Here's another one of those "Ideology trumps common sense" cases

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Holy crap is all I can say about the Obamabots in this thread. Foot, meet mouth:

Tinker v Des Moines
From Justice Fortas' writing of the majority opinion:


"First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. 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."


So that invalidates about 2/3 of the posts in this thread.

Read the opinion of the case that you so rashly cite.

The ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines is entirely dependent upon the court's finding that the administration had no grounds to assume that the plaintiffs' armbands were, or were likely to be, disruptive to the overall learning environment.

You also fail to cite at least three important cases establishing that there are other limitations on student free speech in addition to the nondisruptive criterion used in the Tinker decision.

There is Bethel School District v. Fraser, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that a high-school student's innuendo-filled speech was not constitutionally protected.

There is Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, in which the USSC ruled that student newspapers were not protected by the 1st Amendment.

And there is Morse v. Frederick, in which the USSC ruled that student speech that promotes illegal drug use is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, in summary, the case you cite works against you, as do the three other USSC cases I've cited. Clearly, a student's 1st Amendment rights are subject to significant restriction in public schools.

ZV

This is one of my favorite things about the internet and Google. It really gives stupid people a ready supply of rope to hang themselves with.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

There we go with the "minors don't have rights" crap. They do have rights, in fact, they have the same constitutional rights as an adult in public. It's just that in public schools, as seen in previous SC cases, the rights take a back seat to safety and education. Free speech can be exercised in a school by a minor if it does not interfere with the primary goals of the school which are to educate and keep the minor safe.

I do agree with the suspension, as the shirt was clearly over the top as a form of political protest in a school.

Thanks for stating it much better than I did. I would go further by saying that, in this case, the specific statement on shirt exceeded reasonable limits because it is patently false and could directly instill elements of gross fear in eleven year old children far greater than their ability to comprehend, let alone evaluate.

 

[OCGuy]

Who are you even arguing those points with? Who said anything about unlimited free speech in schools? I posted that quote from the majority opinion in response to more than 1 person saying "1st amendment doesnt apply to students" and "minors dont have rights." Those are both false, and it has been backed up.

Of course there are limits, as I answered someone who asked me about a "Jesus is a pedo-queer" shirt. Also, the "Bong Hits For Jesus" case.

But the initial knee-jerk responses in this thread were that the kid had no rights, because the e-libs dont agree with the messsage. Scary.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

There we go with the "minors don't have rights" crap. They do have rights, in fact, they have the same constitutional rights as an adult in public. It's just that in public schools, as seen in previous SC cases, the rights take a back seat to safety and education. Free speech can be exercised in a school by a minor if it does not interfere with the primary goals of the school which are to educate and keep the minor safe.

I do agree with the suspension, as the shirt was clearly over the top as a form of political protest in a school.

Thanks for stating it much better than I did. I would go further by saying that, in this case, the specific statement on shirt exceeded reasonable limits because it is patently false and could directly instill elements of gross fear in eleven year old children far greater than their ability to comprehend, let alone evaluate.

How dare you bring religion into a good 1st amendment debate.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

There we go with the "minors don't have rights" crap. They do have rights, in fact, they have the same constitutional rights as an adult in public. It's just that in public schools, as seen in previous SC cases, the rights take a back seat to safety and education. Free speech can be exercised in a school by a minor if it does not interfere with the primary goals of the school which are to educate and keep the minor safe.

I do agree with the suspension, as the shirt was clearly over the top as a form of political protest in a school.

Thanks for stating it much better than I did. I would go further by saying that, in this case, the specific statement on shirt exceeded reasonable limits because it is patently false and could directly instill elements of gross fear in eleven year old children far greater than their ability to comprehend, let alone evaluate.

The veracity of the shirt's claim has nothing to do with whether it is over the line. I would certainly not find a shirt that said something like "No scientist is going to make a monkey out of me" (support for creationism) on it to be over the line, though I certainly believe that such a shirt's claim would be false.

I do concur with your assessment of the shirt's ability to instill fear or worry in others. The tone of the shirt is the defining factor and the purpose of the shirt is clearly to incite argument from others. Not appropriate for school.

ZV

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Who are you even arguing those points with? Who said anything about unlimited free speech in schools? I posted that quote from the majority opinion in response to more than 1 person saying "1st amendment doesnt apply to students" and "minors dont have rights." Those are both false, and it has been backed up.

