Freedom of Speech is a Joke

[Jason Tate]

http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1117577021

Fucking pathetic.

[deadstar]

He says its just a nonsensical message, yet later in the article....

"Joseph Frederick, who has been teaching and studying in China, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records."

[deadstar]

The message in high school came before the selling of drugs.

[deadstar]

Supreme court sees message as promoting drug use. Boy who put up sign is found guilty of selling drugs, or promoting drug use. Yea the Supreme Court must be high too.

[Jason Tate]

Supreme court sees message as promoting drug use. Boy who put up sign is found guilty of selling drugs, or promoting drug use. Yea the Supreme Court must be high too.
So your argument is someone can't promote drug use? That's limiting speech - that's against the constitution - ergo - I think it's bullshit.

Someone should be able to say, "smoke weed, get high, do drugs" all they want.

[deadstar]

So your argument is someone can't promote drug use? That's limiting speech - that's against the constitution - ergo - I think it's bullshit.

Someone should be able to say, "smoke weed, get high, do drugs" all they want.
They can. I think putting a sign up in a "Drug Free School Zone" is a no-no.

edit: Actually, was the banner displayed in a school? The article doesnt really ay where.

[Jason Tate]

They can. I think putting a sign up in a "Drug Free School Zone" is a no-no.
Obviously they can't. Hence this story.

[Yes. And?]

Oh, some of my teachers mentioned this case. People were expecting the kid to win.

[deadstar]

So you're saying the message doesnt promote illegal drug use?

[Jason Tate]

So you're saying the message doesnt promote illegal drug use?
I'm saying it shouldn't matter what it says.

[deadstar]

I'm saying it shouldn't matter what it says.

It could promote a second Holocaust and it should still be legal.

Well I feel very differently.

[deadstar]

The government has no right to say what people can say or think.
I feel differently when it promotes an illegal act, especially when displayed in a public high school.

[Jason Tate]

I feel differently when it promotes an illegal act, especially when displayed in a public high school.
It's a slippery slope.

Who decides what's illegal? Etc. etc. etc.

[Jason Tate]

Well I feel very differently.
That scares me.

[deadstar]

People should not be allowed to display anything they want on school grounds. I guess you are against dress codes in schools prohibiting shirts with guns on them and the like. They promote a bad message.

In a perfect society, it wouldnt be the school's need to monitor this stuff. But unfortunately with parents playing less and less a part in children's lives, there's a need for some rules and regulations. Its a society issue. Many kids spend more time in school than they do in their own homes.

[deadstar]

Is the Roots played on a loudspeaker or in headphones? There's a big difference between personal beliefs and making your beliefs known to everyone else. Theres a time and place for everything. People should be smart enough to know what is appropriate at a school.

[thejetstolehome]

kids who wore shirts w/guns on them in my high school received no punishment while kids who wore Corona shirts w/women in bikinis had to either a)take them off, b) cover them up, or c) turn them inside out.

i always thought that if something like that was gonna happen, it would go the other way. :shrug:

[Love As Arson]

I do hope no one is under the impression that this has anything to do with the student's sign, rather, it strikes me as a basis for further restrictions on student activities, such as protesting the war, immigration reform, etc.

[Jason Tate]

Is the Roots played on a loudspeaker or in headphones? There's a big difference between personal beliefs and making your beliefs known to everyone else. Theres a time and place for everything. People should be smart enough to know what is appropriate at a school.
You mean "smart enough to know what some arbitrary board" deems as appropriate? I find freedom of speech - regardless - very appropriate.

[deadstar]

You mean "smart enough to know what some arbitrary board" deems as appropriate? I find freedom of speech - regardless - very appropriate.
Impressionable kids many of whom have very little guidance/rules at home.

I find using a school as a means of relaying a message very inappropriate.

[thejetstolehome]

Impressionable kids many of whom have very little guidance/rules at home.

I find using a school as a means of relaying a message very inappropriate.

but it's okay for the school to send the message that the First Ammendment only applies sometimes?

[Jason Tate]

Impressionable kids many of whom have very little guidance/rules at home.

I find using a school as a means of relaying a message very inappropriate.
So?

I couldn't care less what you think ... the preservation freedom of speech is vastly more important than your puritanical outlook on life.

The message propagated by most schools is far more tainted than drug usage. Alienation, fear, classification, discrimination -- all completely acceptable "messages" to give our kids ... but no ... not drugs.

Bullshit.

[captainhampton]

I feel differently when it promotes an illegal act, especially when displayed in a public high school.

if this was displayed at a public high school and promoted drug use, then i can't see how a sane person would have a problem with this ruling.

[Jason Tate]

if this was displayed at a public high school and promoted drug use, then i can't see how a sane person would have a problem with this ruling.
Substitute drug use for "Jesus" or "bible" or "abstinence" - and if you hold the same belief then I'd be willing to have this discussion with you. If, however, it's only due to your subjective view on what is "harmful" or "appropriate" then - well - you don't have a leg to stand on.

[aminorthreat55]

This is probably inconsistent with Tinker v. Des Moines.

[captainhampton]

Substitute drug use for "Jesus" or "bible" or "abstinence" - and if you hold the same belief then I'd be willing to have this discussion with you. If, however, it's only due to your subjective view on what is "harmful" or "appropriate" then - well - you don't have a leg to stand on.

i don't think there should be religion in public schools either. i'm still standing on both my legs and you are the guy who thinks it should be okay to promote drugs in our schools. brilliant.

[aminorthreat55]

if this was displayed at a public high school and promoted drug use, then i can't see how a sane person would have a problem with this ruling.
Our legal system uses stare decisis, therefore this is a big deal. It goes beyond what this one kid did this one time.

[Jason Tate]

i don't think there should be religion in public schools either. i'm still standing on both my legs and you are the guy who thinks it should be okay to promote drugs in our schools. brilliant.
It should be okay to promote what ever the fuck you want. And you left out "abstinence."

So your belief is that someone wearing a shirt that says, "Jesus Saves" should face the same punishments as this case? Interesting. Fascism is fashionable I suppose.

[Clarity14]

The phrase 'bong hits for jesus' is absolutely hilarious.

[deadstar]

It should be okay to promote what ever the fuck you want. And you left out "abstinence."

So your belief is that someone wearing a shirt that says, "Jesus Saves" should face the same punishments as this case? Interesting. Fascism is fashionable I suppose.

Severely severly disagree. Promoting drugs, sex, violence in school is inappropriate. Take your platform somewhere else.

I have no problem with someone saying what they want on their own. Just dont force it onto the public inside of a school.

And by the way, out of line saying I have a "puritanical outlook". I'm the son a teacher, so my beliefs are more shaped by my own experiences and what I've seen with her kids.

[myantiyou]

Hm....

[concernedparent]

Freedom of speech doesn't really exist. You could argue that it's existed for periods of time, but overall it hasn't since there's frequently been laws prohibiting speech that have been passed. See "sedition act."

[selftitled85]

It should be okay to promote what ever the fuck you want. And you left out "abstinence."

So your belief is that someone wearing a shirt that says, "Jesus Saves" should face the same punishments as this case? Interesting. Fascism is fashionable I suppose.

yeah jason i think you are going a little overboard here.

with what you implied you are pretty much saying a student if he so pleases can go to school and promote neo-nazis...go around with a shirt saying something along the lines of "fuck the ******s" and so forth...



not to mention arent you being a little contradicting when i cant even use the word ****** on this site?

[selftitled85]

hell jason...if you were such a fan...

i should be able to say



dom is a dumb ****** that should be lynched and shot and then had his head put on a pole so other ******s will get the point that ******s need to know there place.

as well as...anyone thats a ****** has no right to speak because ****** speak is wrong and should not be allowed in the world. FUCK ******S!

[thatwasamoment]

I like where this thread is going...

[concernedparent]

hell jason...if you were such a fan...

i should be able to say



dom is a dumb ****** that should be lynched and shot and then had his head put on a pole so other ******s will get the point that ******s need to know there place.

as well as...anyone thats a ****** has no right to speak because ****** speak is wrong and should not be allowed in the world. FUCK ******S!
I guarantee you that Jason's going to say "this site isn't a government" type thing. I still think he should fashion it the way he'd like the world to go rather than comparing it to a deli, but that's just me.

[Smash Adams]

g6cT-JSfdzM
this is a similar thing- I blame Bill O Reilly

[awakenarogue]

It could promote a second Holocaust and it should still be legal.

maybe you're exaggerating for the sake of proving a point, but i think free speech may have its boundary somewhere around saying you want to commit mass genecide....I'm all for free speech, but society has to have some boundaries

[selftitled85]

g6cT-JSfdzM
this is a similar thing- I blame Bill O Reilly

so you seriously think that saying something like that in a hs should be allowed?

this is ridiculous. not to mention the guy on fox trying to protect the hearing was a complete tool with no public speaking ability...the fact is that for once i believe o'reilly. something like that SHOULD be condoned in school and not applauded.

[Smash Adams]

so you seriously think that saying something like that in a hs should be allowed?

this is ridiculous. not to mention the guy on fox trying to protect the hearing was a complete tool with no public speaking ability...the fact is that for once i believe o'reilly. something like that SHOULD be condoned in school and not applauded.

I truly don't know the full story

[captainhampton]

It should be okay to promote what ever the fuck you want. And you left out "abstinence."

So your belief is that someone wearing a shirt that says, "Jesus Saves" should face the same punishments as this case? Interesting. Fascism is fashionable I suppose.


you just don't fucking get it. while I don't think religion has a place in public schools and i don't think abstinence only eduacation is effective, they aren't promoting illegal activity. promoting drug use is promoting something that is against the law. so it should be okay to promote murder, rape, and other crimes in schools? if you believe that, then you are a worthless piece of shit.

[selftitled85]

I truly don't know the full story

so? just from that tidbit you think bill o'reilly is wrong to say what he said? sure...it might "go against free speech"...but dont you think that something of the sort should not be allowed in schools when it is illegal to take drugs...and we live in a society that promotes abstinence and in some places more or less protecting sex what this person says go against everything that is taught?

[Smash Adams]

so? just from that tidbit you think bill o'reilly is wrong to say what he said? sure...it might "go against free speech"...but dont you think that something of the sort should not be allowed in schools when it is illegal to take drugs...and we live in a society that promotes abstinence and in some places more or less protecting sex what this person says go against everything that is taught?

I agree with you, however abstinence only isn't the way to go since there's less incentive for safe sex

[selftitled85]

I agree with you, however abstinence only isn't the way to go since there's less incentive for safe sex

but thats different. those guys were talking about unsafe sex. not just safe sex. combine that with the talk about drugs and you have a really dumb thing to be talking about.

[Smash Adams]

but thats different. those guys were talking about unsafe sex. not just safe sex. combine that with the talk about drugs and you have a really dumb thing to be talking about.

true I feel so ignorant now

[Love As Arson]

Severely severly disagree. Promoting drugs, sex, violence in school is inappropriate. Take your platform somewhere else.

I have no problem with someone saying what they want on their own. Just dont force it onto the public inside of a school.

And by the way, out of line saying I have a "puritanical outlook". I'm the son a teacher, so my beliefs are more shaped by my own experiences and what I've seen with her kids.
What if you believe that depiction to be unjust? While you may believe marijuana is inappropriate, others may disagree, so are we defer to the majority to designates as appropriate?

yeah jason i think you are going a little overboard here.

with what you implied you are pretty much saying a student if he so pleases can go to school and promote neo-nazis...go around with a shirt saying something along the lines of "fuck the ******s" and so forth...



not to mention arent you being a little contradicting when i cant even use the word ****** on this site?
He should be able to wear what he likes.


dom is a dumb ****** that should be lynched and shot and then had his head put on a pole so other ******s will get the point that ******s need to know there place.

as well as...anyone thats a ****** has no right to speak because ****** speak is wrong and should not be allowed in the world. FUCK ******S!
Say what you like. I, however, would respond by illustrating your ignorance.
You can say what you like.

[selftitled85]

What if you believe that depiction to be unjust? While you may believe marijuana is inappropriate, others may disagree, so are we defer to the majority to designates as appropriate?


He should be able to wear what he likes.


Say what you like. I, however, would respond by illustrating your ignorance.
You can say what you like.

its not that others believe it inappropriate. right now it is illegal...why should they allow people to promote it as if it is ok to break the law and use it?

i know you would. but i dont understand how allowing such speak should be allowed in places like high school or middle school where students are much more vulnerable and easier to manipulate.

[Love As Arson]

its not that others believe it inappropriate. right now it is illegal...why should they allow people to promote it as if it is ok to break the law and use it?
Unjust laws aren't overturned by simply abiding by the law.

i know you would. but i dont understand how allowing such speak should be allowed in places like high school or middle school where students are much more vulnerable and easier to manipulate.
There would be anti-racist groups to counter their speech.

[myantiyou]

This thread started off by thinking promoting drug use in school was perfectly fine. That's not what concerns me though.

Now it branched into people thinking that using derogatory racist statements should be okay. Call me cliched for good morals if you will, but no, it isn't.

In my opinion, anything that hurts someone else for something they didn't deserve is not okay.

Or else, every gay person would have to accept being called a 'fa**ot' and so on and so forth.

[selftitled85]

Unjust laws aren't overturned by simply abiding by the law.

There would be anti-racist groups to counter their speech.

why is it an unjust law? it is pretty much illegal wherever you go and does not do much to help society. an unjust law is something that keeps a country from achieving happiness or moving forward. pot gives you momentary happiness but once its gone then what?

and you are speculating that there would be anti-racist groups to counter their speech. not to mention it can be said that this would probably lead to violent action between the two groups which would probably not be good.

[deadstar]

Anti-racists speech versus racists in schools? How about telling them to go elsewhere since its not the appropriate place to push personal beliefs.

[myantiyou]

Anti-racists speech versus racists in schools? How about telling them to go elsewhere since its not the appropriate place to push personal beliefs.

