Do children have a 1st amendment right to freedom of speech? Case in point...

[TeeJay1952]

So schools are supposed to show or teach what thinking is. How to build evidence and decide and then squelch any attempt to do that?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

So schools are supposed to show or teach what thinking is. How to build evidence and decide and then squelch any attempt to do that?

in the words of my hs assistant principal, "we're not here to educate you, we're here to keep you off the street."

 

[Moonbeam]

Rights start at the time of creation, and should not be limited to subjective goalposts, or placed behind barriers.

Which if so should tell you that every female fetus that is born will have the right to abortion if, when she later becomes pregnant she wishes to and if not still amounts to the same thing. Either way you lose.

 

[Texashiker]

Which if so should tell you that every female fetus that is born will have the right to abortion if, when she later becomes pregnant she wishes to and if not still amounts to the same thing. Either way you lose.

When making a moral decision, maybe we should by asking who is the weakest, and who needs protection?

Someone may have the right for political speech on public land, but society needs to protect that person from harming themselves.

In the example of an unborn child, who needs protection? Well, maybe the mom and dad should have thought about protection before hand.

Why should a one month old baby receive more protection than a child still in the womb? Birth is a subjective barrier to rights.

 

[Moonbeam]

Texashiker: When making a moral decision, maybe we should by asking who is the weakest, and who needs protection?

M: That is one consideration. Another is, what makes for the greater good. If on balance the consideration exclusively of the former leads to the absence of the latter, the latter should predominate as the critical consideration.

T: Someone may have the right for political speech on public land, but society needs to protect that person from harming themselves.

M: OK ?????

T: In the example of an unborn child, who needs protection? Well, maybe the mom and dad should have thought about protection before hand.

M: What court could adjudicate that case. How do we determine which pregnancies are the result of willing or unwitting carelessness. How about children of rape. How about child pregnancies or incestual rape

T: Why should a one month old baby receive more protection than a child still in the womb? Birth is a subjective barrier to rights.

M: Because it is subjective and people rule on what the law is in a secular society, not a religious text or an imagined religious text. Because you are an absolutist and not a secular subjectivist, you are morally oriented to be blind to the issues that go into subjectively balancing the rights of the mother and the fetus. As I have told you over and over again, you have a black and white view that can't be allowed to dominate in a secular society. Your moral sphere is nonexistent because the only place it has any application is on the level of the individual woman. Only she has the choice as to whether to abort or carry. You will never face a situation where your moral value has any application. Your belief to the contrary becomes dangerous to a secular society. There is a simple and similar black and white secular remedy for this and it is the sterilization of religious families. In a very few generations we won't have anybody marching at abortion clinics. We wouldn't want that now would we.

 

[blackangst1]

HERE is a very good article about minors and Constitutional rights.

 

[Texashiker]

Texashiker: When making a moral decision, maybe we should by asking who is the weakest, and who needs protection?

Love you Moonbeam XOXXOO

I am relaxing on this Sunday evening, so let's continue this maybe Monday or Tuesday.

Until then, peace be unto you and your family.

XXOO

 

[Jhhnn]

The only real question is are children people? If so then they have all the same rights as any other person. That is what our constitution says.

They are not burdened by the same responsibilities. We shield them from the full weight of the law because their mental faculties are not fully developed. If we limit their free speech it's for the same reasons.

OTOH, I don't see how the shirt in question is really offensive or was intended to be that way, certainly not on dress down day for seventh graders.