Of course there are limits, as I answered someone who asked me about a "Jesus is a pedo-queer" shirt. Also, the "Bong Hits For Jesus" case.

But the initial knee-jerk responses in this thread were that the kid had no rights, because the e-libs dont agree with the messsage. Scary.

That's just not true. No one before your first post said anything even remotely close. In fact, Jonks was right on ...

And I would hardly call those posters "e-libs".

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Who are you even arguing those points with? Who said anything about unlimited free speech in schools? I posted that quote from the majority opinion in response to more than 1 person saying "1st amendment doesnt apply to students" and "minors dont have rights." Those are both false, and it has been backed up.

Of course there are limits, as I answered someone who asked me about a "Jesus is a pedo-queer" shirt. Also, the "Bong Hits For Jesus" case.

But the initial knee-jerk responses in this thread were that the kid had no rights, because the e-libs dont agree with the messsage. Scary.

dude you're embarassing yourself.

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Who are you even arguing those points with? Who said anything about unlimited free speech in schools? I posted that quote from the majority opinion in response to more than 1 person saying "1st amendment doesnt apply to students" and "minors dont have rights." Those are both false, and it has been backed up.

Of course there are limits, as I answered someone who asked me about a "Jesus is a pedo-queer" shirt. Also, the "Bong Hits For Jesus" case.

But the initial knee-jerk responses in this thread were that the kid had no rights, because the e-libs dont agree with the messsage. Scary.

Sorry, but this post is just a lie and a pathetic attempt to backpedal after you were repeatedly stomped on.

There was exactly one post before your ill fated link that said "minors don't have rights". Exactly one. Everyone else said a variation on what is actually fact, the idea that schools can limit student expression if it interferes with education.

Just admit you were wrong and your argument blew up in your face, Elmer Fudd style.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think the kid should have been able to wear whatever shirt he wanted. The shirt was retarded, but who really cares?

Hmmm.....did someone mention back-peddling?

Anyway, getting "stomped" by a couple of college kids on thier macs, fresh out of thier professor's socialist lecture doesnt bother me. If you want a liberal echo-chamber where you can circle-jerk with all the other rabid BHObots, there are plenty of them on the net. We are here for debate, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think the kid should have been able to wear whatever shirt he wanted. The shirt was retarded, but who really cares?

Hmmm.....did someone mention back-peddling?

Anyway, getting "stomped" by a couple of college kids on thier macs, fresh out of thier professor's socialist lecture doesnt bother me. If you want a liberal echo-chamber where you can circle-jerk with all the other rabid BHObots, there are plenty of them on the net. We are here for debate, right?

How is that backpedaling? It's my personal opinion that kids should be able to wear whatever they wanted. I never said anything about the schools being unable to restrict it, I just don't think that they should. You're the one that tried to bring up supreme court cases that you obviously didn't understand.

As far as your stupid screed against college, that probably just means you've never been. I'm not some 22 year old kid fresh out of college, in fact I bet I've been around a lot more places than you have. Even if I was, the facts are the facts and you got them wrong. Doesn't matter if it's Mother Theresa or Mussolini telling you them.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think the kid should have been able to wear whatever shirt he wanted. The shirt was retarded, but who really cares?

Hmmm.....did someone mention back-peddling?

Anyway, getting "stomped" by a couple of college kids on thier macs, fresh out of thier professor's socialist lecture doesnt bother me. If you want a liberal echo-chamber where you can circle-jerk with all the other rabid BHObots, there are plenty of them on the net. We are here for debate, right?

How is that backpedaling? It's my personal opinion that kids should be able to wear whatever they wanted. I never said anything about the schools being unable to restrict it, I just don't think that they should. You're the one that tried to bring up supreme court cases that you obviously didn't understand.

As far as your stupid screed against college, that probably just means you've never been. I'm not some 22 year old kid fresh out of college, in fact I bet I've been around a lot more places than you have. Even if I was, the facts are the facts and you got them wrong. Doesn't matter if it's Mother Theresa or Mussolini telling you them.

Ah you assume so much. You shouldn't do that.

The only "facts" I put up was a direct quote. Nowhere did I say "zomg, kids can wear whatever they want." I personally dont believe that shirt crosses any lines. Thats called an "opinion", which was the exact same as yours. Under the ruling I posted, I dont believe it meets the standards at which you can restrict a student's free speech.