Yeah, as strange as it sounds, not everyone can literally openly promote their true personal beliefs. That freedom of speech bullshit is just a bill with a shitload of strings attached. Those strings attached are pretty much common sense though.

ie - You can't go around in public openly stating that we should hang all black individuals. It doesn't only apply to schools, it applies anywhere.

[Love As Arson]

This thread started off by thinking promoting drug use in school was perfectly fine. That's not what concerns me though.

Now it branched into people thinking that using derogatory racist statements should be okay. Call me cliched for good morals if you will, but no, it isn't.

In my opinion, anything that hurts someone else for something they didn't deserve is not okay.

Or else, every gay person would have to accept being called a 'fa**ot' and so on and so forth.
Racist statements are awful, however, that should not prevent an individual from expressing them.

why is it an unjust law? it is pretty much illegal wherever you go and does not do much to help society. an unjust law is something that keeps a country from achieving happiness or moving forward. pot gives you momentary happiness but once its gone then what?
Unjust laws inhibit one's personal freedom to do as they would please, even if it does not hurt anyone. Regardless of its effects, it is arguable that it causes no real harm to society.


and you are speculating that there would be anti-racist groups to counter their speech.
There are numerous tolerance groups that are widespread in high schools.


not to mention it can be said that this would probably lead to violent action between the two groups which would probably not be good.
That is speculation.


Anti-racists speech versus racists in schools? How about telling them to go elsewhere since its not the appropriate place to push personal beliefs.
Are you under the impression that the curriculum in school is objective? It advocates the norms of society, and, in doing so, is pushing a set of beliefs on children.

[fromwithin]

I feel differently when it promotes an illegal act, especially when displayed in a public high school.

Yeah I think that's why they sided with the school. Had it been an outside case, nothing wouldve happened. The school has an image to uphold.

[aminorthreat55]

hell jason...if you were such a fan...

i should be able to say



dom is a dumb ****** that should be lynched and shot and then had his head put on a pole so other ******s will get the point that ******s need to know there place.

as well as...anyone thats a ****** has no right to speak because ****** speak is wrong and should not be allowed in the world. FUCK ******S!
I think you're missing his point.

[trindaddy]

free speak has never, and will never exist in the u.s. there will always be limitations, just as there always has been limitations. i'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it will be for any conceivable future.

[concernedparent]

Has any society ever employed free speach?
Not off the top of my head..

[trindaddy]

not that i know of. sure places such as the u.s., canada, and numerous european countries. have freer speech than many other countries in the world, but to call it free is a joke.

[Jason Tate]

Severely severly disagree. Promoting drugs, sex, violence in school is inappropriate.

Inappropriate to you - but - you are not the final say. What's inappropriate to some - is cliche to others. The problem lays when someone else starts telling you what you can and can't say based upon their moral code ... where does it stop? It becomes a slippery slope. And unless you're prepared to allow someone to tell you - when and where you can say certain things that they don't agree with and you do ... you can't support this sort of action (regardless of the content).

Take your platform somewhere else.

Where? If you can't say something once place - why is it okay somewhere else?

I have no problem with someone saying what they want on their own. Just dont force it onto the public inside of a school.

Don't see how this is "forced" upon anyone. I don't believe words are ever "forced."

And by the way, out of line saying I have a "puritanical outlook". I'm the son a teacher, so my beliefs are more shaped by my own experiences and what I've seen with her kids.

When the shoe fits ....

yeah jason i think you are going a little overboard here.

with what you implied you are pretty much saying a student if he so pleases can go to school and promote neo-nazis...go around with a shirt saying something along the lines of "fuck the ******s" and so forth...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. He can say what he'd like. The line can't be drawn on what can be said simply because it's not what you agree with. If we allow free speech for some - it should be allowed for all. Otherwise it should be limited for all. The problem is when these "moral" decisions are made for everyone.

not to mention arent you being a little contradicting when i cant even use the word ****** on this site?

You can use the word (you just did) - it's simply blocked out.

hell jason...if you were such a fan...

i should be able to say



dom is a dumb ****** that should be lynched and shot and then had his head put on a pole so other ******s will get the point that ******s need to know there place.

as well as...anyone thats a ****** has no right to speak because ****** speak is wrong and should not be allowed in the world. FUCK ******S!

You did just say all of those things. And the actions that private parties take for those words (just as they would if you did so in a school) are something you've brought upon yourself. I'm sure you can see the difference between private and public and the actions of individuals versus a government. My private decision to censor words typed on a computer does not limit your freedom of speech, nor infringe on the constitution of the united states. Telling someone what they can and cannot say - does. Big difference.

[Jason Tate]

you just don't fucking get it. while I don't think religion has a place in public schools and i don't think abstinence only eduacation is effective, they aren't promoting illegal activity.

So you're saying that if the activity is illegal - then it can't be "promoted" (this is me accepting the fact that "bong hits for jesus" is a promotion). And yet a day in most history classes around the country will show a variety of very illegal acts being directly promoted - not only that - praised!

The problem is that someone's (now) decided which illegal acts are ok - and which aren't. If you're for the abolishment of the promotion of any illegal act on school ... then fine ... let's discuss that. But this selective decision making is where I have a problem with your train of logic.

promoting drug use is promoting something that is against the law.

Ok.

so it should be okay to promote murder, rape, and other crimes in schools? if you believe that, then you are a worthless piece of shit.

Well, my argument would simply be that we do promote those things in schools. But then I, apparently, received a more in depth education on our country's foundation than you.

This thread started off by thinking promoting drug use in school was perfectly fine. That's not what concerns me though.

Now it branched into people thinking that using derogatory racist statements should be okay. Call me cliched for good morals if you will, but no, it isn't.

No, no one said that the statements themselves were ok. Simply that someone should be allowed to say them - and justly mocked, alienated, ostracized, etc.

In my opinion, anything that hurts someone else for something they didn't deserve is not okay.

Basically removing 75% of middle school conversations are we not? Would we even be able to populate our schools with this mentality/idea in place? Doubtful.

Or else, every gay person would have to accept being called a 'fa**ot' and so on and so forth.

Why would they have to accept it? I don't see forcing someone to not say something as any sort of acceptance.

[Nevuk]

I think a thread about marijuana legalization would prove vastly entertaining, based upon the reactions of people in this thread.

[Jason Tate]

I guarantee you that Jason's going to say "this site isn't a government" type thing. I still think he should fashion it the way he'd like the world to go rather than comparing it to a deli, but that's just me.
The website is fashioned to work as a website - not as a world. If it was fashioned to work as a society - then everyone that used it would be paying taxes to do so ... and that's just not going to happen. Therefore, moderation is put in place to keep the private entity functioning to a level that is acceptable to a large group of people. It's not meant to be a mimic of any society - utopian or so forth. People have the option of saying whatever they want .... the option to remove it comes after it's said.

[mayra821]

Jason I get what you're saying and completely agree

[Jason Tate]

I think a thread about marijuana legalization would prove vastly entertaining, based upon the reactions of people in this thread.
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=213692

Ironically - I almost completely disagree with my posts in that thread now. I've re-evaluated my stance on that topic based upon economic principles and more ... and can fully admit I was wrong in the aforementioned (linked) thread.

[trindaddy]

whats funny is that the people arguing over censoring in this thread are the ones who keep utilizing their sense of free speech to debate what should and should not be used.

[Nevuk]

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=213692

Ironically - I almost completely disagree with my posts in that thread now. I've re-evaluated my stance on that topic based upon economic principles and more ... and can fully admit I was wrong in the aforementioned (linked) thread.
Yeah, I just read through it and was rather confused, it didn't seem to align with your typical reasoning at all. "Marijuana will reduce productivity and is harmful to the country", vaguely paraphrased from one of your posts.

[trindaddy]

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=213692

Ironically - I almost completely disagree with my posts in that thread now. I've re-evaluated my stance on that topic based upon economic principles and more ... and can fully admit I was wrong in the aforementioned (linked) thread.

wow, you completely man up on this one. if you disagree with what you then wrote on that thread, then we both probably have similar stances on it now. i'm not a user of it per se (i have , and still do it rarely, i wont lie about that) but socially, and more important economically it makes sense. possibly medically as well.

[Jason Tate]

Yeah, I just read through it and was rather confused, it didn't seem to align with your typical reasoning at all. "Marijuana will reduce productivity and is harmful to the country", vaguely paraphrased from one of your posts.
My reasoning was based off of addiction experiences I've had in my life. I still adhere to the belief that it should not be a priority by any means; however, my feelings on relative personal responsibility have changed. If people feel the need to force this "every man for himself" route on some of us that don't feel that way (me) - I suppose I need to at least understand that mentality and accept portions of it. It's unfair for me to think that because I find a behavior unsatisfactory or detrimental - that it should be held universally so.

[open mind]

I feel differently when it promotes an illegal act, especially when displayed in a public high school.

i'm pretty sure the kid was off school property and displayed it somewhere along the course of a "fun run" or something like that.



edit: it was displayed on the opposite side of the road during an olympic-torch parade. so technically it wasn't on school property.
also marijuana is legal in the state of alaska as you can possess around an ounce of it without breaking state law..........the feds can still charge you though.

[myantiyou]

No, no one said that the statements themselves were ok. Simply that someone should be allowed to say them - and justly mocked, alienated, ostracized, etc.



Basically removing 75% of middle school conversations are we not? Would we even be able to populate our schools with this mentality/idea in place? Doubtful.



Why would they have to accept it? I don't see forcing someone to not say something as any sort of acceptance.

Can you rephrase that for me? "Someone should be allowed to say them and justly mocked."

Yeah, all I said was that it isn't okay. I know that it's impossible to change the fact that middle school gossip and and school drama kind of stuff is going to be inevitable. The only thing that disturbed me is the fact that you sounded like you were defending a right to hurt others. A misunderstanding, I hope?

When I said accept, I meant that they have to hear it and the derogatory term will sink into their brain and comprehend it.

PS - I've realized that this entire argument is going to keep making defensive claims on each side through rewording of what one side has said, or questioning a defense that a side has brought up. Everyone has their own opinion, and sometimes the opposite side will take that defense the wrong way.

In other words, this argument may never get resolved through an online forum.

Anyways, carry on.

[Jason Tate]

Can you rephrase that for me? "Someone should be allowed to say them and justly mocked."

Discourse.

Someone says "do drugs" - someone else says, "don't do drugs." Discussion instead of limiting one side of the spectrum and not the other.

Yeah, all I said was that it isn't okay. I know that it's impossible to change the fact that middle school gossip and and school drama kind of stuff is going to be inevitable. The only thing that disturbed me is the fact that you sounded like you were defending a right to hurt others. A misunderstanding, I hope?

I believe that the right to freedom of speech does not include the right to act upon such speech. So, yes, that would be a misunderstanding.

When I said accept, I meant that they have to hear it and the derogatory term will sink into their brain and comprehend it.

And I believe this starts us down a path that forces definitions of "derogatory" - and when taken to its extreme ... I think that's absurd. Furthermore, what's derogatory for some is not derogatory for others ... who's compass do we utilize in determining what is derogatory? Freedom of speech should come with no chains - regardless of what is said and how strongly you disagree with it.

PS - I've realized that this entire argument is going to keep making defensive claims on each side through rewording of what one side has said, or questioning a defense that a side has brought up. Everyone has their own opinion, and sometimes the opposite side will take that defense the wrong way.

In other words, this argument may never get resolved through an online forum.

Anyways, carry on.

Agreed, rarely does anyone change their opinions based upon words on a computer screen. I, still, find the conversation (usually) stimulating.

"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

[myantiyou]

And I believe this starts us down a path that forces definitions of "derogatory" - and when taken to its extreme ... I think that's absurd. Furthermore, what's derogatory for some is not derogatory for others ... who's compass do we utilize in determining what is derogatory? Freedom of speech should come with no chains - regardless of what is said and how strongly you disagree with it.


The reason why it is labeled as "derogatory," (in my strong opinion) is because for example: f*gs were used to burn homosexuals. Due to common sense, one would think that this is an offensive remark, because it is meant to be a hurtful word. The word n*gger is labeled "derogatory" because African(s) [Americans] feel insulted whenever it is used to them, and it has a bad history with the whites using it against them - I'm not a history teacher so thats all I can give you.

When you say "what's derogatory for some is not derogatory for others," it is similar to a question I have encountered in the past many times: Who determines what is good, what is bad? Why are illegal things illegal? Then, that question can explained by one's feelings. What makes you angry? What makes you sad? Feelings cannot be questioned. Good feelings are good. Bad feelings are bad. "Good" and "bad" are both just mere words, but your question can be answered through feelings, not through words.

Sorry if I'm not clear, I'll clarify anything again to the best of my ability through a keyboard if you want.

[myantiyou]

And I have this to add -

this is merely my opinion. I have no wish to demand that I am right. This is just what I strongly believe. I wish to keep this argument as mature and understanding as I can.

[dai the flu]

i only cared to read the first two pages of replies, but could somebody please tell me what possible good can come from promoting drug use to our kids in school?
i know you all are so enthusiastic and energetic about reform and protest and the like...but really...have you ever thought about the consequences of your ideas/actions?
lets start thinking in the real world, people.

[open mind]

The reason why it is labeled as "derogatory," (in my strong opinion) is because for example: f*gs were used to burn homosexuals. Due to common sense, one would think that this is an offensive remark, because it is meant to be a hurtful word. The word n*gger is labeled "derogatory" because African(s) [Americans] feel insulted whenever it is used to them, and it has a bad history with the whites using it against them - I'm not a history teacher so thats all I can give you.

When you say "what's derogatory for some is not derogatory for others," it is similar to a question I have encountered in the past many times: Who determines what is good, what is bad? Why are illegal things illegal? Then, that question can explained by one's feelings. What makes you angry? What makes you sad? Feelings cannot be questioned. Good feelings are good. Bad feelings are bad. "Good" and "bad" are both just mere words, but your question can be answered through feelings, not through words.

