children.
School... an institution where instruction is given, esp. to persons under college age: The children are at school.
I wonder what would happen to a school that did not care for children?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Shuckins, I completely agree with refusing to let them on the bus. They are not in class.
What? sanctioning student behavior when they are not on campus?
My god you're a nazi.
-
Originally posted by rpm
He was on a public street off campus not while in class attendence. You support the unlimited jurisdiction theory, I see.
It ain't unlimited jurisdiction. The school system has jurisdiction over ANY student enrolled in the system while school is in session. Skip school, you're busted. I got busted for skipping school, I took the punishment like a man. He wimped out and claimed "free speech experiment" afterwards. Poor little him, ain't it sad. Sadder still as all the chumps that fall for the "free speech" B.S. excuse. He's lucky he didn't have one of my coaches for a teacher or principal. I know what I got when I got busted. He got off freaking EASY.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
It doesn't matter if he went to school that day. Don't you get the fact that if he's supposed to be at school, and his absence is not excused, the school has jurisdiction over him? (of course not, that little fact doesn't fit your agenda so you conveniently ignore it).
Show me where he was required to be at school that day. Was he cited for truantcy? Were his parents cited?
Patiently awaiting your smoke and mirrors reply.
-
Tell ya what rpm....teach for five years or so in a public school. Learn what your responsibilities are as a school teacher or administrator. Find out what you are liable for, under law, if you don't keep up with your charges. Deal with the spoiled brats and their blocking back parents.
Then get back to us with your conclusions and observations.
The reality is this, if a child is absent a phone call must be made to the child's parents to ascertain why they are not in attendance. If the parent doesn't know, then the child is truant, and the school's principal must attempt to determine the child's whereabouts, notifying law enforcement authorities. If they do not do so, and the child has an accident, then the principal is in a crap-load of trouble.
That's the law.
The SCOTUS has this case pegged. It is a matter of school authority over a truant child, not one of freedom of speech. The ruling is exactly right.
Rest assured, freedom of speech wil survive.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What? sanctioning student behavior when they are not on campus?
My god you're a nazi.
No, refusing them access to school property while not in attendance. Would you let anybody climb on the bus that was not in class?
-
Shuckins, was he or his parents cited for truantcy?
I'll be waiting for your song and dance after Virgil's.
-
Few can match your two-step routine, rpm. But are you Fred or Ginger? ;)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Shuckins, was he or his parents cited for truantcy?
I'll be waiting for your song and dance after Virgil's.
They don't have to be cited. He got busted, and the school punished him. A citation for truancy is not necessary. I was never cited, suspended, but not cited.
The only one dancing is you. Spin, twinkle toes, spin!
-
Originally posted by rpm
No, refusing them access to school property while not in attendance. Would you let anybody climb on the bus that was not in class?
I think that anybody on a bus is not in class. Unless the class is in bus driving.
The student in question is a truant student who showed at a school sanctioned activity. You would allow a bus driver to exercise parental authority, but not another faculty member…
-
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? (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/06-278.pdf)
But the problem ... is that school boards these days take it upon themselves to broaden their mission well beyond education or protection from illegal substances, and several of the briefs have pointed out school boards have adopted policies taking on the whole range of political issues. Now, do they get to dictate the content of speech on all of those issues simply because they have adopted that as the part of their educational mission?
-
Holden, the school bus is considered to be an extention of the classroom. Students are under the authority of both the bus driver and the accompanying teacher. Oh, and any chaperones that may be in attendance.
I can and have barred kids from ever going on another field trip because of their conduct.
On one occasion, I took a class to a small museum in Pine Bluff to view an art exhibit. The museum was small and there were other teachers in attendance.
We had been there about 30 minutes when one of the other teachers tapped me on the shoulder and said, "These two gentlement would like to speak to you."
I turned to face two police officers, a Mutt and Jeff duo. The shorter of the two was absolutely livid. He was so irate steam was roiling out of his ears. The taller officer was the only one who talked, and was fairly polite, under the circumstances.