If it had Obama in a turban, that would be different. But how do you know it doesnt mean he is "A terrorist's best friend" because he is soft on foreign policy? (Which isnt true, he believes we are in a state of war with Wahabbi Islam, just like McCain).

You guys are so sensitive about his middle name, last name, and skin color, its amusing. Some people arent voting for him for other reasons. But no, it has to be the whole "Say something bad about Obama I will find something racist about it, something bad about Palin I will find something sexist about it."

 

[alchemize]

Amazing what passes for news nowadays

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

How is that backpedaling? It's my personal opinion that kids should be able to wear whatever they wanted. I never said anything about the schools being unable to restrict it, I just don't think that they should. You're the one that tried to bring up supreme court cases that you obviously didn't understand.

As far as your stupid screed against college, that probably just means you've never been. I'm not some 22 year old kid fresh out of college, in fact I bet I've been around a lot more places than you have. Even if I was, the facts are the facts and you got them wrong. Doesn't matter if it's Mother Theresa or Mussolini telling you them.

Ah you assume so much. You shouldn't do that.

The only "facts" I put up was a direct quote. Nowhere did I say "zomg, kids can wear whatever they want." I personally dont believe that shirt crosses any lines. Thats called an "opinion", which was the exact same as yours. Under the ruling I posted, I dont believe it meets the standards at which you can restrict a student's free speech.

If it had Obama in a turban, that would be different. But how do you know it doesnt mean he is "A terrorist's best friend" because he is soft on foreign policy? (Which isnt true, he believes we are in a state of war with Wahabbi Islam, just like McCain).

You guys are so sensitive about his middle name, last name, and skin color, its amusing. Some people arent voting for him for other reasons. But no, it has to be the whole "Say something bad about Obama I will find something racist about it, something bad about Palin I will find something sexist about it."

Keep wiggling. Your statement was that the quote you gave from the USSC ruling invalidated 2/3rds of the posts in this thread. It obviously did not because it was at odds with only a single posting. Stop trying to pretend you meant something else, because if you did then you did such a poor job of communicating that it's your fault anyway. There were no caveats in your post, there was no context to imply that you meant anything else other than exactly what you posted.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

How is that backpedaling? It's my personal opinion that kids should be able to wear whatever they wanted. I never said anything about the schools being unable to restrict it, I just don't think that they should. You're the one that tried to bring up supreme court cases that you obviously didn't understand.

As far as your stupid screed against college, that probably just means you've never been. I'm not some 22 year old kid fresh out of college, in fact I bet I've been around a lot more places than you have. Even if I was, the facts are the facts and you got them wrong. Doesn't matter if it's Mother Theresa or Mussolini telling you them.

Ah you assume so much. You shouldn't do that.

The only "facts" I put up was a direct quote. Nowhere did I say "zomg, kids can wear whatever they want." I personally dont believe that shirt crosses any lines. Thats called an "opinion", which was the exact same as yours. Under the ruling I posted, I dont believe it meets the standards at which you can restrict a student's free speech.
If it had Obama in a turban, that would be different. But how do you know it doesnt mean he is "A terrorist's best friend" because he is soft on foreign policy? (Which isnt true, he believes we are in a state of war with Wahabbi Islam, just like McCain).

You guys are so sensitive about his middle name, last name, and skin color, its amusing. Some people arent voting for him for other reasons. But no, it has to be the whole "Say something bad about Obama I will find something racist about it, something bad about Palin I will find something sexist about it."

Keep wiggling. Your statement was that the quote you gave from the USSC ruling invalidated 2/3rds of the posts in this thread. It obviously did not because it was at odds with only a single posting. Stop trying to pretend you meant something else, because if you did then you did such a poor job of communicating that it's your fault anyway. There were no caveats in your post, there was no context to imply that you meant anything else other than exactly what you posted.

You really have no reading comprehension.


In my opinion, that ruling does invalidate the posts in this thread. It doesnt meet the standards for restricting free speech. Let me bold that for you.

Now instead of having any debate on the issue, please continue to debate what I meant when I posted that, because thats why we are all here.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Keep wiggling. Your statement was that the quote you gave from the USSC ruling invalidated 2/3rds of the posts in this thread. It obviously did not because it was at odds with only a single posting. Stop trying to pretend you meant something else, because if you did then you did such a poor job of communicating that it's your fault anyway. There were no caveats in your post, there was no context to imply that you meant anything else other than exactly what you posted.