Sorry if I'm not clear, I'll clarify anything again to the best of my ability through a keyboard if you want.

i think using racist language can be classified as verbal assault and could therefore be considered a crime..........no one is personally assaulted when someone holds up a sign that could be interpreted as promoting drug use.
i haven't taken the time to read the whole thread so if you guys are talking about something else now then my bad.

[myantiyou]

i only cared to read the first two pages of replies, but could somebody please tell me what possible good can come from promoting drug use to our kids in school?
i know you all are so enthusiastic and energetic about reform and protest and the like...but really...have you ever thought about the consequences of your ideas/actions?
lets start thinking in the real world, people.

There isn't any good coming from it. That isn't what this thread is about though.

This thread is about the right to promote and openly state ones opinion, whether it be highly disagreeable or not.

[myantiyou]

Not about drugs.

[myantiyou]

i think using racist language can be classified as verbal assault and could therefore be considered a crime..........no one is personally assaulted when someone holds up a sign that could be interpreted as promoting drug use.
i haven't taken the time to read the whole thread so if you guys are talking about something else now then my bad.

I agree with you. But to those on the opposite side, that just sounds like a bunch of legal law-abiding bullshit.

[myantiyou]

- and this thread isn't about racist language either. I was just expanding my opinions for Tate.

[open mind]

i only cared to read the first two pages of replies, but could somebody please tell me what possible good can come from promoting drug use to our kids in school?
i know you all are so enthusiastic and energetic about reform and protest and the like...but really...have you ever thought about the consequences of your ideas/actions?
lets start thinking in the real world, people.

although i don't think the issue is whether or not the promotion of drug use is good or bad i can think of a couple good things that could come out of it.
1.it could start a meaningful dialouge on the subject, and as a result the little ones would have a clearer view on the issue of drugs
2.having been informed of the facts the next generation would have an informed opinion on the issue when they reach adulthood and take more rational measures concerning drugs.

[open mind]

I agree with you. But to those on the opposite side, that just sounds like a bunch of legal law-abiding bullshit.

isn't the issue at hand about the law though? seems like that would be a pretty odd stance to take in this instance.

[myantiyou]

isn't the issue at hand about the law though? seems like that would be a pretty odd stance to take in this instance.

No, from what I have observed so far, legality does not have anything to do with it.

People have asked earlier: "What makes something illegal?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that they think that laws are quite opinionated, and something that is "illegal" to one may be perfectly fine in another's book.

[dai the flu]

i understand the issue is freedom of speech, not drug use. but freedom of speech should never impose on other freedoms or rights. like the right to send your kids to a public school without them being exposed to harmful propoganda.
"but people should be allowed to say what they want!" oh give me a break. again, i challenge anyone to tell me one good thing that could come from this. and snap out of your idealistic dream-world you freakin neo-hippy douchebags. use just one ounce of intelligence for once and start thinking of the consequences of your actions.

open mind and myantiyou, i know you're the only ones up right now debating this, but you're not the ones im ranting against.

[open mind]

No, from what I have observed so far, legality does not have anything to do with it.

People have asked earlier: "What makes something illegal?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that they think that laws are quite opinionated, and something that is "illegal" to one may be perfectly fine in another's book.

i thought the issue was free speach, and just wanted to point out that there is a difference between verbal assault (clearly illegal) and what can be seen as promoting drug use off school property (more open to interpretation it seems), so it's not a really fair comparison

[myantiyou]

i understand the issue is freedom of speech, not drug use. but freedom of speech should never impose on other freedoms or rights. like the right to send your kids to a public school without them being exposed to harmful propoganda.
"but people should be allowed to say what they want!" oh give me a break. again, i challenge anyone to tell me one good thing that could come from this. and snap out of your idealistic dream-world you freakin neo-hippy douchebags. use just one ounce of intelligence for once and start thinking of the consequences of your actions.

open mind and myantiyou, i know you're the only ones up right now debating this, but you're not the ones im ranting against.

Very good point.

[open mind]

i understand the issue is freedom of speech, not drug use. but freedom of speech should never impose on other freedoms or rights. like the right to send your kids to a public school without them being exposed to harmful propoganda.
"but people should be allowed to say what they want!" oh give me a break. again, i challenge anyone to tell me one good thing that could come from this. and snap out of your idealistic dream-world you freakin neo-hippy douchebags. use just one ounce of intelligence for once and start thinking of the consequences of your actions.

open mind and myantiyou, i know you're the only ones up right now debating this, but you're not the ones im ranting against.

the harmful propaganda thing is a pretty gray area, if we get into banning what everyone considers harmful propaganda the legal system would be clogged almost instantly. i know there are a more then a few things taught in school as fact that i don't agree with.

[myantiyou]

the harmful propaganda thing is a pretty gray area, if we get into banning what everyone considers harmful propaganda the legal system would be clogged almost instantly. i know there are a more then a few things taught in school as fact that i don't agree with.

True. But I think it's pretty easy to see what "harmful propaganda" is, I tried explaining it in my earlier post.


PS - 98 to 10k, bro. :-)

[open mind]

True. But I think it's pretty easy to see what "harmful propaganda" is, I tried explaining it in my earlier post.


PS - 98 to 10k, bro. :-)

does displaying an admittedly nonsensical sign that says "bong hits 4 jesus" off school property qualify as harmful propaganda in schools though?
i could see the argument for it being harmful propaganda in school if it was on school property, and there was a serious message behind it........simply mentioning drugs does not qualify as propaganda in my view.
make that 97...........i'm off to bed now so 96 will have to wait.

[myantiyou]

does displaying an admittedly nonsensical sign that says "bong hits 4 jesus" off school property qualify as harmful propaganda in schools though?
i could see the argument for it being harmful propaganda in school if it was on school property, and there was a serious message behind it........simply mentioning drugs does not qualify as propaganda in my view.
make that 97...........i'm off to bed now so 96 will have to wait.

I guess, since that was probably a joke/prank.

Goodnight. :wave:

[dai the flu]

it wasn't on school property but it was at a school sanctioned event. they were let out of class and went with their teachers.
anyway im off to bed myself.

[myantiyou]

it wasn't on school property but it was at a school sanctioned event. they were let out of class and went with their teachers.
anyway im off to bed myself.

Goodnight man.

[captainhampton]

i understand the issue is freedom of speech, not drug use. but freedom of speech should never impose on other freedoms or rights. like the right to send your kids to a public school without them being exposed to harmful propoganda.
"but people should be allowed to say what they want!" oh give me a break. again, i challenge anyone to tell me one good thing that could come from this. and snap out of your idealistic dream-world you freakin neo-hippy douchebags. use just one ounce of intelligence for once and start thinking of the consequences of your actions.

open mind and myantiyou, i know you're the only ones up right now debating this, but you're not the ones im ranting against.

people with common sense agree with you.

[aminorthreat55]

"but people should be allowed to say what they want!" oh give me a break. again, i challenge anyone to tell me one good thing that could come from this.
A classmate could openly disagree with him and convince him that he shouldn't do drugs; but clearly you would never want that to happen right? I mean imagine a place where discourse can educate people rather than restrictions making a choice for them, such a bad world that would be.

[Jason Tate]

The reason why it is labeled as "derogatory," (in my strong opinion) is because for example: f*gs were used to burn homosexuals. Due to common sense, one would think that this is an offensive remark, because it is meant to be a hurtful word. The word n*gger is labeled "derogatory" because African(s) [Americans] feel insulted whenever it is used to them, and it has a bad history with the whites using it against them - I'm not a history teacher so thats all I can give you.

I understand why some view it as derogatory - but this is not a universally held belief. Making a judgment call for - everyone - based upon your own feelings ... is simply something I'm unwilling to do.

To stretch this to it's natural conclusion - is anything that is a hurtful word thereby banned from usage? The language would simply evolve to create new hurtful words and then those would be banned from speak. And by the end of the day we will simply have a book full of things people can't say ... and who knows how far that gap will widen.

When you say "what's derogatory for some is not derogatory for others," it is similar to a question I have encountered in the past many times: Who determines what is good, what is bad? Why are illegal things illegal? Then, that question can explained by one's feelings. What makes you angry? What makes you sad? Feelings cannot be questioned. Good feelings are good. Bad feelings are bad. "Good" and "bad" are both just mere words, but your question can be answered through feelings, not through words.

And feelings are subjective - my entire point from the start. That good and bad are subjective qualities not inherited by all. Therefore making a universal, and absolute, stance on good or bad is un-just. While the world continues to exist in shades of gray - we must be able to adapt and maneuver. Our freedom of speech is the most important.

i only cared to read the first two pages of replies, but could somebody please tell me what possible good can come from promoting drug use to our kids in school?

Protecting the Constitution of the United States for future generations.

i know you all are so enthusiastic and energetic about reform and protest and the like...but really...have you ever thought about the consequences of your ideas/actions?

Many times. The freedoms we (pretend to) purport are important to me. I'm not willing to sacrifice them for any reason.

i understand the issue is freedom of speech, not drug use. but freedom of speech should never impose on other freedoms or rights. like the right to send your kids to a public school without them being exposed to harmful propoganda.

Yet that's not a right. Our kids are not sent to a public school with the "right" (or even expectation) of not being exposed to harmful propaganda. In fact, I think just the opposite is expected. Parents (well, most parents) know exactly what they're kids are being taught in public classrooms. There is no right or freedom to not hear something.

Furthermore, I'd argue that an exposure to "harmful" entities is entirely necessary for human growth and development. One must see what's wrong in order to clarify what is right - the two cannot exist without each other.

"but people should be allowed to say what they want!" oh give me a break. again, i challenge anyone to tell me one good thing that could come from this.

The protection of our Constitution.

and snap out of your idealistic dream-world you freakin neo-hippy douchebags.

Would asking you to step out of your neo-fascist world be appropriate?

use just one ounce of intelligence for once and start thinking of the consequences of your actions.

Slightly hypocritical to ask someone to think of the consequences of their actions while effectively removing one of the fundamental rights of being an American. I'm more than willing to risk some kid thinking pot is okay because of a banner he read to protect the inherent freedom. The promotion of unhealthy (and illegal) activities is prevalent in all parts of society - on a daily basis - the removal of them removes the very nature of personal choice. This is something I am unwilling to give up.

people with common sense agree with you.

I find it telling that you're unable to respond to any points in this thread. Instead you pop-up and arm-chair quarterback with one liners. Usually ones that are holistically un-true.

[x togepi x]

I do hope no one is under the impression that this has anything to do with the student's sign, rather, it strikes me as a basis for further restrictions on student activities, such as protesting the war, immigration reform, etc.

fact. people have been trying to mess with tinker v. des moines since it was established as case law.

[Jason Tate]

Ra ra shiskumba!

[deadstar]

I'm all for protecting the constitution, but many of the ideas presented in the constitution need to be updated to apply to todays world. I'd love to live in a world where promoting drug use in a school zone is laughed at and mocked by the students. But the fact is it isn't. Kids think its "cool" to do such things.

Once again, putting up a sig like that on his own property or something is a personal issue. Putting it up in a school effects the rest of society negatively. Huge difference.

[Love As Arson]

I'm all for protecting the constitution, but many of the ideas presented in the constitution need to be updated to apply to todays world.
That does not make any sense, as you seem to be implying that limiting the scope of the rights given in the Constitution is updating it.

I'd love to live in a world where promoting drug use in a school zone is laughed at and mocked by the students. But the fact is it isn't. Kids think its "cool" to do such things.
Even if the case were at all about drug use, the burden of proof is upon you to show that it is such that kids should be prevented from seeing it and, moreover, that the Constitution's rights should be curtailed.


Once again, putting up a sig like that on his own property or something is a personal issue. Putting it up in a school effects the rest of society negatively. Huge difference.
How?

[deadstar]

That does not make any sense, as you seem to be implying that limiting the scope of the rights given in the Constitution is updating it.


Even if the case were at all about drug use, the burden of proof is upon you to show that it is such that kids should be prevented from seeing it and, moreover, that the Constitution's rights should be curtailed.


How?

No, I'm saying that many ideas dont arent as effective and relevant in todays society. Not saying that he doesnt have a right to display the sign, just not at a school where it it seen by kids and effects them.

You people act like it theres no correlation that the kid who put up the sign was ARRESTED FOR SELLING WEED NOT LONG AFTER. It's clearly not "just a nonsensical sign".

[Jason Tate]

I'm all for protecting the constitution, but many of the ideas presented in the constitution need to be updated to apply to todays world.

And how does "freedom" of speech get updated? "You have freedom of speech ... except this and this and this - here here and here?"

Sorry. Not buying it.

I'd love to live in a world where promoting drug use in a school zone is laughed at and mocked by the students. But the fact is it isn't. Kids think its "cool" to do such things.

Maybe so - but they have the right to do such.

Once again, putting up a sig like that on his own property or something is a personal issue. Putting it up in a school effects the rest of society negatively.

Just because someone says something that (may or may not) affect "the rest of society" in a negative manner - does not mean they should be forced into not saying it.

Extending this logically would remove the phrase, "let's go to war" from our vocabulary - as it clearly affects the rest of society negatively.

Huge difference.

Disagree. Freedom of speech should not be relegated to specified zones.

[Jason Tate]

No, I'm saying that many ideas dont arent as effective and relevant in todays society. Not saying that he doesnt have a right to display the sign, just not at a school where it it seen by kids and effects them.

You people act like it theres no correlation that the kid who put up the sign was ARRESTED FOR SELLING WEED NOT LONG AFTER. It's clearly not "just a nonsensical sign".

I don't care if it's a nonsensical sign or not. The sign could say, "do drugs. they're good for you." - completely being serious - and I would still support his right to say it. The message itself is relatively unimportant. Viewing it from the clouded state of emotion makes people angry ... understandable ... however it's how you respond to your freedoms and rights when someone you don't agree with is employing them that matters. If you don't believe in them then - you don't believe in them at all.

No one is saying the message is good, healthy, or something that is needed. Simply saying that the inherent right to display the message (regardless of content) is very, very, very important.