It seems that a few of our students had slipped off out of sight of their chaperone and found a pay phone. In between attempts to contact boyfriends and trying to get them to come to the museum, and dialing 1-800-P U S S Y, they had made a couple of prank calls to 911.
I apologized profusely, groveling the entire time, while simultaneously assuring the officers that the miscreants would face certain retribution when we returned to our school.
I immediately cut short the tour, loaded the class back on the bus and returned to our campus, an hour and a half drive away.
Next morning there was loud and profuse weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. Faced with the choice of suspensions or paddlings, some parents chose the latter for their little darlings.
And behinds met shoulder blades.
Our next field trip was much calmer.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I can't wait to hear you guys howl when the school dictates what you can feed your kids at home. One local district already refuses to let kids take "homemade" lunches to school. However, "Lunchables" are acceptable.
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.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Holden, the school bus is considered to be an extention of the classroom. Students are under the authority of both the bus driver and the accompanying teacher. Oh, and any chaperones that may be in attendance.
I wrote it wrong then. RPM asked me "Would you let anybody climb on the bus that was not in class?"
As a bus driver I would always have to let someone not in class get on the bus, as by your definition, they are not in class until they get on.
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.
Silat, my argument is not the content of the speech, but that the school has the right and obligation to exert parental authority over student behavior. The content of the policy they enforce is another subject for discussion. Minors are in the care of parents and their appointed representatives because they are not yet trusted to make the mature decisions of full adult citizens.
-
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.
There are activist judges on both sides of the fence. Funny how you never see Democrats gnashing their teeth and wailing when a liberal judge is an activist, same goes for Republicans when a conservative judge is an activist.
*edit* oops...grammer error ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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? (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/06-278.pdf)
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.
-
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
-
So Seagoon, what's your opinion on this specific ruling?
-
I dont get it, we dont get to speak freely anymore???:huh :cry
-
Has it been stated anywhere who was financing the punk's legal defense? Hope to God it wasn't their parents
-
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.
-
That's a bit of a reach:huh
-
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". :rolleyes: 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.
-
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.
-
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 ****.
-
Spank 'em all.
-
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 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070626/NATION/106260075/1001)
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;)
-
Another reason why public schools are ****.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Another reason why public schools are ****.
I used to work for a manager who was mormon, his wife home schooled all 4 children. 2 had their BS by age 18, and 1 child had a Masters at age 20. School was a year around event except for a 3 week vacation. They all "graduated" high school before age 16. Amazing....
-
Same thing happening in Casper with Catholic home schoolers Rip.
Check out the accomplishments of schooled kids during the medieval and rennaisance times. Ignore the # of kids or the portion of the population that were schooled. Just consider their ages and accomplishements.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
It ain't unlimited jurisdiction. The school system has jurisdiction over ANY student enrolled in the system while school is in session. Skip school, you're busted. I got busted for skipping school, I took the punishment like a man. He wimped out and claimed "free speech experiment" afterwards. Poor little him, ain't it sad. Sadder still as all the chumps that fall for the "free speech" B.S. excuse. He's lucky he didn't have one of my coaches for a teacher or principal. I know what I got when I got busted. He got off freaking EASY.
I was under the impression school wasn't in session at the time... not that he was just skipping... which is it?
-
Amazing, and perfectly logical.
Are you aware that 12% of the children competing in the National Spelling Bee this year were home-schooled? That's astounding, considering the actual number of kids being educated at home in relation to the numbers that attend public school.
Can't remember for sure, but I think the young man that won it was, himself, home-schooled.
That is one of the benefits of individualized instruction. By contrast, the state of Arkansas believes that children can only be properly educated in large schools, with outnumbered and overworked staff. Thus, the state government is forcing consolidation on all small schools, and is hostile to home-schooling.
As I said, amazing.
-
MT the *death* that the New Testament talks about is a spiritual death, not a physical one so no worries about Christian pastors preaching to kill folks. :aok
-
Free Speech didnt lose out, disruptive speech did. If he ran through the halls of the school yelling "FIRE!" when there was no fire he would be in trouble. He was clearly advocating drug use with the sign, and it was done for shock value... Teachers have been sending kids home for ages who are disruptive by speech, acts or attire.
