Girl suspended at school for saying Bless You after someone sneezed

[MrPickins]

Seems to me they are all ready teaching it in school, what I posted in another thread.

But probably some details missing here I'd imagine.

Maybe not.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=36643281#post36643281



I kinda of a connect the dots type of things atm, and it's not that hard to do actually.

Not hard if you're a tin-foil hat nutter.

The US is not going to become communist in our lifetimes. Did you forget how much influence money has on our politics?

 

[MongGrel]

Not hard if you're a tin-foil hat nutter.

The US is not going to become communist in our lifetimes. Did you forget how much influence money has on our politics?

The whole point is how much money influences our politics.

Your comprehension of what I posted seems to be slightly off.

 

[MrPickins]

The whole point is how much money influences our politics.

Your comprehension of what I posted seems to be slightly off.

I agree.

I admit I was skimming you post and responding to this:

Communism is winning over capitalism at the moment I'd say, more likely the US will become Communist in the future in reality.

The rest of your post really doesn't make sense in the context of this thread, and I'm not gonna read another thread to infer your meaning.

How about you clearly explain what you meant.

 

[MongGrel]

General Motors Has Become China Motors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r19LxtnzCIQ

I still go up to where I grew up and went through my Journeyman Tool & Diemaker apprenticeship and see all the factories that have been bulldozed after they went over seas.

I have been living in FL since 1990, left there and only went back in 2010 or so for my dad's funeral.

Was amazing to see how everything industrial had pretty much been wiped out.

just things along those lines.


and that was years ago.

And I've probably things I'm still supposed to be on on non disclosures agreements about what was going on in another company I can't even mention.

 

[TerryMathews]

lawl? Where's your argument? tinker tinker tinker? Anyway, in what sense do the teacher's classroom rules carry the force of law behind them? Oh, you won't answer, because you're talking nonsense.

Sorry I'm confusing you with the relevant USSC precedent.

Let's examine the issue in reverse. We have a first amendment right to free speech which protects us from governmental restrictions. Tinker stated that schools needed a specific objective in order to restrict the speech of students, that they couldn't do it simply to restrict uncomfortable conversations (Vietnam war protest armbands in that specific case).

If the schools actions didn't lie on the spectrum of a law there would've been nothing that the USSC could've ruled violated the first amendment.

 

[justoh]

Sorry I'm confusing you with the relevant USSC precedent.

Let's examine the issue in reverse. We have a first amendment right to free speech which protects us from governmental restrictions. Tinker stated that schools needed a specific objective in order to restrict the speech of students, that they couldn't do it simply to restrict uncomfortable conversations (Vietnam war protest armbands in that specific case).

If the schools actions didn't lie on the spectrum of a law there would've been nothing that the USSC could've ruled violated the first amendment.

I'm not sure that I can trust your (superficial)... let's call it, "analysis," given that your posts seem to suggest that you don't know what laws are or even the distinction between something "having the force of law" and something being within the "spectrum" of a first amendment restrictive action, rule or policy.

There's also a difference between a "specific objective" and a "specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons" in speech restriction, which is what was actually stated. Under your misinterpretation clearly the bless you prohibition is fine.

Since it was the latter, they obviously had to continue on and talk about what would be constitutionally valid. If you read a little further - i mean this shit is freely available online - you'll arrive at the actual rule: A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible.

You are so sure that it's violative and you seem to know less about a case I spent 5 minutes researching while drinking my morning coffee.

Is a courtesy "bless you" an expression of opinion? No? Okay, then it must be the subsequent argument with the teacher? Should those be protected?

 

[TerryMathews]

Is a courtesy "bless you" an expression of opinion? No? Okay, then it must be the subsequent argument with the teacher? Should those be protected?

Yes. The words themselves cannot be shown to cause substantial interference.

 

[justoh]

Yes. The words themselves cannot be shown to cause substantial interference.

Do you know the difference between yes and no?

 

[TerryMathews]

Do you know the difference between yes and no?

Obviously this conversation is pointless. You've run out of things to debate and instead must resort to banal insults.

 

[justoh]

Obviously this conversation is pointless. You've run out of things to debate and instead must resort to banal insults.

There are considerable differences between the two words. I think you meant "no, it's not an expression of opinion. Thanks for pointing out my stupidity." Yes?