[deadstar]

Theres no logic in this extending to remove the phrase "lets go to war". Placing the word bong in a school zone is promoting illegal activity. It's silly and naive to think otherwise. I fail to see the "slippery slope" in this one as it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

As for freedom of speech not being designated in specified zones, it is really hard to take the sign and move a little further down? You really think the sign doesnt impact the school negatively?

He does have the right to display his sign, its just common sense to know when and where its appropriate.

Edit: I wish we, as a society were smart enough and not as easily influenced to see it as "just a sign". But unfortunately, many aren't.

[Jason Tate]

Theres no logic in this extending to remove the phrase "lets go to war".

It - to quote you - "effects society negatively." It's the same logic applied to removing "bong hits for jesus." Simply a different topic.

I, personally, think both phrases should be allowed - wherever and whenever.

Placing the word bong in a school zone is promoting illegal activity. It's silly and naive to think otherwise.

I thought killing people was illegal too - yet those actions are promoted (and often praised) daily in schools across our country.

(I brought this up earlier as well -- but like 90% of my arguments in this thread -- it was ignored.)

I fail to see the "slippery slope" in this one as it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

If you remove freedom of speech for one issue - it's logical to assume (due to the legal system of this country) that freedom of speech can continue to deteriorate when the need arises.

As for freedom of speech not being designated in specified zones, it is really hard to take the sign and move a little further down?

No - it's not hard - but it shouldn't matter. Freedoms should not be annexed within any line.

You really think the sign doesnt impact the school negatively?

I think it's irrelevant. As shown by various examples. If "impacting the school negatively" is the standard by which we make judgments --- school (hell, life) as we know it --- would not exist.

He does have the right to display his sign, its just common sense to know when and where its appropriate.

Freedom should not be constrained to any man's view or vision of what is common sense. Inappropriate actions are important to society for a variety of reasons.

[deadstar]

I'm not saying the school system is perfect by any means, but why add to the already many problems of it. Allowing anyone to say anything inside a school zone is pretty ludicrous. I have the freedom to call my teacher a slutty whore, but I will be punished for it. I know, its two completely different cirumstances, but based on your beliefs, I should be allowed to say anything in school. Hell, lets abolish the whole "Drug free school zones" and let kids smoke near school property. After all, its infringing on our personal freedoms. Whats the harm in that?

How exactly is killing people promoted in our schools?

Inappropriate actions might be important, but eventually the inappropriate become the norm. I do not think encouraging kids to smoke weed is a norm I want to see (I know another debate for another time).

In general, your ideas lead to a slippery slope the other way, which would lead to more problems in schools. There is a pretty solid middle ground in which, I think not allowing the sign to be displayed near a school, is a part of.

[Love As Arson]

No, I'm saying that many ideas dont arent as effective and relevant in todays society. Not saying that he doesnt have a right to display the sign, just not at a school where it it seen by kids and effects them.
So, one can only express their free speech in a place where people are unable to be affected by it. Then, what is the point? Further, as I said, the school is pushing a viewpoint of the world, so why do they have the ability to put forth ideas and students are not?


You people act like it theres no correlation that the kid who put up the sign was ARRESTED FOR SELLING WEED NOT LONG AFTER. It's clearly not "just a nonsensical sign".
As Jason said, that is irrelevant to his free speech rights. This case sets the precedent for the restriction of students to present anything. The government, university, or any other institution imbued with power, now has case law to cite when repressing free speech. It is important to understand this, otherwise we lose sight of the real implications.

[Jason Tate]

I'm not saying the school system is perfect by any means, but why add to the already many problems of it.

To preserve the Constitution of the United States and the freedoms and rights contained therein.

Allowing anyone to say anything inside a school zone is pretty ludicrous.

I, obviously, disagree - removing these freedoms is what is ludicrous.

I have the freedom to call my teacher a slutty whore, but I will be punished for it.

Really? I've never been punished for saying anything. Ever. Especially if you push the issue that it was only words and you have the right to say them. With this new precedent - that may no longer be the case. I've been punished for actions, never words.

I know, its two completely different cirumstances, but based on your beliefs, I should be allowed to say anything in school.

I don't see why one can't call a teacher a slutty whore. Denying that right - across the board - is against the fibers this country is built with.

Hell, lets abolish the whole "Drug free school zones" and let kids smoke near school property.

Where's the "freedom to smoke" clause of the constitution? I can point you to the freedom of speech line - so at least my beliefs are grounded in fact and realism.

After all, its infringing on our personal freedoms.

See above.

How exactly is killing people promoted in our schools?

Ever taken a history course? We can start there.

Inappropriate actions might be important, but eventually the inappropriate become the norm.

This is simply not true. Inappropriate actions craft a framework for society to balance "appropriate" with "inappropriate" - the premise that they morph together is simply wrong. The two sides must co-exist or neither can exist. This is very basic logic.

I do not think encouraging kids to smoke weed is a norm I want to see (I know another debate for another time).

That's completely understandable. However, as previously stated - your belief system is not universally held. As long as you continue to act from this egocentric frame of mind - you will fail to grasp society as a whole ... and never see past the shell you've locked yourself in. Having your beliefs are fine; however, if the converse of this argument was the "norm" .... you'd want someone to stick up for your right to speak out against drug usage. It's hypocritical to say only your viewpoint is relevant.

In general, your ideas lead to a slippery slope the other way, which would lead to more problems in schools.

Completely baseless and false. Furthermore, I'll accept any problems that occur in schools to protect the freedoms we have. I refuse to sacrifice anything for the freedom's this country provides. Others are apparently not so steadfast -- and that is very, very disturbing.

There is a pretty solid middle ground in which, I think not allowing the sign to be displayed near a school, is a part of.

And I find this mentality to be of the utmost ignorance.

[deadstar]

And I find this mentality to be of the utmost ignorance.

Well I find your post to be very ignorant and idealistic and not at all realistic. So agree to disagree.

[deadstar]

As Jason said, that is irrelevant to his free speech rights. This case sets the precedent for the restriction of students to present anything. The government, university, or any other institution imbued with power, now has case law to cite when repressing free speech. It is important to understand this, otherwise we lose sight of the real implications.

Understandable as most of our law is based on precendent. However, promoting illegal activity on school grounds is a far cry from promoting or protesting a war in a reasonable manner.

[Jason Tate]

Well I find your post to be very ignorant and idealistic and not at all realistic. So agree to disagree.
But my viewpoint has roughly 220 years of legal and historical precedent behind it. So, that tosses ignorant and idealistic and lack of realism out the window.

I find it telling that you ignore the many points brought up by those countering your every word. While we may not be able to convince you to see the (very dangerous) errors of your ways -- I am confident that any other reading this conversation will come to the sane and logical conclusion.

[Jason Tate]

Understandable as most of our law is based on precendent. However, promoting illegal activity on school grounds is a far cry from promoting or protesting a war in a reasonable manner.
Illegal activity (drugs) vs illegal activity (war of aggression).

How is this a far cry?

/And this is even ignoring what's taught in the history classroom.
//And this is even ignoring the classes that discuss drug production, or the books read that could be considered pro-drug usage, and on down the line.

[Nevuk]

Idealism > Ignorance. At least he know what he is talking about.

Free Speech is supposed to apply as long as no one else's rights are impeded upon by it. (Thus why you cannot yell fire in a public place, it endangers the lives of others). Holding up a sign saying bong hits for jesus is ridiculous to think that made anyone smoke pot. Or that this is illegal, medical marijuana is legal in a lot of places. He wasn't even on school grounds when he did it, or it would never have made it to to trial.

[deadstar]

Illegal activity (drugs) vs illegal activity (war of aggression).

How is this a far cry?

/And this is even ignoring what's taught in the history classroom.
//And this is even ignoring the classes that discuss drug production, or the books read that could be considered pro-drug usage, and on down the line.
Well I dont know exactly what was taught in your history classrooms, but mine certainly didnt encourage violence.

Promoting drugs is very different from promoting war. If you cant see that, then this is over.

[Jason Tate]

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech. - Noam Chomsky

[deadstar]

Once again, in today's day and age, its very dangerous to allow people to say/display anything they want near, or within a place that is supposed to be a place of education (regardless of what the school system has become). Kids are easily impressionable and aren't taught enough to think rationally on many of these types of things.

As I said, I WISH a sign could be displayed in or near a school like that and it can be seen for what it is. Unfortunately thats not the case. I understand the "dangerous precedent" it presents in regards to the past, but the ideas you present lead to other dangerous problems as well.

[Nevuk]

Well I dont know exactly what was taught in your history classrooms, but mine certainly didnt encourage violence.

Promoting drugs is very different from promoting war. If you cant see that, then this is over.
Do you remember being taught that using the atomic bombs on japan was a good thing? Or that the US entering both world wars was a good thing? How about the civil war, revolutionary war, war of tripoly? Did anyone ever say "These caused millions of lives to be lost, it was the wrong thing to do" ? If not, then they condoned violence.

[Nevuk]

Once again, in today's day and age, its very dangerous to allow people to say/display anything they want near, or within a place that is supposed to be a place of education (regardless of what the school system has become). Kids are easily impressionable and aren't taught enough to think rationally on many of these types of things.
Dude, when I was 8 I could think fully for myself. If you couldn't, thats your problem.

[deadstar]

Dude, when I was 8 I could think fully for myself. If you couldn't, thats your problem.
Stop using personal experience as a representation for everyone else. Go to college and find kids are still easily impressionable.

[Jason Tate]

Well I dont know exactly what was taught in your history classrooms, but mine certainly didnt encourage violence.

Or it was so thinly veiled that you failed to pick up on it.

Promoting drugs is very different from promoting war. If you cant see that, then this is over.

Both are illegal activities - which are what you are saying should not be spoken about on school grounds. Am I wrong in this premise? I'm simply asking you to tell me why they are different (if they are as you claim). Simply stating it as fact - and trying to use that as your crux to end the argument - is laughable. Illegal activity discussion should be removed from school grounds or not - I don't see how this can become something by which we cherry pick the "allowed" or "not allowed" issues.

To sum up: I'd probably rather have a thousand people promoting drugs than one person promoting war. I may not agree with either position - but I will, gladly, support all 1,001 of their rights to speak freely. Furthermore, I would gladly accept the converse of this statement if it ensures the freedom of speech remains intact.

[deadstar]

Do you remember being taught that using the atomic bombs on japan was a good thing? Or that the US entering both world wars was a good thing? How about the civil war, revolutionary war, war of tripoly? Did anyone ever say "These caused millions of lives to be lost, it was the wrong thing to do" ? If not, then they condoned violence.
Actually I was taught a lot about the destruction of all of these wars and the casualties they inflicted and what caused them.

I remember being taught that Truman was forced to use the bomb because he didnt want to suffer more US forces losses, even though the bomb cause great destruction of land and people in Japan.

I dont know what crazy schools you people apparently went to.

[Jason Tate]

Once again, in today's day and age, its very dangerous to allow people to say/display anything they want near, or within a place that is supposed to be a place of education (regardless of what the school system has become).

I can't believe I'm reading this. What you are saying is, effectively, it's dangerous to allow those who hold different beliefs than you the freedom to speak.

Kids are easily impressionable and aren't taught enough to think rationally on many of these types of things.

Rationality is subjective. You view it as irrational - others don't. You can't impart your belief system on the world.

As I said, I WISH a sign could be displayed in or near a school like that and it can be seen for what it is. Unfortunately thats not the case. I understand the "dangerous precedent" it presents in regards to the past, but the ideas you present lead to other dangerous problems as well.

And as I said, I gladly accept all of the dangerous problems that spew from containing the basic right of free speech.

[Jason Tate]

Actually I was taught a lot about the destruction of all of these wars and the casualties they inflicted and what caused them.

I remember being taught that Truman was forced to use the bomb because he didnt want to suffer more US forces losses, even though the bomb cause great destruction of land and people in Japan.

I dont know what crazy schools you people apparently went to.

Yeah ... you do realize that's all a lie right?

No ... I'm dead serious. You know that that Truman story is fabricated revisionist history?

This - if anything - completely vindicates my original point of what's taught in school.

[Nevuk]

Stop using personal experience as a representation for everyone else. Go to college and find kids are still easily impressionable.
Those aren't kids, they are above the age of 18. You can't protect someone from themselves, and its frankly insulting have someone try and protect me from myself, I don't need it. And what do you mean, in this day and age? The crime rate is at the lowest ever, the media's fear mongering aside, this is actually a decent time to live in, aside from some of our economic issues.

[aminorthreat55]

Promoting drugs is very different from promoting war. If you cant see that, then this is over.
This has almost nothing to do with what the kid is talking about and everything to do with whatever he wants to talk about.

[deadstar]

And as I said, I gladly accept all of the dangerous problems that spew from containing the basic right of free speech.

And my opinion is that you haven't considered the world you would create in doing so.

[aminorthreat55]

Understandable as most of our law is based on precendent. However, promoting illegal activity on school grounds is a far cry from promoting or protesting a war in a reasonable manner.
Only if you narrowly analyze this decision.

[aminorthreat55]

You people act like it theres no correlation that the kid who put up the sign was ARRESTED FOR SELLING WEED NOT LONG AFTER. It's clearly not "just a nonsensical sign".
Post hoc.

[Nevuk]

Yeah ... you do realize that's all a lie right?

No ... I'm dead serious. You know that that Truman story is fabricated revisionist history?

This - if anything - completely vindicates my original point of what's taught in school.
Yes, I'm still shocked that after its become apparent that that was a lie its still being taught in school (I mean after the files were totally unsealed).

[Jason Tate]

Stop using personal experience as a representation for everyone else. Go to college and find kids are still easily impressionable.
Adults are easily impressionable too. The relative "impressionability" of any individual does not give anyone the right to censor and decide what information they are presented with. In doing so you would only be manipulating their "impressionability" for your own gain and toward your own end. That's grossly hypocritical.

[Jason Tate]

And my opinion is that you haven't considered the world you would create in doing so.
I have thought it over greatly -- our country's ~220 years of history stand as my validation. A world without freedom and liberty is far worse than a controlled environment under any "guise" of safety or other nonsensical excuse to maintain power.