I get the whole "he wasnt at school" deal... he was an active student at a school sponsored function, same as a football game.... He is under school rules.
I am just wondering why neither he, nor the parents are charged with truancy
-
Originally posted by Elfie
MT the *death* that the New Testament talks about is a spiritual death, not a physical one so no worries about Christian pastors preaching to kill folks. :aok
Exactly... God reserves the power to punish for himself.
-
Originally posted by Silat
We’re really going to miss our democratic republic now that it’s gone.:cry
Lew, how do you feel about smoking bans in their various iterations, or the push to cap corporate profits or the myraid examples of government intrusion into free market and private lives? I'm sure that there are plenty of examples where either side of the isle has done such things. My personal favorite is the ban on trans fats in NYC... Unfortunatey i dont think that this sort of thing is the sole propert of the conservatives OR the liberals...
And as for the people that blame 'W', it takes the legisative AND executive branches to get a bill passed AND/OR a judge appointed. Just look at congress' approval rating and i think we'll see that FINALLY people are waking up to this fact.
clerick in '08!
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Free Speech didnt lose out, disruptive speech did. If he ran through the halls of the school yelling "FIRE!" when there was no fire he would be in trouble. He was clearly advocating drug use with the sign, and it was done for shock value...
I guess you can't see the difference between causing an immediate threat to someone's safety...and not.
-
Hello Chairboy,
Originally posted by Chairboy
So Seagoon, what's your opinion on this specific ruling?
My opinion is that I'm glad I'm not a Supreme Court Justice and didn't have to make the decision.
I sense my viewpoint on this is not going to make either side in the argument happy but for what it's worth, here it is. In the interests of full disclosure, first let me tell you that I'm probably one of the few people out there who was more saddened by the fact that the message was blasphemous and mocked Christ, than that it promoted smoking pot - I certainly know which one of those Scripture tells us God is more concerned with. Lest you think I have a "holier than thou " attitude, please keep in mind that I've done both those things and probably did them for far longer and more seriously than the silly teens who unfurled the banner.
It seems to me that Our "law" in this area is becoming hopelessly arbitrary, hypocritical, and confusing especially to the very teens whose behavior it seeks to regulate.
Let me try to illustrate what I mean with two illustrations from my own high school days. While we were away on a high school Geology trip in Arizona two of the guys got busted for buying a number of soft-core porn magazines (which they kindly shared with the rest of us) they were both suspended for a couple of days. Even at that early age, this made no sense to me. In English we were reading Alice Walker's The Color Purple which actually starts with a graphic and shocking description of the rape of a 14 year old girl including the use of the T & P words. It also occurred to us that the magazines were less graphic than our "human sexuality" classes (put of the "health" curriculum) which assumed that we would already be seeing the actual versions of what was covered in the magazines and putting our new found knowledge of human reproduction to use. As another example while we had a "no shirts without collars" rule that eliminated the problem with offensive slogans on T-Shirts, one of the boys managed to find a collared Tennis Shirt that had a small stitched Marijuana leaf where the Izod Crocodile would normally go. Within a week all of us were rushing out to buy them and in no time at all the administration "cottoned on" and banned them. Again, in English class our ex-hippy faculty were having us read books like "Naked Lunch" and "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" that both promoted recreational drug use (additionally Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing..." was on the elective reading list). I think had anyone suggested removing them from the library or the reading list both faculty and administration would have gone berserk screaming about "fascism" and "censorship." So books advocating drug use were fine, but polo shirts that did the same in a far more understated manner were not.
You see we have come to the point where we are attempting to enforce rules without any sort of coherent ethical foundation. Therefore they are rules suspended entirely in thin air. Where is the sense of telling children they can't have pornography, but then teach them a course with graphic sexual content covering every deviation in the book, with illustrations and examples, and then tell them I expect they'll be doing what I'm teaching them about?
