Re: Flushing teen takes school district to class on 1st and 2nd amendment

by **xsanguine** Mon May 30, 2016 11:22 am

Turtleneck wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

I still help out on roofs, Turtleneck. When's the last time you've even encountered a non-white?

Every single day, X.

Studies show only 10% of published science articles are reproducible

by **Turtleneck** Mon May 30, 2016 11:30 am

xsanguine wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

Every single day, X.

Studies show only 10% of published science articles are reproducible

by **xsanguine** Mon May 30, 2016 11:31 am

Can't we just lay down our swords for one day, TN? Can't we just come together for one day? For the troops?

by **Turtleneck** Mon May 30, 2016 12:01 pm

You are free to take a day off if you want, X.

by **xsanguine** Mon May 30, 2016 12:02 pm

If that's the way you want it, Turtleneck.

by **Turtleneck** Mon May 30, 2016 12:14 pm

by **Rocinante** Mon May 30, 2016 5:33 pm

Turtleneck wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Yeah but this has to do with guns so it's different

Actually it might be. Contrary to Roc's claim, schools do not have absolute authority over a student's speech. If considered to be symbolic speech - conveying a political message - the school has less room to "silence" a student. As I wrote above, in Tinker v. Des Moines, SCOTUS found in favor of students who were told to remove black arm bands worn in protest of the Vietnam war.

Actually, that particular ruling is exactly the one I'm referring to, Turtleneck, you cockwomble. In it the SCOTUS said that a school could regulate dress if it could reasonably be considered to disrupt the learning environment (or something like that - I'm not going to look up the exact wording). So, many schools have used that ruling to exactly the opposite effect that you are using it for.

In practice, schools have been regulating speech forever and will continue to do so in the name of the sanctity of the learning environment. You can agree or disagree as you see fit, but that's how it's been for a long time.

by **Rocinante** Mon May 30, 2016 5:36 pm

Personally, I think limiting stupid teenager speech is completely acceptable. Whatever they espouse, it's generally parroting their parents or some other influential person in their lives. Most kids are incapable of original thought and if they are expressing extreme views, it's likely some douchebaggery from an adult using them to further their own aims.

by **xsanguine** Mon May 30, 2016 5:37 pm

So you let them espouse those views and get shut down by more informed opinions. Limiting the opinion's someone can put forth is the opposite of a "learning environment". That's an indoctrination environment.

Didn't the left use to be a fan of freedom and liberty? What 10 years can do to a society....

by **Rocinante** Mon May 30, 2016 5:41 pm

xsanguine wrote:So you let them espouse those views and get shut down by more informed opinions.

Didn't the left use to be a fan of freedom and liberty? What 10 years can do to a society....

Anarchy is not the answer X. Sorry. It's a tired argument. Discussions on the Bill of Rights has a place in schools, but so too, does structure. Freedom of expression could easily become the only issue dealt with without structure.

by **xsanguine** Mon May 30, 2016 5:44 pm

But this isn't about anarchism. This is about freedom of speech and allowing people to express their opinions in a free society.

by **Rocinante** Mon May 30, 2016 5:49 pm

xsanguine wrote:But this isn't about anarchism. This is about freedom of speech and allowing people to express their opinions in a free society.

Oversimplification. You fail to consider what is sacrificed under unregulated "freedom of expression" in an environment dominated by 14-18 year old children. Schools have a legal obligation to provide certain services to the populace. It's not a difficult precedent to meet to say that certain forms of expression are disruptive to that process. It has been decided. If you think it's wrong, you can use your own child as a bludgeon to change the status quo. See how that works out. I personally prefer it that way. primary schools are not the environment for this fight. We have all of our adult lives to fight the good fight.

by **xsanguine** Mon May 30, 2016 5:54 pm

Rocinante wrote:
xsanguine wrote:But this isn't about anarchism. This is about freedom of speech and allowing people to express their opinions in a free society.

Oversimplification. You fail to consider what is sacrificed under unregulated "freedom of expression" in an environment dominated by 14-18 year old children. Schools have a legal obligation to provide certain services to the populace. It's not a difficult precedent to meet to say that certain forms of expression are disruptive to that process. It has been decided. If you think it's wrong, you can use your own child as a bludgeon to change the status quo. See how that works out. I personally prefer it that way. primary schools are not the environment for this fight. We have all of our adult lives to fight the good fight.