[aminorthreat55]

Once again, in today's day and age, its very dangerous to allow people to say/display anything they want near, or within a place that is supposed to be a place of education (regardless of what the school system has become). Kids are easily impressionable and aren't taught enough to think rationally on many of these types of things.
So again, rather than educate children and allow them to see both sides of the issue, we have to make the decision for them?

[Jason Tate]

Yes, I'm still shocked that after its become apparent that that was a lie its still being taught in school (I mean after the files were totally unsealed).
I find it simply vindicate the points I've made for the past 5 or 6 pages. It's quite disturbing.

[Jason Tate]

So again, rather than educate children and allow them to see both sides of the issue, we have to make the decision for them?
This "we know best" mentality is frightening. Especially coming from a 20 year old.

[Nevuk]

I find it simply vindicate the points I've made for the past 5 or 6 pages. It's quite disturbing.
The weird thing is, I hadn't ever heard about those rationalizations being fake until I mentioned something about the reasoning for the bomb here and someone pulled out some studies or new information.

[deadstar]

Adults are easily impressionable too. The relative "impressionability" of any individual does not give anyone the right to censor and decide what information they are presented with. In doing so you would only be manipulating their "impressionability" for your own gain and toward your own end. That's grossly hypocritical.

Adults are easily impressionable, but not nearly as impressionable as children. Moot point.

I have thought it over greatly -- our country's ~220 years of history stand as my validation. A world without freedom and liberty is far worse than a controlled environment under any "guise" of safety or other nonsensical excuse to maintain power.

We have to adapt. The world is very different now than it was 220 years ago. As I said, I dont believe giving up the freedom to post a sign like this near a school (why would anyone want to?) leads to a slippery slope.

[Jason Tate]

The weird thing is, I hadn't ever heard about those rationalizations being fake until I mentioned something about the reasoning for the bomb here and someone pulled out some studies or new information.
Hell, we can even trace the knowledge back to the "US Strategic Bombing Survey", set up by the War Department in 1944 - which stated: "'Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been droppd, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

More recently I read a quote by J Samuel Walker, chief historian of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission that read: "The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it...It is certain that the hoary claim that the bomb prevented one-half million American combat deaths is unsupportable."

(Yes, I have shit like this bookmarked.)

[deadstar]

So again, rather than educate children and allow them to see both sides of the issue, we have to make the decision for them?
And once again, I wish we didnt have to guide children to make the right decisions, but we do.

[Jason Tate]

Adults are easily impressionable, but not nearly as impressionable as children. Moot point.

While I take issue with high-school students being called "children" - I also highly disagree with the premise of this post. I know young adults far more stubborn than many "adults." I'd be interested to see if you can back this assertion up with any sort of empirical evidence.

We have to adapt. The world is very different now than it was 220 years ago.

And how is the world different now - that this freedom should be curtailed? Saying it's different means nothing - especially if you're unable to show that it's different in a manner that dictates we remove fundamental freedoms and rights.

As I said, I dont believe giving up the freedom to post a sign like this near a school (why would anyone want to?) leads to a slippery slope.

You don't need to believe in that premise. Even without the slippery slope the sign has every right to remain.

[Jason Tate]

And once again, I wish we didnt have to guide children to make the right decisions, but we do.
I think all we've seen you show in this thread ... is that even 20 year olds need a lot of education and "guidance. " As clearly - your impressionable mind - has been led to believe some very disturbing mistruths about the very country you live in.

[aminorthreat55]

And once again, I wish we didnt have to guide children to make the right decisions, but we do.
Not if they are properly educated, and seeing as how we already have a government sponsored education system . . .

[Nevuk]

Adults are easily impressionable, but not nearly as impressionable as children. Moot point.



We have to adapt. The world is very different now than it was 220 years ago. As I said, I dont believe giving up the freedom to post a sign like this near a school (why would anyone want to?) leads to a slippery slope.
Impessionability has little to do with age and much more to do with the person. I'm a very unimpressionable person, but does that mean I haven't ever tried pot? No, I tried it because I was curious, rather than because I was convinced it'd be cool. The reason I was curious was due to all the outright lies thrown against it. After trying it, I can say, its no big deal at all, for the majority of people. Far less affecting than alcohol. I was never a regular user, only tried it like 2 or 3 times, and have stopped since. The less you tell people about something, the more they want to know about it.

And we don't have to adapt to this world. Almost nothing has really changed in the last 220 years. Name me one way the world is worse today than it was 220 years ago. The only difference I can name is the internet, but that shouldn't be negative.

(Yes, I have shit like this bookmarked.)
Thats always good, I used to have that number, the one which determines the maximum amount of people useful to a community bookmarked. (160 or 161, I think. There were certain spots which were better than others).

And once again, I wish we didnt have to guide children to make the right decisions, but we do.
No, we don't. You are suggesting that free will does not exist.

[deadstar]

I think all we've seen you show in this thread ... is that even 20 year olds need a lot of education and "guidance. " As clearly - your impressionable mind - has been led to believe some very disturbing mistruths about the very country you live in.
I disagree. I think it proves that people will make a big deal over something that should be common sense in the name of protecting free speech.

[Nevuk]

I disagree. I think it proves that people will make a big deal over something that should be common sense in the name of protecting free speech.
I think you, and the supreme court of the land, need to read the 1st amendment again.
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.

[Jason Tate]

I disagree. I think it proves that people will make a big deal over something that should be common sense in the name of protecting free speech.
Free speech is here to protect words that adhere to your view of common sense and those that do not. There isn't an "exception" footnote to this freedom.

[Jason Tate]

I think you, and the supreme court of the land, need to read the 1st amendment again.
Reading the dissenting opinion from the Court is very enlightening. I've been having a discussion via email over this topic with the law professor from my college.

[Love As Arson]

Understandable as most of our law is based on precendent. However, promoting illegal activity on school grounds is a far cry from promoting or protesting a war in a reasonable manner.
Irrelevant. All the university, or whomever, has to do is provide a convincing case that this ruling extends to other spheres of student activity.

[Nevuk]

Reading the dissenting opinion from the Court is very enlightening. I've been having a discussion via email over this topic with the law professor from my college.
Where would I be able to find the full text? On the news stories all I see are excerpts(edit: nm, found it. Reading now). Its sad that we have Bush in office with so many supreme court members leaving.
Edit: And does it seriously allow for free speech to be denied, as long as it supports drug use in schools?

[Jason Tate]

Where would I be able to find the full text? On the news stories all I see are excerpts(edit: nm, found it. Reading now). Its sad that we have Bush in office with so many supreme court members leaving.
Edit: And does it seriously allow for free speech to be denied, as long as it supports drug use in schools?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

My favorite part:

Under the Court’s reasoning, must the First Amendment give way whenever a school seeks to punish a student for any speech mentioning beer, or indeed anything else that might be deemed risky to teenagers? While I find it hard to believe the Court would support punishing Frederick for flying a “WINE SiPS 4 JESUS” banner—which could quite reasonably be construed either as a protected religious message or as a pro-alcohol message—the breathtaking sweep of its opinion suggests it would.

--

To answer your "edit": (c) A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

[Nevuk]

Yep, I'd just found it. Some of their logic is really .... whacky.
(a) Frederick’s argument that this is not a school speech case is re-
jected. The event in question occurred during normal school hours
and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which
the district’s 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. Pp. 5–6.


So by that logic if its within sight of your property its your property?

[Jason Tate]

First, censorship based on the content of speech, par-ticularly censorship that depends on the viewpoint of the speaker, is subject to the most rigorous burden of justification.

What a great line.

[Jason Tate]

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989).

[Nevuk]

I take it these are precedents counter to this ruling?

[Nevuk]

I find the ninth ruling very interesting, especially the wording they give as to the principal's immunity:
The Ninth Circuit reversed. Deciding that Frederick
acted during a “school-authorized activit[y],” and “pro-
ceed[ing] on the basis that the banner expressed a positive
sentiment about marijuana use,” the court nonetheless
found a violation of Frederick’s First Amendment rights
because the school punished Frederick without demon-strating that his speech gave rise to a “risk of substantial
disruption.” 439 F. 3d 1114, 1118, 1121–1123 (2006). The
court further concluded that Frederick’s right to display
his banner was so “clearly established” that a reasonable
principal in Morse’s position would have understood that
her actions were unconstitutional, and that Morse was
therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Id., at 1123–
1125.

[Jason Tate]

But most importantly, it takes real imagination to read a “cryptic” message (the Court’s characterization, not mine, see ibid., at 6) with a slanting drug reference as an incitement to drug use. Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible.


:rotfl:

[Jason Tate]

Even in high school, a rule that permits only one point of view to be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than the open discussion of countervailing views. Whitney, 274 U. S., at 377 (Brandeis, J., concurring); Abrams, 250 U. S., at 630 (Holmes, J., dissenting); Tinker, 393 U. S., at 512. In the national debate about a serious issue, it is the expression of the minority’s viewpoint that most demands the protection of the First Amendment. Whatever the better policy may be, a full and frank discussion of the costs and benefits of the attempt to prohibit the use of marijuana is far wiser than suppression of speech because it is unpopular.

I respectfully dissent.

[Nevuk]

Their opinion is surprisingly not tediously hard to read.

[thejetstolehome]

Adults are easily impressionable, but not nearly as impressionable as children. Moot point.



We have to adapt. The world is very different now than it was 220 years ago. As I said, I dont believe giving up the freedom to post a sign like this near a school (why would anyone want to?) leads to a slippery slope.

the Constitution isn't--nor should it be. the First Ammendment applies anywhere and everywhere not here and there.

[Nevuk]

The most telling part so far is where they essentially say they need decide nothing new, as they can decide the case from the two precedents. So this isn't really a new precedent so much as a mix of the other two.
We need not resolve this debate to decide this case. For
present purposes, it is enough to distill from Fraser two
basic principles. First, Fraser’s holding demonstrates that
“the constitutional rights of students in public school are
not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in
other settings.” Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the
same speech in a public forum outside the school context,
it would have been protected. See Cohen v. California,
403 U. S. 15 (1971); Fraser, supra, at 682–683. In school,
however, Fraser’s First Amendment rights were circum-
scribed “in light of the special characteristics of the school
environment.” Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser
established that the mode of analysis set forth in Tinker is
not absolute. Whatever approach Fraser employed, it
certainly did not conduct the “substantial disruption”
analysis prescribed by Tinker, supra, at 514. See Kuhl-
meier, 484 U. S., at 271, n. 4 (disagreeing with the proposi-
tion that there is “no difference between the First
Amendment analysis applied in Tinker and that applied in
Fraser,” and noting that the holding in Fraser was not
based on any showing of substantial disruption).

[deadstar]

the Constitution isn't--nor should it be. the First Ammendment applies anywhere and everywhere not here and there.
I'm not suggesting that. There have been many adaptations and precedents set by Supreme Court based on the Constitution. I agree with this one.

[thejetstolehome]

I'm not suggesting that. There have been many adaptations and precedents set by Supreme Court based on the Constitution. I agree with this one.

your argument is essentially that speech should be limited in schools so, yes, you are suggesting it...

[Nevuk]

Reading their opinion, the court has long since agreed to limit school expressions, to you can essentially only express something if it isn't disruptive. And then there was another ruling after that where they limited one person's because it was excessively crude and vulgar. Here is what they have to say, really.
" And even the dissent recognizes that the issues
here are close enough that the principal should not be held
liable in damages, but should instead enjoy qualified
immunity for her actions. See post, at 1. Stripped of
rhetorical flourishes, then, the debate between the dissent
and this opinion is less about constitutional first principles
than about whether Frederick’s banner constitutes promo-
tion of illegal drug use. We have explained our view that
it does. The dissent’s contrary view on that relatively
narrow question hardly justifies sounding the First
Amendment bugle.

[Love As Arson]

I'm not suggesting that. There have been many adaptations and precedents set by Supreme Court based on the Constitution. I agree with this one.
Despite the implications it has for other expressions?

[deadstar]

Despite the implications it has for other expressions?
Other expressions aren't supporting illegal acts (we've been down this road). If they were, I'd be against them in a school environment as well.

[Love As Arson]

Other expressions aren't supporting illegal acts (we've been down this road). If they were, I'd be against them in a school environment as well.
Advocacy of illegal acts are covered by the first amendment. Further, what is made illegal by the law may be unjust. The decision, as well as others, has continually placed the authority of free speech in others, aside from the masses.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

It amazes me that some people can't see that this is a matter of principle

[aminorthreat55]

Where would I be able to find the full text? On the news stories all I see are excerpts(edit: nm, found it. Reading now). Its sad that we have Bush in office with so many supreme court members leaving.
Edit: And does it seriously allow for free speech to be denied, as long as it supports drug use in schools?
Just for future reference for you to bookmark, this is a good place for legal news, plus they hyperlink to every opinion.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/
And then for other opinions
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

[aminorthreat55]

Yep, I'd just found it. Some of their logic is really .... whacky.



So by that logic if its within sight of your property its your property?
Actually I think it is generally excepted policy that any school sponsored event including field trips etc. is technically executed under school policy.

[aminorthreat55]

But most importantly, it takes real imagination to read a “cryptic” message (the Court’s characterization, not mine, see ibid., at 6) with a slanting drug reference as an incitement to drug use. Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible.


:rotfl:
Awesome.

[aminorthreat55]

Their opinion is surprisingly not tediously hard to read.
Most of them aren't too difficult to get through. The latin is generally the only thing that is ever an issue for most people, but thanks to Wikipedia/Google, it isn't anymore.

[Nevuk]

Actually I think it is generally excepted policy that any school sponsored event including field trips etc. is technically executed under school policy.
Yep, it is. The phrasing about it being within sight of the school building was unnecessary, it didn't apply, and made it sound like it did. Thats what confused me.

[deadstar]

Advocacy of illegal acts are covered by the first amendment. Further, what is made illegal by the law may be unjust. The decision, as well as others, has continually placed the authority of free speech in others, aside from the masses.

