Author Topic: Freedom Of Speech Overturned (Read 2328 times)

Mr No Name · « **Reply #105 on:** June 26, 2007, 05:01:05 PM »

Quote

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.

Chairboy · « **Reply #106 on:** June 26, 2007, 05:07:59 PM »

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?

Thrawn · « **Reply #107 on:** June 26, 2007, 05:26:09 PM »

Quote

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.

Thrawn · « **Reply #108 on:** June 26, 2007, 05:48:27 PM »

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?

Mr No Name · « **Reply #109 on:** June 26, 2007, 06:03:19 PM »

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.

Shuckins · « **Reply #110 on:** June 26, 2007, 06:06:39 PM »

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.

Silat · « **Reply #111 on:** June 26, 2007, 06:18:45 PM »

Quote

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?

rpm · « **Reply #112 on:** June 26, 2007, 06:29:00 PM »

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.

myelo · « **Reply #113 on:** June 26, 2007, 07:10:58 PM »

Quote

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.

rpm · « **Reply #114 on:** June 26, 2007, 07:39:54 PM »

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.

myelo · « **Reply #115 on:** June 26, 2007, 07:53:49 PM »

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Thrawn · « **Reply #116 on:** June 26, 2007, 08:05:38 PM »

Quote

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.

rpm · « **Reply #117 on:** June 26, 2007, 08:31:05 PM »

Quote

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.

Mr No Name · « **Reply #118 on:** June 26, 2007, 08:35:25 PM »

Quote

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.

clerick · « **Reply #119 on:** June 26, 2007, 08:37:42 PM »

Quote

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...