It's not an oversimplifcation, Roc. How do you prepare children for the real world when you censor their opinions in their formative years? It's not unregulated freedom of expression. You do not have the freedom to express yourself violently. This is a kid that wore a t-shirt with a pro-gun slant. That's it. He didn't bring a gun to school to prove a point, he didn't bring a bullet to school. He wore a t-shirt expressing his support for guns. This is precisely what a slippery slope is.

by **Rocinante** Mon May 30, 2016 7:45 pm

xsanguine wrote:
Rocinante wrote:

Oversimplification. You fail to consider what is sacrificed under unregulated "freedom of expression" in an environment dominated by 14-18 year old children. Schools have a legal obligation to provide certain services to the populace. It's not a difficult precedent to meet to say that certain forms of expression are disruptive to that process. It has been decided. If you think it's wrong, you can use your own child as a bludgeon to change the status quo. See how that works out. I personally prefer it that way. primary schools are not the environment for this fight. We have all of our adult lives to fight the good fight.

It's not an oversimplifcation, Roc. How do you prepare children for the real world when you censor their opinions in their formative years? It's not unregulated freedom of expression. You do not have the freedom to express yourself violently. This is a kid that wore a t-shirt with a pro-gun slant. That's it. He didn't bring a gun to school to prove a point, he didn't bring a bullet to school. He wore a t-shirt expressing his support for guns. This is precisely what a slippery slope is.

It IS an oversimplification X. Like all idealistic notions, it fails to consider the myriad avenues "freedom of expression" goes down.

P.S. Slippery Slope argument is the worst argument. It's what got us the "If you let two men marry, whats to stop people from marrying animals?" argument.

by **DWags** Mon May 30, 2016 8:01 pm

Rocinante wrote:Personally, I think limiting stupid teenager speech is completely acceptable. Whatever they espouse, it's generally parroting their parents or some other influential person in their lives. Most kids are incapable of original thought and if they are expressing extreme views, it's likely some douchebaggery from an adult using them to further their own aims.

In public schools students don't have the rights we posses. Scotus has said so.

by **xsanguine** Mon May 30, 2016 8:04 pm

DWags wrote:
Rocinante wrote:Personally, I think limiting stupid teenager speech is completely acceptable. Whatever they espouse, it's generally parroting their parents or some other influential person in their lives. Most kids are incapable of original thought and if they are expressing extreme views, it's likely some douchebaggery from an adult using them to further their own aims.

In public schools students don't have the rights we posses. Scotus has said so.

As long as 9 old white men say it's okay... it's okay.

Yes, I know they're not all whites.

by **DWags** Mon May 30, 2016 8:06 pm

xsanguine wrote:
DWags wrote:

In public schools students don't have the rights we posses. Scotus has said so.

As long as 9 old white men say it's okay... it's okay.

Yes, I know they're not all whites.

Yeah, but it's the system in place.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Tue May 31, 2016 8:00 am

kingstonlake wrote:http://www.abc12.com/home/headlines/Flushing-students-sent-home-for-wearing-controversial-T-shirt-381164841.html?c=y&device=phone

Bob would be proud of this kid exercising his right of freedom of speech.

Andrew Eichorn received an NRA T-shirt as a Christmas present. On the back, it reads: “Keep calm and carry guns.” He wore it for the first time May 18 when he went to classes at Flushing High School.

During third hour, the 18-year-old senior was called to the office by assistant principal Deborah Goldstein, who said the shirt violated the school's dress code.

"I started to explain to her, ‘How does this violate the dress code?’ She said, ‘It promotes weapons and violence,’” Andrew said.

She came to me and said, ‘Well, you're not going back to class unless you change or remove your shirt,’" Andrew said.

He refused to comply and was told to go home for the rest of the day.

"I have a First Amendment right, freedom of speech and a Second Amendment right to carry guns," Andrew said.

He's familiar with guns and is captain of the school's skeet team.

of course I support this young man and his family.. gives me someone to mock relentlessly. Flushing teen takes school district to class on 1st and 2nd amendment - Page 2 3493939353

Flushing teen takes school district to class on 1st and 2nd amendment - Page 2 3493939353

by **Rocinante** Tue May 31, 2016 1:24 pm

skeet team.

Probably the skeet skeet skeet team too.

Flushing teen takes school district to class on 1st and 2nd amendment - Page 2 3434560931

by **Robert J Sakimano** Tue May 31, 2016 1:37 pm

xsanguine wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Nah, I live in Michigan. I don't really care. If I lived in Texas id probably care. But I live in Michigan. I also have skills and a skilled job. The impact that whole thing has on me is minimal at best. Do whatever. I'd prefer we not spend billions on a wall that I would see no tangible benefit of. But beyond that- whatever. I don't really care that much.

I live in Michigan, too, Travis of the Cosmos. Ever been to the orchards of west Michigan? Tons of immigrant communities. My grandfather-in-law runs an immigrant camp just north of Grand Rapids where they deal with apples and all sorts of fruits. Those guys are the shit. Hard work and no complaints. I volunteer my time to helping build even better living quarters for them when he asks. They used to live on dirt floors and what not. We build housing for them and shiznit. I love immigrants. They will Make America Great Again.

how can the brown people Make America Great Again when President Trump has promised to send all the murderers and rapists back to Mexico?

by Sponsored content