Not in a school environment. It is established that the administrators and teachers of the school have the right to punish kids who advocate illegal acts in the school.

Its funny that Stevens dissenting puts the dilemma pretty simply...

"In my judgement, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule not expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students"

He doesnt think the sign does either of these. I happen to disagree.

[Love As Arson]

Not in a school environment. It is established that the administrators and teachers of the school have the right to punish kids who advocate illegal acts in the school.
Which is an infringement on the right to speak freely, especially because, as people have said, views regarding illegality are subjective. If, as you say, school is not a place to be inundated with specific views, then it follows you would have a problem with the school's stance.

[deadstar]

Which is an infringement on the right to speak freely, especially because, as people have said, views regarding illegality are subjective. If, as you say, school is not a place to be inundated with specific views, then it follows you would have a problem with the school's stance.

I have no problem with a stance. Weed is illegal. Thats not a subjective matter. The issue was whether or not it promoted drug use. People do have a right to speak freely, just not in a public school when it is counter productive to the whole intent of it being a place of education.

[Jason Tate]

I have no problem with a stance. Weed is illegal. Thats not a subjective matter. The issue was whether or not it promoted drug use. People do have a right to speak freely, just not in a public school when it is counter productive to the whole intent of it being a place of education.
Just for the record - weed is SOMETIMES illegal. Especially in this case ... as it takes place in Alaska. I feel that's an important fact.

[Jason Tate]

Not in a school environment. It is established that the administrators and teachers of the school have the right to punish kids who advocate illegal acts in the school.

Its funny that Stevens dissenting puts the dilemma pretty simply...

"In my judgement, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule not expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students"

He doesnt think the sign does either of these. I happen to disagree.
Guess you shouldn't wear a Bayside shirt to school then. They promote conduct illegal and harmful to students.

[deadstar]

Just for the record - weed is SOMETIMES illegal. Especially in this case ... as it takes place in Alaska. I feel that's an important fact.

Big difference between the way its legal in Alaska and the way it is being portrayed by Frederick.

Guess you shouldn't wear a Bayside shirt to school then. They promote conduct illegal and harmful to students.

If it has a gun or writing on it that does promote such, then I wouldnt and dont.

[*crying stars*]

Advocacy of illegal acts are covered by the first amendment. Further, what is made illegal by the law may be unjust. The decision, as well as others, has continually placed the authority of free speech in others, aside from the masses.

You should have seen what was happening a month or so ago with a couple of the high schools in Colorado. Haha.

[Jason Tate]

Big difference between the way its legal in Alaska and the way it is being portrayed by Frederick.

You said it was illegal and it was not subjective - you were wrong in that regard. Second - how is "Bong Hits for Jesus" showing anything? At all? If anything it is saying he wants to give Jesus a bong hit. So, please ... explain how it's "portrayed."

Not like I actually expect you to -- you haven't responding to most of my points in this thread.

If it has a gun or writing on it that does promote such, then I wouldnt and dont.

Just the message the words portray are obviously enough for banning. "Bong hit" does not say "go smoke weed" ... so I'd assume that anything that is associated with illegal activities (to different varying degrees) can also be under attack. Promoting bong hits is apparently promoting weed (even though you can take a bong hit of legal substances too) - therefore, applying the same logic: promoting "Bayside" is promoting what they sing about. Can't wear the shirt.

You can't have it both ways.

[deadstar]

You said it was illegal and it was not subjective - you were wrong in that regard. Second - how is "Bong Hits for Jesus" showing anything? At all? If anything it is saying he wants to give Jesus a bong hit. So, please ... explain how it's "portrayed."

Not like I actually expect you to -- you haven't responding to most of my points in this thread.



Just the message the words portray are obviously enough for banning. "Bong hit" does not say "go smoke weed" ... so I'd assume that anything that is associated with illegal activities (to different varying degrees) can also be under attack. Promoting bong hits is apparently promoting weed (even though you can take a bong hit of legal substances too) - therefore, applying the same logic: promoting "Bayside" is promoting what they sing about. Can't wear the shirt.

You can't have it both ways.

Illegal in every state but Alaska. Only adults can possess it. If anything it is saying he wants to give Jesus a bing hit? You didnt get the whole "Take bong hits for Jesus" like I did. Hardly a "give jesus a bing hit" scenario.

You're giving a kid who just wanted to make news with a sign too much credit. Doubtful he he knows anything about hitting a bong with other legal substances. Therefore putting up a sign at a school is promoting drug use, especially in this case.

You're trying to pick one word and use its connotation to change the argument. I shouldn't have used the word portrayed. Substitute it with promote. My mistake.

You can have it both ways. Wearing a tshirt that doesnt have violent sayings or such is much different than putting up a banner. I'm hardly promoting the acts presented in their lyrics in the same way (much the same way I'm sure the band would say they dont promote the acts by using them in their lyrics). Its not the same as being expressed with words the way it is here.

[Love As Arson]

I have no problem with a stance. Weed is illegal.
You posited that kids should be free from people forcing their beliefs on them, as you claim Fredericks did. However, you fail to take into consideration that school, specifically its drug policy, is pushing a viewpoint.

Thats not a subjective matter.
Yes, it is. Some people believe it is illegal and, as Jason noted, it is not illegal in every state.

The issue was whether or not it promoted drug use.
Which is a subjective interpretation. The sign, to me, implied Jesus took bong hits. Are we to defer to the school to determine the intent of speech now?

People do have a right to speak freely, just not in a public school when it is counter productive to the whole intent of it being a place of education.
Is it your position that free speech should be limited in a place that, presumably, is about expanding a child's mind?

[Jason Tate]

Illegal in every state but Alaska.

Not true at all. Unsure why you continue to make up facts.

Only adults can possess it. If anything it is saying he wants to give Jesus a bing hit? You didnt get the whole "Take bong hits for Jesus" like I did. Hardly a "give jesus a bing hit" scenario.

Could you please point me to the source where and when the word "take" was added into the poster? Please.

You're giving a kid who just wanted to make news with a sign too much credit. Doubtful he he knows anything about hitting a bong with other legal substances. Therefore putting up a sign at a school is promoting drug use, especially in this case.

Well, I'm glad you know for a fact everything like this. Screw rational thought. He's a "stoner" he only knows stoner things. Be more ignorant - seriously.

You're trying to pick one word and use its connotation to change the argument. I shouldn't have used the word portrayed. Substitute it with promote. My mistake.

Using that word my above argument still stays.

You can have it both ways. Wearing a tshirt that doesnt have violent sayings or such is much different than putting up a banner.

How? There's no violence - in fact there's not even any illegal word in the banner. Bongs are sold LEGALLY in almost every state. You can buy them here - no questions asked. The implication is that the word is tied to an illegal act -- which I am making the same implication with the word Bayside (due to their lyrical content). Both assumptions are absolutely ridiculous -- that's my point.

So ... please ... show me the illegal word (legality is what you keep harping on) in the banner.

I'm hardly promoting the acts presented in their lyrics in the same way (much the same way I'm sure the band would say they dont promote the acts by using them in their lyrics). Its not the same as being expressed with words the way it is here.

And yet you're so quick to be apologetic when it's related to a band/someone you like. However, if you don't know the person ... fuck um .. throw um under the bus. No reason to actually apply logical thought to THEIR situation. They're just a stupid stoner anyway ... right?

/rock (you) hardplace

[Love As Arson]

Illegal in every state but Alaska. Only adults can possess it.
It is still legal, and as such, does not contain the stigma you attach to it.


You're giving a kid who just wanted to make news with a sign too much credit. Doubtful he he knows anything about hitting a bong with other legal substances. Therefore putting up a sign at a school is promoting drug use, especially in this case.
If the kid is ignorant, then how can it be the case that he was promoting drug use? Isn't intent important to the argument that he was "promoting" something?


You're trying to pick one word and use its connotation to change the argument. I shouldn't have used the word portrayed. Substitute it with promote. My mistake.
It is still subjective.


You can have it both ways. Wearing a tshirt that doesnt have violent sayings or such is much different than putting up a banner. I'm hardly promoting the acts presented in their lyrics in the same way (much the same way I'm sure the band would say they dont promote the acts by using them in their lyrics). Its not the same as being expressed with words the way it is here.
It is up to the school to interpret it as they see fit. If they find it to be a promotion of an act, they may punish you accordingly.

[deadstar]

Not true at all. Unsure why you continue to make up facts.



Could you please point me to the source where and when the word "take" was added into the poster? Please.



Well, I'm glad you know for a fact everything like this. Screw rational thought. He's a "stoner" he only knows stoner things. Be more ignorant - seriously.



Using that word my above argument still stays.



How? There's no violence - in fact there's not even any illegal word in the banner. Bongs are sold LEGALLY in almost every state. You can buy them here - no questions asked. The implication is that the word is tied to an illegal act -- which I am making the same implication with the word Bayside (due to their lyrical content). Both assumptions are absolutely ridiculous -- that's my point.

So ... please ... show me the illegal word (legality is what you keep harping on) in the banner.



And yet you're so quick to be apologetic when it's related to a band/someone you like. However, if you don't know the person ... fuck um .. throw um under the bus. No reason to actually apply logical thought to THEIR situation. They're just a stupid stoner anyway ... right?

/rock (you) hardplace
It just seems to me you didnt read all of the judges opinions. They allude to many of the reasons Frederick put up the poster (or lack of reasons) and make the case of how it can be interpreted (which coincidentally is how I interpreted it at first).

Its late, I dont really feel like typing out the few instances in which marijuana is legal. Either way, I still see the sign as promoting illegal drug use. I dont really harp on the legality of it. I harp on the fact its counterproductive to the goal of a place of education.

[deadstar]

It is up to the school to interpret it as they see fit. If they find it to be a promotion of an act, they may punish you accordingly.

And if they found it offensive or promoting illegal activity, I would have no problem changing it. I trust in the judgement of adults and supervisors moreso than the kids in school.

[Love As Arson]

And if they found it offensive or promoting illegal activity, I would have no problem changing it. I trust in the judgement of adults and supervisors moreso than the kids in school.
Some individuals are not willing to give up their rights simply because an individual with authority tells them to do so, or because of some perceived wisdom.

[fromoc2dc]

I hate when Supreme Court justices attempt to limit the reach of their rulings to either only the case right in front of them or ones exactly like it. Bush. V. Gore comes to mind ("Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances")


"There were additional shades of opinion within the chief justice’s majority. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kennedy, wrote separately to emphasize what they said was the narrowness of the court’s holding. They said the decision should be understood as limited to speech advocating drug use, and noted that the court had not endorsed the much broader argument, put forward by the Bush administration, that school officials could censor speech that interfered with a school’s “educational mission.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/washington/26speech.html?em&ex=1183003200&en=df44e35915b3d4fe&ei=5087%0A

[fromoc2dc]

Oh Clarence Thomas. He doesn't even try to hide or sugarcoat anything.


In light of the history of American public education,” Justice Thomas said, “it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment ‘freedom of speech’ encompasses a student’s right to speak in public schools.” The court’s precedents had become incoherent, he said, adding, “I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students have a right to speak in school except when they don’t.”

[Nevuk]

Its late, I dont really feel like typing out the few instances in which marijuana is legal. Either way, I still see the sign as promoting illegal drug use. I dont really harp on the legality of it. I harp on the fact its counterproductive to the goal of a place of education.
In federal law, its always illegal. Its a schedule one drug, for reasons beyond many. Not so in a lot states, but they have to hide their medical marijuana from the federal government.
And music can be counterproductive to the goals of a place of education. Why are you on a music website?
Oh Clarence Thomas. He doesn't even try to hide or sugarcoat anything.
True quote. I thought it was Clarence Darrow, for a second. We need another Clarence Darrow...

[Jason Tate]

It just seems to me you didnt read all of the judges opinions.

I'm the one that posted them - of course I read them.

They allude to many of the reasons Frederick put up the poster (or lack of reasons) and make the case of how it can be interpreted (which coincidentally is how I interpreted it at first).

Again - side-stepping the question I asked.

Its late, I dont really feel like typing out the few instances in which marijuana is legal. Either way, I still see the sign as promoting illegal drug use. I dont really harp on the legality of it. I harp on the fact its counterproductive to the goal of a place of education.

What is illegal about the sign? Please tell me.

[dai the flu]

can i just ask, why do you care? you keep saying this is so dangerous...why? really? how does this affect your life? if that kid can't hold up his sign, how exactly is this going to bring about the apocalypse? yes freedom of speech has been imposed upon...now what? how does our lives change?
i just want a straight up realistic down to earth rational answer. im not interested in your ideals, i want practicality.

[captainhampton]

So you want an answer but you want to choose the answer we give? Man you are dumb.

answer the damn question, seems simple to me. i'll answer it. it won't do any harm. in fact removing promotion of drugs in schools is good. simple. common sense.

[dai the flu]

So you want an answer but you want to choose the answer we give? Man you are dumb.
way to not answer.
dumb? im looking for a practical application of your ideals. if this is such an obviously terrible disservice to humanity, it should be easy to relate in practical, realistic, rational terms.
in the grand scheme of your life, how are you personally affected by this kids freedom of speech being infringed on? how are our everyday lives being ruined? give me something tangible i should lose sleep over.

edit: let me save tate time when he wakes up here around noon.
"if you aren't intelligent enough to understand the importance here, then im not explaining it to you."

or in other words, "i don't know."

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - Martin Luther King Jr.

[Love As Arson]

can i just ask, why do you care? you keep saying this is so dangerous...why? really? how does this affect your life? if that kid can't hold up his sign, how exactly is this going to bring about the apocalypse? yes freedom of speech has been imposed upon...now what? how does our lives change?
i just want a straight up realistic down to earth rational answer. im not interested in your ideals, i want practicality.
The kid holding up the sign is irrelevant. The precedent it says, that is, the ability to hamper a student's speech, is the main concern.

[deadstar]

I'm the one that posted them - of course I read them.