You really have no reading comprehension.

Yeah, crazy old me. When someone posts a quote that makes an unequivocal statement of support about the first amendment following a series of posts talking about how that right can be restricted in pursuance of a key government function, and includes with it a statement about how not only did all the "Obamabots" put their feet in their mouth, but that your posting invalidated 2/3rds of the posts in a thread...

We should assume that you really just agreed with us all along. To do otherwise would really show an incredible lack of reading comprehension.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Keep wiggling. Your statement was that the quote you gave from the USSC ruling invalidated 2/3rds of the posts in this thread. It obviously did not because it was at odds with only a single posting. Stop trying to pretend you meant something else, because if you did then you did such a poor job of communicating that it's your fault anyway. There were no caveats in your post, there was no context to imply that you meant anything else other than exactly what you posted.

You really have no reading comprehension.

Yeah, crazy old me. When someone posts a quote that makes an unequivocal statement of support about the first amendment following a series of posts talking about how that right can be restricted in pursuance of a key government function, and includes with it a statement about how not only did all the "Obamabots" put their feet in their mouth, but that your posting invalidated 2/3rds of the posts in a thread...

We should assume that you really just agreed with us all along. To do otherwise would really show an incredible lack of reading comprehension.

You aren't serious, right? You're messing with me? You said he should be able to wear it, I said he should be able to wear it. Everyone else thinks it crosses a line, I dont.

How am I agreeing with everyone? WTF?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
In my opinion, that ruling does invalidate the posts in this thread. It doesnt meet the standards for restricting free speech. Let me bold that for you.

"Your opinion" of the ruling was SHOWN to be completely invalid by ZV. He pretty much shoved your ignorance in your face, yet you refuse to acknowledge or address THAT FACT.

Here, "I'll bold it for you:"

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Read the opinion of the case that you so rashly cite.

The ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines is entirely dependent upon the court's finding that the administration had no grounds to assume that the plaintiffs' armbands were, or were likely to be, disruptive to the overall learning environment.

You also fail to cite at least three important cases establishing that there are other limitations on student free speech in addition to the nondisruptive criterion used in the Tinker decision.

There is Bethel School District v. Fraser, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that a high-school student's innuendo-filled speech was not constitutionally protected.

There is Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, in which the USSC ruled that student newspapers were not protected by the 1st Amendment.

And there is Morse v. Frederick, in which the USSC ruled that student speech that promotes illegal drug use is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, in summary, the case you cite works against you, as do the three other USSC cases I've cited. Clearly, a student's 1st Amendment rights are subject to significant restriction in public schools.

ZV

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
In my opinion, that ruling does invalidate the posts in this thread. It doesnt meet the standards for restricting free speech. Let me bold that for you.

"Your opinion" of the ruling was SHOWN to be completely invalid by ZV. He pretty much shoved your ignorance in your face, yet you refuse to acknowledge or address THAT FACT.

Here, "I'll bold it for you:"

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Read the opinion of the case that you so rashly cite.

The ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines is entirely dependent upon the court's finding that the administration had no grounds to assume that the plaintiffs' armbands were, or were likely to be, disruptive to the overall learning environment.

You also fail to cite at least three important cases establishing that there are other limitations on student free speech in addition to the nondisruptive criterion used in the Tinker decision.

There is Bethel School District v. Fraser, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that a high-school student's innuendo-filled speech was not constitutionally protected.

There is Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, in which the USSC ruled that student newspapers were not protected by the 1st Amendment.

And there is Morse v. Frederick, in which the USSC ruled that student speech that promotes illegal drug use is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

So, in summary, the case you cite works against you, as do the three other USSC cases I've cited. Clearly, a student's 1st Amendment rights are subject to significant restriction in public schools.

ZV

How can you invalidate an opinion on what constitutes "disruptive" clothing? Thats my opinion that it isnt disruptive so it shouldnt be limited. What does quoting someone else's post in the thread have anything to do with it?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

How can you invalidate an opinion on what constitutes "disruptive" clothing? Thats my opinion that it isnt disruptive so it shouldnt be limited. What does quoting someone else's post in the thread have anything to do with it?