At one time in American history, we didn't have to worry about teen-aged school kids unfurling a banner like that at a public event, and it had nothing to do with "free speech" laws. It had far more to do with the fact that as a society we taught them in an unambiguous way that such things were immoral and a disgrace. It would have been an action that would have brought shame and approbrium on them and their parents, and probably would have led to a trip to the woodshed in most cases. Merely telling them they can't have their banner during school sanctioned events for some reason (but its ok to write it in English class or have it published in a magazine, but heaven help you if you stand in public with the same message? Where is the sense in that?) is absurd. If we teach them Nihilism, why should we be offended when they act in a Nihilistic fashion. The oddity is that we expect our children to act in a "moral" fashion when we have neither taught them to do so, or given them any reason why they should.
So Chair, to me this isn't about Free Speech, its about a society that has ceased to cohere and is increasingly balkanized, decadent, self-destructive, hypocritical, and incoherent. I can't make any sense of our supposed "free-speech" laws, they seem utterly arbitrary to me at this point. All I know is that I'm preaching essentially the same gospel message that Christ's church was commissioned to preach almost 2000 years ago and which has been heard in Reformed pulpits in America for over three hundred years, but that same message will probably eventually get me thrown in jail within the next tow decades. The funny thing is, its not the kids and members in my church who are likely to unfurl pro-drug banners or commit actual "hate crimes." But I'm still apparently the big problem.
- SEAGOON
-
Seems like a bit of a conundrum.
On one hand, you feel their actions were disgraceful and almost, but not quite, you advocate their censure.
But the free speech of those who you agree with (those who are exercising their right to publicly disapprove of homosexuality) you support.
The constitution is bigger than you, and bigger than me. The first amendment says that you are equally entitled to object to homosexuality as that kid is to put up his crass banner. There is no shade of gray, the foundation of this country is built on the idea that you BOTH must be protected in your exercise of free speech.
You can't pick and choose, otherwise sooner or later you'll find yourself on the losing side of someone elses choice.
-
Hi MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry, but I think hiding behind the Bible to promote the killing of people who are born differently than yourself is cowardly and wrong.
We don't allow religions to perform animal sacrifice or indulge in drugs as a practice either.
I see, so when thieves band together and introduce a bill aimed at forbidding "Kleptophobia" I'll have to stop preaching that is a sin as well? Presumably if adulterers are offended by Exodus 20:14 we'll make preaching on that a hate crime as well and point to all the adulterers who have been slain by jilted wives and husbands as evidence of the violence this pernicious teaching spawns.
Regarding the actual interpretation of the verses in Romans the sexual perversions condemned there are listed as part of the consequences of rebellion against God. Paul is essentially teaching that they are part and parcel of the inevitable results of turning against Him and going after our own false Gods. The consequences don't merely include sexual sins, they include falling away into violations of every one of the Ten Commandments for instance he also includes as sins worthy of condemnation: "sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; ...envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness" as well as things like boasting, disobeying ones parents, being unmerciful, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, etc. Obviously Paul isn't suggesting that we go out and kill everyone guilty of these sins, especially considering that in Romans 3 he points out that the "whole world" is guilty of like sins and thus we'd have to start with ourselves. Rather, he is saying that these are the sins worthy of condemnation and eternal death that Christ came to pay the penalty for, in order that we might be forgiven of them and obtain the gift of eternal life.
Part of the reason, therefore, that I am zealous to maintain that sexual sins such as homosexuality are in fact sins, is because these are precisely the things that Christ paid the penalty for on the Cross and to remove them is to detract from his glory and his mercy. Till the day I die I hope I will preach that Christ died for the sins of countless homosexuals, thieves, fornicators, adulterers, liars, murderers, blasphemers, boasters, and idolaters, of whom I am by no means the least.
- SEAGOON
-
Hi Chair,
Originally posted by Chairboy
Seems like a bit of a conundrum.
On one hand, you feel their actions were disgraceful and almost, but not quite, you advocate their censure.
But the free speech of those who you agree with (those who are exercising their right to publicly disapprove of homosexuality) you support.
