Now THIS is censorship

[justcuz]

Like most nebulous concepts, the opinions are flowing like the brooks during spring thaws.

Fortunately, those opinions garner emotionalized rhetoric as folk keep stating in generalized oblique terms this is or this isn't protected, yet, and yet someone, somewhere, in some religious societal community has to BELIEVE the explicit words are offensive or the porn is lewd or the intent of the words was to incit or or or!

Then the guardians of the community react against the offending act/words so the process begins on determining IF the incident is protect or not!

The courts only react if someone, somewhere, institutes legal proceedings at the behest of the religious societal community! Frivolous suits abound and are, in most cases summarily dismissed.

What was deemed unacceptable in the past isn't today, what is presumed obscenity, incitement, etc., today hasn't been decided by the judical system as meeting the approprate criteria.

The oblique ramblings of vague concepts of this is or this isn't is truly in the eyes of the beholder until decided by the courts, and the naked citities of this union has a lot worse issues to look after the struggle with definition of fighting words, obscenity, etc.

Final point: Blacks legal dictionary
Scalia in R.V.A says fighting words (basically the same as fighting words); To protect public morality,. Never been used to justify conviction. Breach of the peace.

 

[Boboclown]

Guess we know you aren't taking law courses.

To keep it simple and short: Some things are not protected by the First Amendment. What this student did; however, is protected speech and the public school violated it.

That's it. Fighting words, obscene pornography (again, think snuff films, and look up what that means before you try to argue it), threats of violence, etc are not protected. What this student did was none of those. There is nothing more to it. The student's freedom of speech was violated.

 

[justcuz]

We're not talking here about "limiting access" based on factors unrelated to free speech.

We're talking about an organization that is government funded and bound to adhere to local, state and federal regulations including but not limited to the Bill of Rights, that is in one situation deciding what opinions are permitted on campus, and in the other deciding what opinions are permitted off campus. It matters not whether the school has the ability to deny access based on other factors, it simply has no right to deny access based on the opinion one holds, or the legal actions one partakes in privately.

To boil this down to some nebulous sense of "autonomous discretion" is to utterly vitiate the preeminence of the First Amendment in our society in general and government organizations in particular.

Please, do me a favor, please carry your firearm into a federal park facility; please carry your firearm onto school property!

Wait, those are government funded properties where as you just proclaimed are covered by the bill of rights!

Public school facilities, athletic stadiums, museums, etc., built in our communities, with taxpayer monies are not governed by agents of the government who funded them!

These are private, stand alone, self governing enties, period. For example, public school districts operate under the auspices a school board, who make governing decisions on the use of their private enterprise property & facilities, budgets, hiring/firing of their personnel.

They follow, as defined by their lawyers, the state laws and to assure federal funding comes in, federal title mandates.

These entities educating our populace have wide latitude on execution of their educational charter including minor abrogation of failing to abide by the bill of rights, if in their opinion student body safety is involved or some other caveat presents itself!

Let's see an emotionalized anti gun rally of immature youth who might lack appropriate self control or understanding about the rights of free speech activites should be extended towards someone joining in with a pro gun sign!

Tell ya what, go to a mom's rally and walk towards the mom's main group carrying your pro gun sign and while protected by the 1st, tell this group your underware won't pucker a bit as you get closer. Also who might be cite for inciting?

 

[Boboclown]

Once again you are wrong in regards to public schools. Public schools are funded and run by local government. PRIVATE schools are funded by tuition and are not run by local government.

More evidence of you also not studying law, otherwise you would have realize there are court cases regarding the First Amendment and students.

 

[justcuz]

Guess we know you aren't taking law courses.

.

When the argument goes south, next best thing is to begin the innuendo of discrediting the distractor's character. Bully tactic didn't work cuz i do not wear my feelings on my sleeve, sorry!

You have not provided a single unmotionalized shred of objective evidence except 'your opinion based on your biased morals' which is the point i have been stating all along:

Terms such as obscenity, fighting words, is strictly based on the religious societal communiy's opinion and the COURTs must determine if it is or is not protected not some random citizen spouting inciting rhetoric from afar!

Again, your kind attention is directed to this cite, which I cannot quote directly due some who might discern the language used is obscene, er inciteful but direct your attention to the discussion regarding the court's decision on Gooding and the paragraph below!
Misconceptions About the Fighting Words Exception - FIRE

Have a good day!

 

[Boboclown]

When the argument goes south, next best thing is to begin the innuendo of discrediting the distractor's character. Bully tactic didn't work cuz i do not wear my feelings on my sleeve, sorry!