All you're doing right now is trying to fight to a draw. Your post was either a flat out lie, or a massive failure to communicate. Either way, your fault.

EDIT: Your post did not address personal opinions of what was acceptable or not, your post was based upon USSC jurisprudence. There is no reasonable way to read what you posted other than what was interpreted.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

How can you invalidate an opinion on what constitutes "disruptive" clothing? Thats my opinion that it isnt disruptive so it shouldnt be limited. What does quoting someone else's post in the thread have anything to do with it?

All you're doing right now is trying to fight to a draw. Your post was either a flat out lie, or a massive failure to communicate. Either way, your fault.

EDIT: Your post did not address personal opinions of what was acceptable or not, your post was based upon USSC jurisprudence. There is no reasonable way to read what you posted other than what was interpreted.

Is this how you usually debate? Instead of debating the issue, you debate what you think the other person thinks of the issue? I hope the rest of your 5900 posts had more substance.

Edit to your edit: How could you read what I quoted as "Kids can wear whatever the f*ck they want, when they want."? I went to a public Jr. High that enforced uniforms. I know all about students clothing rights.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

All you're doing right now is trying to fight to a draw. Your post was either a flat out lie, or a massive failure to communicate. Either way, your fault.

EDIT: Your post did not address personal opinions of what was acceptable or not, your post was based upon USSC jurisprudence. There is no reasonable way to read what you posted other than what was interpreted.

Is this how you usually debate? Instead of debating the issue, you debate what you think the other person thinks of the issue? I hope the rest of your 5900 posts had more substance.

What you need to set up before any debate is standard rules of communication. I can't speak in English and you in French and expect to accomplish much. If your post at that time meant what you are claiming it means now, then it was so poorly written as to convey a point that was wildly off the mark. It wasn't just me that thought that way, it was half a dozen people.

So yes, if the person on the other side of the debate cannot communicate effectively then I call them out on that. Of course in reality I think you probably did think the same thing that you think now, you just got ahead of yourself and made a dumb post that took too extreme a position because it didn't occur to you that anyone would call you on it. Now you're doing damage control. That's just me though.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

All you're doing right now is trying to fight to a draw. Your post was either a flat out lie, or a massive failure to communicate. Either way, your fault.

EDIT: Your post did not address personal opinions of what was acceptable or not, your post was based upon USSC jurisprudence. There is no reasonable way to read what you posted other than what was interpreted.

Is this how you usually debate? Instead of debating the issue, you debate what you think the other person thinks of the issue? I hope the rest of your 5900 posts had more substance.

What you need to set up before any debate is standard rules of communication. I can't speak in English and you in French and expect to accomplish much. If your post at that time meant what you are claiming it means now, then it was so poorly written as to convey a point that was wildly off the mark. It wasn't just me that thought that way, it was half a dozen people.

So yes, if the person on the other side of the debate cannot communicate effectively then I call them out on that. Of course in reality I think you probably did think the same thing that you think now, you just got ahead of yourself and made a dumb post that took too extreme a position because it didn't occur to you that anyone would call you on it. Now you're doing damage control. That's just me though.

Thank you for answering my question. Thats all I needed to know.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Is this how you usually debate? Instead of debating the issue, you debate what you think the other person thinks of the issue? I hope the rest of your 5900 posts had more substance.

What you need to set up before any debate is standard rules of communication. I can't speak in English and you in French and expect to accomplish much. If your post at that time meant what you are claiming it means now, then it was so poorly written as to convey a point that was wildly off the mark. It wasn't just me that thought that way, it was half a dozen people.

So yes, if the person on the other side of the debate cannot communicate effectively then I call them out on that. Of course in reality I think you probably did think the same thing that you think now, you just got ahead of yourself and made a dumb post that took too extreme a position because it didn't occur to you that anyone would call you on it. Now you're doing damage control. That's just me though.

Thank you for answering my question. Thats all I needed to know.

Did you even read my post? It was about your inability to communicate, not about your position. Keep fighting for that draw! It sure as hell beats admitting you screwed up.

 

[Vic]

I haven't seen this much self-pwnage in a while.

 

[jpeyton]

Ocguy got his ass served to him on a silver platter and he's trying to pull a McCain-style backpedal.

Nothing to see guys. Nothing new, anyway.