The constitution is bigger than you, and bigger than me. The first amendment says that you are equally entitled to object to homosexuality as that kid is to put up his crass banner. There is no shade of gray, the foundation of this country is built on the idea that you BOTH must be protected in your exercise of free speech.
...
Not really, I am a big fan of the Constitution, I simply recognize the truth of what then President John Adams stated in 1798:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
[John Adams, The Works of John Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798]
Simply put, you cannot have freedoms without the personal ethical and religious basis upon which they are based and from which they are derived. At present we are trying to mend a net that the whales are playing merry hell with swimming to and fro at leisure. It is inevitable that as we cast off our moral restraints, we would also make it more and more impossible to maintain universal freedoms and that people would insist that liberty be curtailed for the sake of some vestige of safety, order, and decency (ultimately they will have neither safety nor liberty, for no human government can make men moral). The very idea, for instance, that men would become so debased that they would attempt to use that the first ammendment to defend child porn spells the end of free speech.
- SEAGOON
-
Well said Chairboy.
Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword. You have to take the sulfur along with the sugar.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The very idea, for instance, that men would become so debased that they would attempt to use that the first ammendment to defend child porn spells the end of free speech.
Could you please try again without the straw man argument? It demeans both of us.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I guess you can't see the difference between causing an immediate threat to someone's safety...and not.
I see the difference. There was no political speech in this. It was done for shock value and do disrupt the event they were attending. This was in no way a protest, just disruptive buffoonery. I would equate it to him mooning the crowd... same basic concept.
-
Right, but the rationale against yelling "Fire!" in a theater is that it creates an immediate harm. What part of "Bong hits for jesus!" buffoonery meets that criteria?
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
I see the difference. There was no political speech in this. It was done for shock value and do disrupt the event they were attending. This was in no way a protest, just disruptive buffoonery. I would equate it to him mooning the crowd... same basic concept.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I don't see the term political speech anywhere in there.
-
PS: What the heck is with you people being so quick to limit the freedom of your fellow citizens? Are you a bunch of commies or something?
-
So, if a kid came to a school room with a pot leaf tee-shirt, a clown nose, a snorkel and a kango hat carrying a sign asking for cash to support his cocaine habit, we should just 'let him be himself' and say nothing???
You have to draw a line somewhere and when that line is at the signs support of an illegal activity, i have no problem.
-
Yeager is right about this. Total freedom would lead to anarchy.
The SCOTUS correctly judged that this case was not about freedom of speech. It was about the right of a school to regulate the activities of the students in their care.
The government and the nation's courts have always recognized the need for limits to speech, whether or not everyone agrees with that or not. I for one am glad those parameters are in place. They help preserve order, civility, and respect.
The punk in question was in violation of school policy. That is what he got nailed for. The court deduced that the "free speech" issue was a smoke screen to cloud issue.
Fortunately, the court saw through it.
-
Originally posted by clerick
Lew, how do you feel about smoking bans in their various iterations, or the push to cap corporate profits or the myraid examples of government intrusion into free market and private lives? I'm sure that there are plenty of examples where either side of the isle has done such things. My personal favorite is the ban on trans fats in NYC... Unfortunatey i dont think that this sort of thing is the sole propert of the conservatives OR the liberals...
And as for the people that blame 'W', it takes the legisative AND executive branches to get a bill passed AND/OR a judge appointed. Just look at congress' approval rating and i think we'll see that FINALLY people are waking up to this fact.
clerick in '08!
I believe in a strong fed to regulate capitalism. Capitalism run amok is just as bad as any ism. Free market? No such thing. I dont believe in Nafta.
I dont smoke. I support your right to smoke. But not in my face. Im happy that the worm has turned and the smokers are now forced to be courteous.
Capping profits is interesting. Example: Oil companies have a franchise that we spill our blood to protect. Should they rape us? Should we have an interest in the profit margin?
-
If the kid had been in school, on it's property or under it's direct supervision then the ruling would have been appropriate. Standing on a public sidewalk not in attendance? This ruling was a huge mistake.