Oh I'm sorry, I guess we'll focus on one part of a post thinking the rest of it is tied to that specific part of it. It wasn't a bully tactic fyi, as much as it was an observation.

Again, your kind attention is directed to this cite, which I cannot quote directly due some who might discern the language used is obscene, er inciteful but direct your attention to the discussion regarding the court's decision on Gooding and the paragraph below!

Which does not disprove anything I have stated. At all. I said fighting words are not protected, they aren't. What I have not stated, but you felt the need to assume what I did, was when something constituted as such. The point is that the First Amendment does not protect everything. However, again, what this student did was protected speech.

Oh yeah, actually I didn't even say anything were fighting words. Only threats of violence, which is not protected and can get you suspended; however, it is context based. As in, there must be reasonable suspicion the person would actually carry it out. In the case of a bully, if they are known as a bully who does actually commit violent acts, then the threat is not protected speech.

Terms such as obscenity, fighting words, is strictly based on the religious societal communiy's opinion and the COURTs must determine if it is or is not protected not some random citizen spouting inciting rhetoric from afar!

So I take it you did NOT look up the term snuff film? Pretty sure it isn't just "religious societal" opinion then to ban film where a person is actually murdered. Hey, you do you though.

You have not provided a single unmotionalized shred of objective evidence except 'your opinion based on your biased morals' which is the point i have been stating all along:

Actually for the most part I have objectively stated what is not considered protected speech and for the most part have not stated what words (or anything related to speech) specifically would be construed as the unprotected speech, with clear exception of the snuff film example. YOU took the rest of it on yourself.

 

[justcuz]

View attachment 441946
Once again you are wrong in regards to public schools. Public schools are funded and run by local government. PRIVATE schools are funded by tuition and are not run by local government.

More evidence of you also not studying law, otherwise you would have realize there are court cases regarding the First Amendment and students.

Now it is rather obvious you feel the discussion is going badly for you as you have brought the animated meme but what is truly surprising, you do not have a clue how badly this reflects on your mentality or lowers your self standing for ever being taken seriously again.

Have a good day!

 

[Boboclown]

Now it is rather obvious you feel the discussion is going badly for you as you have brought the animated meme but what is truly surprising, you do not have a clue how badly this reflects on your mentality or lowers your self standing for ever being taken seriously again.

Have a good day!

No, it is rather obvious that it is tiring to see you ignorantly claim the same thing over and over. In this case, it is your claim that public schools are private property. Which they are not.

However, instead of regarding the rest of the post you focus only on the animated picture and used that to attack my character. That would be an ad hominem.

 

[Stomper]

 

[Boboclown]

View attachment 441994

Never forget the Roof Koreans.

 

[The Heretic]

IMO it is censorship when a government entity decides that they will only allow one side of a controversial subject to be voiced and denies the other side equal time or access to a public venue in order to voice their opinion.

Yes, schools have limits on 'free speech', but in this case they were allowing only one side to 'demonstrate' and denied the other side their rights.

 

[Boboclown]

In order for the school to be allowed to take disciplinary action, it needs to have a substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others.

I'm sure one student holding up the one sign, that in no way promotes illegal acts, is not a substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others.

 

[Vendor Hidden]

I can only beat my head against the Stupid Wall so many times. I'm out of this discussion.

 

[11Charlie]

I can only beat my head against the Stupid Wall so many times. I'm out of this discussion.

Its getting to the point sometimes that its not worth getting in to start with. But can make for a pretty good show!

 

[Boboclown]

With the invention of the googles plenty arguments would be avoided.

But then I'd be a bored clown. Its never fun to argue law with other law students. Now a defense lawyer and prosecutor arguing is fun for them, because one makes money and the other buys lunch.

 

[ar addict]

I am not a big fan of school walk-outs. My tax dollars should not be spent to take away our gun rights. While it was only 17 minutes long, at least a half hour was wasted. Times that by what a teacher makes and how many teachers were not teaching. I think the amount would be huge. That said our small local high school had 70 students walk-out.
Just think how shocked I was when on the front page of the paper, is my granddaughter the organizer. She has been raised to respect guns. She is a good shot, winning several local 200 and 400 yard matches.
What did we do wrong? Is this her being a rebel? teenager?
Bad choice in friends?
When I quit cursing and kicking things around the shop, I took the time to read what she had to say. To honor the 17 victims of the Feb. 14 Parkland, Florida, school shooting and bring awareness to mental health treatment and prevention.
I guess she does listen, and yes I am proud of her.
GHS students join national walk-out