Again - side-stepping the question I asked.



What is illegal about the sign? Please tell me.

The first two sentences make me question even more if you read all the judges opinions.

The third sentence makes me question if you even read my post.

[deadstar]

And music can be counterproductive to the goals of a place of education. Why are you on a music website?

You're right it can be. But is it in this case? No. Its not a good analogy.

[deadstar]

Some individuals are not willing to give up their rights simply because an individual with authority tells them to do so, or because of some perceived wisdom.
Perceived? Give me a break. We're talking about high school.

[Love As Arson]

Perceived? Give me a break. We're talking about high school.
It is not a given that teachers or administrators are more knowledgeable than students. Their interpretations should not be the default simply because they were instilled with authority. If that were the case, then no dissent is reasonable.

[deadstar]

The have the authority to do what they feel is necessary to preserve the school environment. Dissent is reasonable, hence the reason this is at the Supreme Court. If someone feels the kid was seriously trying to make a stand on freedom of speech and not looking to gain attention and disrupt a school environment then I suggest reading the all of the judges opinons.

[Love As Arson]

The have the authority to do what they feel is necessary to preserve the school environment.
Which disempowers the rest of the school populace. I'm of the opinion that authority must be justified, otherwise they have no basis for their decision. As such, you must provide adequate reasoning as to the necessity for the staff to be the objective interpreter of a student's intent.

Dissent is reasonable, hence the reason this is at the Supreme Court.
According to your line of logic, authority must be deferred to, because they know better.

If someone feels the kid was seriously trying to make a stand on freedom of speech and not looking to gain attention and disrupt a school environment then I suggest reading the all of the judges opinons.
As I have said in numerous posts, the kid is irrelevant. The precedent the ruling sets is.

[deadstar]

Which disempowers the rest of the school populace. I'm of the opinion that authority must be justified, otherwise they have no basis for their decision. As such, you must provide adequate reasoning as to the necessity for the staff to be the objective interpreter of a student's intent.


According to your line of logic, authority must be deferred to, because they know better.


As I have said in numerous posts, the kid is irrelevant. The precedent the ruling sets is.

Teachers and administrators are merely seen as babysitters today. Once again a deeper issue, but I have no problem with them deciding which is best for the school as opposed to students.

It doesnt have to be deferred to, it can be questioned reasonably.

The kid is not irrelevant. Allowing him to post a sign like that sets a precedent of other copy cat or something of the sort. While some see it as a slippery slope of going against freedom of speech, I see it as a slippery slope of drugs in school.

[Jason Tate]

can i just ask, why do you care?

Because I believe in freedom of speech. It's important to me.

you keep saying this is so dangerous...why?

Because I believe any curtailing of any freedom is inherently dangerous.

really?

Yes, really.

how does this affect your life?

Because I am a citizen in this country.

if that kid can't hold up his sign, how exactly is this going to bring about the apocalypse? yes freedom of speech has been imposed upon...now what? how does our lives change?

You answered the question yourself: freedom of speech has been imposed upon.

i just want a straight up realistic down to earth rational answer. im not interested in your ideals, i want practicality.

Hope I've met the criteria; however, I'm willing to bet I can guess the response.

The first two sentences make me question even more if you read all the judges opinions.

The third sentence makes me question if you even read my post.

Continue to ignore my points and attack me. :appl:

[Jason Tate]

Teachers and administrators are merely seen as babysitters today.


Once again a deeper issue, but I have no problem with them deciding which is best for the school as opposed to students.

It doesnt have to be deferred to, it can be questioned reasonably.

The kid is not irrelevant. Allowing him to post a sign like that sets a precedent of other copy cat or something of the sort. While some see it as a slippery slope of going against freedom of speech, I see it as a slippery slope of drugs in school.

Can you please point me to the part o the sign that said anything about drugs, school, drugs in school, try drugs, or any variation thereof?

[deadstar]

Can you please point me to the part o the sign that said anything about drugs, school, drugs in school, try drugs, or any variation thereof?
Bong hits is a drug reference.

[Jason Tate]

answer the damn question, seems simple to me. i'll answer it. it won't do any harm. in fact removing promotion of drugs in schools is good. simple. common sense.
Hey - it's arm-chair conservative!

Can you please show me what portion of the sign was promoting drugs in school?

[Jason Tate]

Bong hits is a drug reference.
Bong hits are legal.

[Love As Arson]

Teachers and administrators are merely seen as babysitters today. Once again a deeper issue, but I have no problem with them deciding which is best for the school as opposed to students.
I do, because they must justify why it is that they should be the objective interpreters of intent.


It doesnt have to be deferred to, it can be questioned reasonably.
You said:

And if they found it offensive or promoting illegal activity, I would have no problem changing it. I trust in the judgement of adults and supervisors moreso than the kids in school.

That is deference.


The kid is not irrelevant.
Yes, he is, because we're talking about the larger implications of the decision, while you seem fixated on the kid.



Allowing him to post a sign like that sets a precedent of other copy cat or something of the sort.
And they would have the right to do that.


While some see it as a slippery slope of going against freedom of speech, I see it as a slippery slope of drugs in school.
Then, the problem lies not with the speech, but the weak-minded children that are being produced. Further, there is no harm in an honest discussion about drugs and would likely be far more productive than a wholesale ban on the topic.

[deadstar]

Bong hits are legal.
Does that change the fact its a drug reference? Stop trying to warp the argument.

[Jason Tate]

Does that change the fact its a drug reference? Stop trying to warp the argument.
Yes it does. Are we to remove all words that can have an implication to drug usage from "school speak"? Is that what you're asking? Should "hit" be removed? The word "smoke"? The word "hemp"? Should we just print up a book of "ok to say" words in school? Sanitize the ears of our precious high-schoolers?

You can't be serious.

I'm not the one trying to warp this argument - you're the one unable to direct your attention to any points I've raised, or even address the exact words used on the sign. You've come to the conclusion that the promotion of any drug related incident should be removed from school -- thereby basically removing drug education, discourse, and the freedom speech.

[deadstar]

I do, because they must justify why it is that they should be the objective interpreters of intent.


You said:



That is deference.


Yes, he is, because we're talking about the larger implications of the decision, while you seem fixated on the kid.



And they would have the right to do that.


Then, the problem lies not with the speech, but the weak-minded children that are being produced. Further, there is no harm in an honest discussion about drugs and would likely be far more productive than a wholesale ban on the topic.

They are the adults. Therefore they hold the power over the students to an extent. If a teacher wants to move your seat because you are disruptive and you refuse to, you deserve to be punished.

I understand the larger implications as I have outlined its a bigger issue than free speech, which you are getting at in the final paragraph.

[deadstar]

Yes it does. Are we to remove all words that can have an implication to drug usage from "school speak"? Is that what you're asking? Should "hit" be removed? The word "smoke"? The word "hemp"? Should we just print up a book of "ok to say" words in school? Sanitize the ears of our precious high-schoolers?

You can't be serious.

I'm not the one trying to warp this argument - you're the one unable to direct your attention to any points I've raised, or even address the exact words used on the sign. You've come to the conclusion that the promotion of any drug related incident should be removed from school -- thereby basically removing drug education, discourse, and the freedom speech.
Are any of those words "bong hits". No, so your point does not make any sense. Its a drug reference (legal or not).

And all of the points were answered by the opinions by the judges which you supposedly have read.

[Jason Tate]

They are the adults.

Quite a few high-school students are adults (according to the law) as well. Are they exempt from this line of reasoning?

Furthermore, appealing to age is a fallacy.

Therefore they hold the power over the students to an extent. If a teacher wants to move your seat because you are disruptive and you refuse to, you deserve to be punished.

Punished for not moving seats is based upon your (in)action .... has nothing to do with "freedom of speech." I hope you understand that.

[Jason Tate]

Are any of those words "bong hits".

Address the issue please. I've grown tired of you ignoring the big picture to focus on one isolated incident.

No, so your point does not make any sense. Its a drug reference (legal or not).

So - all drug references (legal or not) are no longer allowed in school? I want to be deadly clear - this is what you're saying? I'm through playing guessing games.

Yes or no: Any and all drug references are to be removed from school grounds?

And all of the points were answered by the opinions by the judges which you supposedly have read.

Incorrect.

[Love As Arson]

They are the adults. Therefore they hold the power over the students to an extent.
That is not adequate reasoning for their authority, as there are many adults that are ignorant.
If a teacher wants to move your seat because you are disruptive and you refuse to, you deserve to be punished.
That is quite different from giving them authority to interpret a shirt or sign.

I understand the larger implications as I have outlined its a bigger issue than free speech, which you are getting at in the final paragraph.
The chance that a kid may view the sign, decide they're going to go smoke weed and ruin their lives is minimal. Regardless, the perceived slippery slope does not justify inhibiting speech. Further, this strikes me as similar to justifications given to restrict our civil liberties in the "war on terror".

[deadstar]

Address the issue please. I've grown tired of you ignoring the big picture to focus on one isolated incident.



So - all drug references are no longer allowed in school? I want to be deadly clear - this is what you're saying? I'm through playing guessing games.

Yes or no: Any and all drug references are to be removed from school grounds?



Incorrect.
Stop looking for a cut and dry answer. Its not going to happen. I ignore the your "big picture" because you seem intent on focusing the dicussion on other subjects which are not relevant. Clearly trying to focus on something not on the topic with your second response. I am for drug education. I question how a sign like this is educating the youth? The goal of the school is to educate. I fail to see how the sign is educating and promoting a healthy learning environment. In fact, I find the sign to be counterproductive to a learning environment. But, once again, we differ in opinion. It just seems like you cant accept any opinion other than your own.

[Jason Tate]

Stop looking for a cut and dry answer. Its not going to happen.

Because you know that once this "tiny" issue is stretched to it's logical extreme - it's absolutely fucking ridiculous.

I ignore the your "big picture" because you seem intent on focusing the dicussion on other subjects which are not relevant.

Freedom of speech. Yeah, not relevant to this topic at all. :rolleyes:

Clearly trying to focus on something not on the topic with your second response.

The topic is freedom of speech - cut and dry. Continue to ignore things that make your argument weak -- people are seeing through it.

I am for drug education. I question how a sign like this is educating the youth?

Promotes discourse and discussion of a multi-sided issue without forcing one side to shut up.

The goal of the school is to educate. I fail to see how the sign is educating and promoting a healthy learning environment.

Above.

In fact, I find the sign to be counterproductive to a learning environment. But, once again, we differ in opinion. It just seems like you cant accept any opinion other than your own.

I refuse to accept opinions in which the constitution of the united states is violated.

[deadstar]

Because you know that once this "tiny" issue is stretched to it's logical extreme - it's absolutely fucking ridiculous.

There is no logical extreme. There is a potential extreme, but I trust in the system in place to protect that.

Freedom of speech. Yeah, not relevant to this topic at all. :rolleyes:

Freedom of speech, not drug education in schools.

The topic is freedom of speech - cut and dry. Continue to ignore things that make your argument weak -- people are seeing through it.

Yet the majority of Supreme Court judges agreed.

Promotes discourse and discussion of a multi-sided issue without forcing one side to shut up.

So showing a sign like this as a joke promotes that? I find it more to promote a loose and free usage of something that has serious consequences.

I refuse to accept opinions in which the constitution of the united states is violated.

Well unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court doesnt believe this violates the constitution.

Refusal to accept someone else's opinon. You sound like your idea of what a teacher is...

[Nevuk]

Does that change the fact its a drug reference? Stop trying to warp the argument.
I thought your whole argument was based around it promoting an illegal activity? You just admitted it had nothing to do with the legality.
Oh, and I believe the music was a good analogy, as in this case, the sign wasn't harmful to anyone's education either.

[Jason Tate]

There is no logical extreme. There is a potential extreme, but I trust in the system in place to protect that.

Yet it's obviously failed - this is the proof.

Freedom of speech, not drug education in schools.

They've now become intertwined.

Yet the majority of Supreme Court judges agreed.

Yeah, that'd be the reason for this entire thread. The outrage at this fucked up conservative court.

So showing a sign like this as a joke promotes that?

Well, it could have. And now you accept that the sign was a joke? It's either a joke or the kid's promoting drug use. Which one?!

I find it more to promote a loose and free usage of something that has serious consequences.

Yet you're unwilling to allow that side to discuss it. Meanwhile the school will continue to pump kids full of unhealthy food, sugar, and blatant lies about history (you have still yet to respond to your massive blunder in that regard yesterday). Awesome. Glad we're focused on the real issue -- shut those "stoners" up.

Well unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court doesnt believe this violates the constitution.

Unfortunately for the United States as a whole.

Refusal to accept someone else's opinon.

An opinion that promotes the removal of freedoms is something no one should accept. Especially while on the other hand we're invading countries under the guide of "liberation" and "bringing freedom." Always nice to use those buzz-words while we remove them at home. Gotta love hypocrisy.

You sound like your idea of what a teacher is...

Uh..... no.

[deadstar]

Freedom of speech can be intertwined with anything. I'd rather not focus on drug education as it is another issue. I've also never used the word stoners, so I take offense to you putting it in quotation marks as if its a shot against me.

As far as the hostory "blunder", I've done reading and it can go either way. I still take what my history textbooks say. Maybe giving schools a bigger budget and not having to use outdated material to teach children should be your main focus then.

Unfortunate is your opinion. I'd rather be the one to teach my kids about the dangers of drug usage instead of a kid promoting it in a sign.

The joke of a sign is promoting drug use. Making light of a serious thing is something that clearly went way over your head.

This is a domestic issue, but it doesnt surprise me you'd find a way to bring the war into the argument.

And nevuk, the drug use would be illegal to the vast majority of kids in the school. I find the sign to be harmful to education due to the consequences it would have of leaving it up. I would rather not have copycats and force distrations like this to keep occuring.

[concernedparent]

Well, this has been a good read.

[Jason Tate]

Freedom of speech can be intertwined with anything.

Which makes it all the more important to save.

I'd rather not focus on drug education as it is another issue.