Thomas Jefferson nailed it, "speech limited is speech lost". We all have just lost.
-
Originally posted by rpm
If the kid had been in school, on it's property or under it's direct supervision then the ruling would have been appropriate.
Then you agree it was appropriate.
Since you keep repeating yourself on this, I'm assuming you still haven't read the decision, so here's the first 8 words:
At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event,
Later:
The event in question occurred during normal school hours
and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which
the districtís student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and
administrators were among the students and were charged with su-
pervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the
street from the school and directed his banner toward the school,
making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circum-
stances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school.
Even the minority agreed on these points.
-
I contend, and the court disagreed, that he was NOT at the school sponsored event or under the schools supervision. The school went to him and placed him under their supervision. The mere fact that the word bong was used was exploited and embellished by authority to supress his nonsensical speech. This was a thought crime.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I contend, and the court disagreed, that he was NOT at the school sponsored event or under the schools supervision.
You can certainly ignore the facts of the case if you wish. Not much to discuss there.
Originally posted by rpm
The mere fact that the word bong was used was exploited and embellished by authority to supress his nonsensical speech.
I agree with you there. I don't think the banner was advocating drug use. Although I think the principal had the right to remove the banner, I don't think they should be able to punish the student based on him advocating an illegal activity.
I do agree with denying the student the damage award he was claiming ... an the basis that there's just too much of this suing BS going on these days.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
You have to draw a line somewhere and when that line is at the signs support of an illegal activity, i have no problem.
Think about the implications of that.
- Government makes gun ownership illegal.
- People protest with signs stating that citizens should own guns (an illegal activity).
- People are arrested for advocating an illegal activity.
- Everyone kiss their free speech goodbye.
-
Originally posted by myelo
You can certainly ignore the facts of the case if you wish. Not much to discuss there.
I do agree with denying the student the damage award he was claiming ... an the basis that there's just too much of this suing BS going on these days.
It's an important point and I think it was overlooked. It will come back to haunt the decision later. It's a can of worms.
I agree that no damages should have been awarded, altho she needs to be smacked around for giving him 5 extra days for quoting Thomas Jefferson.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Think about the implications of that.
- Government makes gun ownership illegal.
- People protest with signs stating that citizens should own guns (an illegal activity).
- People are arrested for advocating an illegal activity.
- Everyone kiss their free speech goodbye.
No one was protesting, the kid was just being disruptive.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I believe in a strong fed to regulate capitalism. Capitalism run amok is just as bad as any ism. Free market? No such thing. I dont believe in Nafta.
I dont smoke. I support your right to smoke. But not in my face. Im happy that the worm has turned and the smokers are now forced to be courteous.
Capping profits is interesting. Example: Oil companies have a franchise that we spill our blood to protect. Should they rape us? Should we have an interest in the profit margin?
Interesting points. I would agree that a strong fed needs to exist, but only to regulate INTERSTATE capitalism, and other interstate issues. I admit that there is a grey line there but however the line is defined i think that the Fed has not only crossed it, they took a running start and LEPT over it.
As for the free market economy or lack there of, i dont agree. Something fundamental to freedom is the citizens ability to choose. Be it a non-smoker CHOOSING to frequent an establishment that allows smoking or an employee's right to choose to work, or not to work, at a place that they feel is unhealthy. I wonder who's rights are greater, the owner of the establishemnt or the people that CHOOSE to go there?
As for the oil issue, we do, or at least can have a stock in their profits. First we can say enough and use less product, but we dont, we're willing to pay it. Second we can buy stock in the company(ies) and share in the wealth. Either way we CAN choose. Microsoft is another example, people gripe about the $$ they make, yet most of us here have one or more MS products on our computers, we do have options, we just CHOOSE not to exercise them.
Why we dont is a whole 'nother topic... chalk it up to being complacient and weathy...
-
Having raised 4 kids I don't really think kids are entitled to freedom of speech. Well, they don't get the last word anyhow. :D
-
Hello Chairboy,
Originally posted by Chairboy
Could you please try again without the straw man argument? It demeans both of us.
Strawman? To quote "Xbiz" the industry source for the X-rated movie business:
ACLU lawyers filed an amicus brief in the 1982 Supreme Court child pornography case, New York v. Ferber. The case sought to legalize the sale and distribution — but not the production — of child pornography. The Court unanimously decided that child pornography was not worthy of protection.
Predictably, the ACLU's reasoning in Ferber was that the distribution of child porn was constitutionally protected free speech. The ACLU's official position on child porn is:
The ACLU believes that the First Amendment protects the
dissemination of all forms of communication. The ACLU opposes on First
Amendment grounds laws that restrict the production and distribution of
any printed and visual materials even when some of the producers of those
materials are punishable under criminal law
They've said that they are opposed to the production of the Child Porn (note: never the distribution) ONLY if such production is quote - "highly likely to cause: a) substantial physical harm or, b) substantial and continuing emotional or psychological harm." of course if it can't be definitively proven to highly likely to cause such harm then of course that's all right then.
Additionally, they also oppose all attempts to require producers of hard core porn to keep records of the ages of their performers as an invasion of the right to privacy and blatant censorship. To quote Barry Lynn: "If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or 'Star Wars,’" he said, "there can be no such requirement for Hustler or ‘Debbie Does Dallas.’” and in the official ACLU position paper: "Distributors, exhibitors and retailers should not be obliged to risk punishment by misjudging the age of a minor. Such persons should not be required to keep records of evidence submitted by minors; and should be entitled to rely reasonably on a minor's statement of age." (She said she was 18 when we picked her up at the bus stop)
They also absolutely oppose all attempts to restrict the dissemination of pornography to children - and I quote:
Laws which punish the distribution or exposure of such material
to minors violate the First Amendment, and inevitably restrict the right
to publish and distribute such materials to adults.
So there is no "straw man" argument there Chairboy, just a wholesale abdication of the responsibility of adults to protect and nurture children. The ACLU has proven itself to be a chief advocate for the rights of whales to shred the net to use John Adam's example.
But all that aside, I take it you disagree with John Adams and feel that constitution he helped to create is entirely adequate for the governance of an immoral and irreligious people?
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
No one was protesting, the kid was just being disruptive.
Are you just guessing here? And even if not, it's not "protest" only that is protected, but "free speech".
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I hope those kids become junk addicts or have a loved one that becomes one in the near future....I doubt that sign will remain "cool" to them.
"Junk" refers to opiates or stimulants, ergo "junkie" for one addicted to same.
The kid who wrote it is in his 20s now working as a teacher... and besides that he was hinting at smoking a non physically addictive drug, not "smoke a rock for Jesus".
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Are you just guessing here? And even if not, it's not "protest" only that is protected, but "free speech".
test the theory then, walk into work with pot leaf tee-shirts or a bong hits for jesus t-shirt.
if its free speech and expression, they should say nothing, right?
-
Do you understand the difference between the government and a corporation? Because the 1st amendment covers what the government can and cannot do, and has nothing to do with your work.
-
but free speech is free speech... promoting an illegal activity at a school sponsored event is not free speech, it is disruptive.
-
Not an attempted hijack here, but Senator Jim DeMint was denied freedom of speech today in the US Senate when he was not allowed 5 minutes to join the debate against the amnesty package the lowlifes are trying to shove down our throats again.
That is a denial of free speech and a denial of my representation in the US Senate.
That concerns me not some stupid, disruptive dopehead kid.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi MT,
Till the day I die I hope I will preach that Christ died for the sins of countless homosexuals, thieves, fornicators, adulterers, liars, murderers, blasphemers, boasters, and idolaters, of whom I am by no means the least.
- SEAGOON
And I will always believe that Jesus will forgive you for doing so.
-
child porn can not come under free speech since it is in itself against the law.
you could say... "I wish I could get child porn" or whatever and be covered under free speech but to show kiddie porn would not be covered since you are violating the rights of children who are protected.
it is really not at all gray... it is very very simple.
lazs