Because it points out the obvious flaws in your logic.

I've also never used the word stoners, so I take offense to you putting it in quotation marks as if its a shot against me.

You obviously misread the intention. Glad you focused on that instead of the content though. :rolleyes:

As far as the hostory "blunder", I've done reading and it can go either way.

No, it really can't. Read Truman's diary.

I still take what my history textbooks say.

Thereby proving my original point.

Maybe giving schools a bigger budget and not having to use outdated material to teach children should be your main focus then.

I see no correlation between budget and the teaching of correct history.

Unfortunate is your opinion.

Nope. Based upon our Constitution. Which you're comfortable shitting all over.

I'd rather be the one to teach my kids about the dangers of drug usage instead of a kid promoting it in a sign.

Change the word "instead" to "with" -- it shouldn't be a one sided discussion. You can teach your kid everything you want (if you wait until high-school to do it - you're a fucking moron though) - but you have to allow the other side as well .... otherwise you have no education - you have a dictum that is easily ignored. You'll achieve the opposite of your intended results.

The joke of a sign is promoting drug use.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh ... nice spin there. You got called out and this is how you change it? Ok ok ... I'll buy.

Making light of a serious thing is something that clearly went way over your head.

Sorry - bong hits is not a serious thing. Ever seen "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle"? Bong hits can be fucking hilarious.

This is a domestic issue, but it doesnt surprise me you'd find a way to bring the war into the argument.

The war is a domestic issue as well.

And nevuk, the drug use would be illegal to the vast majority of kids in the school. I find the sign to be harmful to education due to the consequences it would have of leaving it up. I would rather not have copycats and force distrations like this to keep occuring.

Sanitize the students! They can't think for themselves!! Control their minds ... CONTROL THEM ALL!!!

You're done. You refuse to respond to anything that calls your flawed reasoning into question. Continue to use your freedom of speech to promote what you find to be "ok" ... and God forbid someone else voice a dissenting viewpoint.

I hope your kid is a pot head. Karma can be a real bitch.

[dai the flu]

i still havent recieved any practical reason for why this is dangerous. just the same old cliche idealist rhetoric. our freedoms are being stripped...becoming fascist nation...
i have an idea. lets set a day for everyone here to turn off their computer, go outside, interact with the real world. i understand wanting to feel important, but if you're going to make a stand, do it for something that has some foundation in reality. because this issue for all intensive purposes, is NOT an issue when it comes to us living our day to day lives.
and i love how this issue has been correlated to slavery and the holocaust. seriously. what world do you people live in?

[Nevuk]

Sorry - bong hits is not a serious thing. Ever seen "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle"? Bong hits can be fucking hilarious.

That movie is hilarious, but I don't remember them using a bong, to be fair.




Sanitize the students! They can't think for themselves!! Control their minds ... CONTROL THEM ALL!!!

You're done. You refuse to respond to anything that calls your flawed reasoning into question. Continue to use your freedom of speech to promote what you find to be "ok" ... and God forbid someone else voice a dissenting viewpoint.

I hope your kid is a pot head. Karma can be a real bitch.

I'm seriously :lolatpost: over here.

[Nevuk]

i still havent recieved any practical reason for why this is dangerous. just the same old cliche idealist rhetoric. our freedoms are being stripped...becoming fascist nation...
i have an idea. lets set a day for everyone here to turn off their computer, go outside, interact with the real world. i understand wanting to feel important, but if you're going to make a stand, do it for something that has some foundation in reality. because this issue for all intensive purposes, is NOT an issue when it comes to us living our day to day lives.
and i love how this issue has been correlated to slavery and the holocaust. seriously. what world do you people live in?
I'm afraid of the light, to be honest.

[deadstar]

Didnt misread the intention. You're just great at putting words in other people's mouths and taking peoples views the wrong way. I've seen enough debates with you involved on here to know that.

My opinion is that the consitution didnt intend for students to be able to freely speak so as to disturb with the educational process. My opinion is this sign disrupts education, despite any type of bigger problems there are to the ecuation system.

My kid won't be a pot head because I will actually take an active role in his life and educate him not to think bong hits aren't a serious thing. That's pretty sad that you feel that way Jason. Anything you put into your body is serious.

I refuse to respond to it because it was answered in the judges opinions. Everything you say lends to bigger problems societal problems, not necessarily preserving freedom of speech.

[Jason Tate]

i still havent recieved any practical reason for why this is dangerous.

Your inability to accept the reason does not really matter to me.

just the same old cliche idealist rhetoric. our freedoms are being stripped...becoming fascist nation...

Maybe the reason you haven't "received any practical reason" is because you haven't actually read the posts in this thread.

i have an idea. lets set a day for everyone here to turn off their computer, go outside, interact with the real world.

Always funny when someone - on a computer - says things like that. Anyway, it's safe to say most people do interact with the real world on a daily basis. Myself included.

i understand wanting to feel important, but if you're going to make a stand, do it for something that has some foundation in reality. .

Freedom of speech doesn't have a foundation in reality?

because this issue for all intensive purposes, is NOT an issue when it comes to us living our day to day lives./quote]

I speak daily. You don't?

Oh .. and the phrase is for "all intents and purposes" - just FYI.

[quote=dai the flu;6932632]and i love how this issue has been correlated to slavery and the holocaust. seriously. what world do you people live in?

:yawn:

So much easier to attack then respond to the points isn't it?

[Jason Tate]

Didnt misread the intention.

Well, you obviously did - seeing as that was not my intention.

You're just great at putting words in other people's mouths and taking peoples views the wrong way. I've seen enough debates with you involved on here to know that.

I'm quoting your own words back at you -- the fact is you're unable to defend your own viewpoint is what's comical.

My opinion is that the consitution didnt intend for students to be able to freely speak so as to disturb with the educational process.

Please show me the footnote to "no abridgment." Can you?

My opinion is this sign disrupts education, despite any type of bigger problems there are to the ecuation system.

They were outside being filmed ... lots of "education" disruption there. The ensuing legal battle had a bigger "disruption" of the education system.

My kid won't be a pot head because I will actually take an active role in his life and educate him not to think bong hits aren't a serious thing.

Hahaha. Not surprising that you actually believe that you can control another human. That's where this entire debate has sprung from -- the fact that you actually believe that you have this power. You're in for a rude awakening.

That's pretty sad that you feel that way Jason. Anything you put into your body is serious.

Sugar is arguably worse for your body than organic pot is ... I think I've smoked pot 4 times in my entire life - and even I can accept this ... brilliant thing ... called personal responsibility and free will.

http://cache.bordom.net/images/cb38cb5004473ea6ba5e8f8c2f602940.jp g

I refuse to respond to it because it was answered in the judges opinions.

Wrong. Yet another cop out.

Everything you say lends to bigger problems societal problems, not necessarily preserving freedom of speech.

There is no greater societal problem than removing personal freedoms. Furthermore, the data completely disagrees with your hypothesis.

[Love As Arson]

My opinion is that the consitution didnt intend for students to be able to freely speak so as to disturb with the educational process. My opinion is this sign disrupts education, despite any type of bigger problems there are to the ecuation system.
The burden of proof is upon you to show this, and you've yet.

My kid won't be a pot head because I will actually take an active role in his life and educate him not to think bong hits aren't a serious thing.
Which will elicit a desire to seek out what is prohibited.

I refuse to respond to it because it was answered in the judges opinions. Everything you say lends to bigger problems societal problems, not necessarily preserving freedom of speech.
False dichotomy.

[dai the flu]

Your inability to accept the reason does not really matter to me.



Maybe the reason you haven't "received any practical reason" is because you haven't actually read the posts in this thread.



Always funny when someone - on a computer - says things like that. Anyway, it's safe to say most people do interact with the real world on a daily basis. Myself included.

i understand wanting to feel important, but if you're going to make a stand, do it for something that has some foundation in reality.

Freedom of speech doesn't have a foundation in reality?

because this issue for all intensive purposes, is NOT an issue when it comes to us living our day to day lives
I speak daily. You don't?

Oh .. and the phrase is for "all intents and purposes" - just FYI.



:yawn:

So much easier to attack then respond to the points isn't it?
but you havent made any points. not one.
yes, our freedoms are limited. we get that. now quit dodging the question and tell me why i should care. so i cant hold up any sign anywhere i want to. how does this change my life tomorrow? why should i be scared? why are you acting like our lives are threatened?
and...still waiting...how does this correlate to the holocaust and slavery?

[Jason Tate]

but you havent made any points. not one.

I'm sorry you see it that way.

yes, our freedoms are limited. we get that. now quit dodging the question and tell me why i should care.

I don't give a shit if you care or not. I was under the impression you asked why some people care - I was giving you those reasons. If you don't care - that's your choice - you can exercise your free will however you want. Simply don't take away others.

You don't have to care. I find it irresponsible - but I'm completely okay with people being as irresponsible as they'd like. Your life to live.

so i cant hold up any sign anywhere i want to. how does this change my life tomorrow? why should i be scared? why are you acting like our lives are threatened?

Probably doesn't, guess you shouldn't be, and I'm not.

and...still waiting...how does this correlate to the holocaust and slavery?

Even I don't know where you're going with this...

[Nevuk]

but you havent made any points. not one.
yes, our freedoms are limited. we get that. now quit dodging the question and tell me why i should care. so i cant hold up any sign anywhere i want to. how does this change my life tomorrow? why should i be scared? why are you acting like our lives are threatened?
and...still waiting...how does this correlate to the holocaust and slavery?
I don't believe in evil, but the quote about it seems applicable. "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". The reason this matters is because it will likely be used as precedent for limiting free speech further in the future. So while this particular case is not important, it could eventually be used as an excuse to put everyone who says bong into jail.

[Love As Arson]

I'm still not sure how the suspension of habeas corpus actually affects me.

[Jason Tate]

I'm still not sure how the suspension of habeas corpus actually affects me.
The "me first" attitude continues to be dominate in all walks of society.

[deadstar]

Furthermore, the data completely disagrees with your hypothesis.

Based on your posts, you have no idea what my hypothesis is. I'm done here.

[Love As Arson]

Ad hominem.

[industrialbelt]

free speech has always had limitations, espescially in schools. The court saw this as scholastic, i guess. my poli sci class talked about this shit a lot, and just about all of you are making points that are totally irrelevant. smoking pot is illegal and was promoted for everyone in that school to see. sure, i don't agree with the case, but the only way now to change this is an amendment, and we all know that's not going to happen. maybe if people here got educated and voted, things would be different. how many people here bitching about our government only read articles posted on this site?

[deadstar]

Ad hominem.
Hardly.

[Jason Tate]

Based on your posts, you have no idea what my hypothesis is. I'm done here.
You've been done here for the past 17 pages ... you have barely once argued a single point raised against you. The thread speaks for itself.

[Jason Tate]

free speech has always had limitations,

And I personally disagree with that premise. Free speech should have no limitations.

espescially in schools.

Especially in schools.

The court saw this as scholastic, i guess. my poli sci class talked about this shit a lot, and just about all of you are making points that are totally irrelevant. smoking pot is illegal and was promoted for everyone in that school to see.

Already argued - illegal acts - and the "promotion" of such - should be acceptable (and protected) under the constitution of the united states.

My argument is that it should be - I want to make that clear.

how many people here bitching about our government only read articles posted on this site?

Based on the great discussions I've seen in this forum - I'd say the vast majority.

[Love As Arson]

Hardly.
Right:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

[deadstar]

Tate is the critical, abusive one attacking me. He simply cannot accept that I feel the sign is counterproductive to a place of education, despite his nitpicking and attempts to redirect the debate. Since the supreme court agreed with me, isnt the proof of burden on your side to show it doesnt?

For Tate to suggest drug use is less harmful than eating sugar is laughable and speaks for iteself.

[thejetstolehome]

Tate is the critical, abusive one attacking me. He simply cannot accept that I feel the sign is counterproductive to a place of education, despite his nitpicking and attempts to redirect the debate. Since the supreme court agreed with me, isnt the proof of burden on your side to show it doesnt?



and multiple people, Tate included, have shown how it could be productive but you refused to accept that point of view.

[deadstar]

and multiple people, Tate included, have shown how it could be productive but you refused to accept that point of view.
It could be. However, I fail how to see it is as presented by Frederick after reading through the justices' opinions.

[thejetstolehome]

It could be. However, I fail how to see it is as presented by Frederick after reading through the justices' opinions.

because, as it's been said over and over and over, something like this opens debate, discourse, and conversation on the subject of drugs and drug use instead of a one sentence lesson on the matter.

[deadstar]

because, as it's been said over and over and over, something like this opens debate, discourse, and conversation on the subject of drugs and drug use instead of a one sentence lesson on the matter.
There is a much much better way to present this and open it as debate. The kid was purely looking to draw attention by promoting about an issue that is not funny in a light way. If he was looking to make a statement, I could think of plenty of better ways to go about it.

[thejetstolehome]

There is a much much better way to present this and open it as debate. The kid was purely looking to draw attention by promoting about an issue that is not funny in a light way. If he was looking to make a statement, I could think of plenty of better ways to go about it.

okay so maybe it wasn't his intention to spark debate but does that mean the debate shouldn't exist because it starts in an unconventional or accidental way?

[tonighttonight0]

fucking rediculous

[Love As Arson]

I feel the sign is counterproductive to a place of education
What you "feel" should not inhibit free speech.

Since the supreme court agreed with me, isnt the proof of burden on your side to show it doesnt?
No, as you are the one making a claim, which is the sign promoted drug use and could reasonably lead kids to smoking marijuana.

[concernedparent]

Tate is the critical, abusive one attacking me. He simply cannot accept that I feel the sign is counterproductive to a place of education, despite his nitpicking and attempts to redirect the debate. Since the supreme court agreed with me, isnt the proof of burden on your side to show it doesnt?

For Tate to suggest drug use is less harmful than eating sugar is laughable and speaks for iteself.
And this means it shouldn't be allowed? Should all speech that isn't productive be banned?

[Spewk]

i dont think this crosses over social boundries...