Why are you so intolerant, AL? I'm just wondering. What is it that you hate so much about people having an opinion with which you disagree? Your stance is nothing more than ideological bullying. Also, to deny someone the liberty and individuality to speak and express themselves is to also hate debate because you can't debate. Instead you seek to harass and label an opinion as non-pc or such. Our society depends on non-conformists whether you agree with them or not. That is how issues work themselves out. To shove them under the rug so they are discussed in back alleys is to demean yourself and liberty. You are favoring one persons faith and liberty over another's faith and liberty. That IS N...

Why are you so intolerant, AL? I'm just wondering. What is it that you hate so much about people having an opinion with which you disagree? Your stance is nothing more than ideological bullying. Also, to deny someone the liberty and individuality to speak and express themselves is to also hate debate because you can't debate. Instead you seek to harass and label an opinion as non-pc or such. Our society depends on non-conformists whether you agree with them or not. That is how issues work themselves out. To shove them under the rug so they are discussed in back alleys is to demean yourself and liberty. You are favoring one persons faith and liberty over another's faith and liberty. That IS NOT compassion. That is not fostering acceptance. That is not practicing tolerance. That is not liberty. THAT is HATE!

I see nowhere in this clip that the Christian is seeking to limit the liberty of another. He is simply expressing his view in the hope that someone may direct themselves toward God. Now you may not agree with that and that is certainly your right, but the Christain also has the equal right.

You are favoring one persons faith and liberty over another's faith and liberty. That IS NOT compassion. That is not fostering acceptance. That is not practicing tolerance. That is not liberty. THAT is HATE!

I see nowhere in this clip that the Christian is seeking to limit the liberty of another. He is simply expressing his view in the hope that someone may direct themselves toward God. Now you may not agree with that and that is certainly your right, but the Christain also has the equal right.

I think you put a lot of your own interpretation (putting words in my mouth) into my comment.

I mentioned no faith or religion. In fact I explicitly said the "source" of...

You are favoring one persons faith and liberty over another's faith and liberty. That IS NOT compassion. That is not fostering acceptance. That is not practicing tolerance. That is not liberty. THAT is HATE!

I see nowhere in this clip that the Christian is seeking to limit the liberty of another. He is simply expressing his view in the hope that someone may direct themselves toward God. Now you may not agree with that and that is certainly your right, but the Christain also has the equal right.

I think you put a lot of your own interpretation (putting words in my mouth) into my comment.

I mentioned no faith or religion. In fact I explicitly said the "source" of the hate is irrelevant.

You're talking about religion, and rights to bring people to god and so forth.

That's completely irrelevant.

What IS relevant is harassing other students with hate speech designed to provoke. The school has a responsibility to protect all students equally.

Allowing hate speech of any kind while on campus undermines that responsibility. The judge agreed. That's not favoring one persons rights over another; it's treating them all with equal dignity and protection.

"You're talking about religion, and rights to bring people to god and so forth.

That's completely irrelevant."

True statement.

"What IS relevant is harassing other students with hate speech designed to provoke. The school has a responsibility to protect all students equally."

...to an extent. More below.

"Allowing hate speech of any kind while on campus undermines that responsibility. The judge agreed. That's not favoring one persons rights over another; it's treating them all with equal dignity and protection."

It _is_ favoring one person's rights above another's. It's a free speech issue, and the school (ultimately under the authority of the federal government) is deciding what spe...

"You're talking about religion, and rights to bring people to god and so forth.

That's completely irrelevant."

True statement.

"What IS relevant is harassing other students with hate speech designed to provoke. The school has a responsibility to protect all students equally."

...to an extent. More below.

"Allowing hate speech of any kind while on campus undermines that responsibility. The judge agreed. That's not favoring one persons rights over another; it's treating them all with equal dignity and protection."

It _is_ favoring one person's rights above another's. It's a free speech issue, and the school (ultimately under the authority of the federal government) is deciding what speech is approved and what is not. The First Amendment does not _allow_ the government to make that decision -- the government has not the authority nor the right.

I'll boil this down to its essence:

The only real reason this is an issue is that these kids are _required_ to attend a government-run education center. Really, the government does _not_ have the right to make that requirement. By overreaching their authority, the government is creating problems that can only be resolved (no, make that "palliated") by _further_ infringing on the rights of the people.

The Constitution explicitly states that individuals have the right to speak freely, and that the government has no authority to infringe upon that right. _No where_ does the Constitution give the government the authority to creat _mandatory_ government-controlled education centers. The right to speak your mind supercedes the right of the government to protect such centers.

(And don't bring up private schools. I find it highly ironic that (generally left-leaning) defenders of the failing public school system use that as a counter-example, since that avenue is only open to people who have thousands of dollars extra to spend on tuition each year....)

The only real reason this is an issue is that these kids are _required_
to attend a government-run education center. Really, the government
does _not_ have the right to make that requirement. By overreaching
their authority, the government is creating problems that can only be
resolved (no, make that "palliated") by _further_ infringing on the
rights of the people.

The Constitution explicitly states that
individuals have the right to speak freely, and that the government has
no authority to infringe upon that right. _No where_ does the
Constitution give the government the authority to creat _mandatory_
government-controlled education centers. The right to speak your mind
supercedes t...

The only real reason this is an issue is that these kids are _required_
to attend a government-run education center. Really, the government
does _not_ have the right to make that requirement. By overreaching
their authority, the government is creating problems that can only be
resolved (no, make that "palliated") by _further_ infringing on the
rights of the people.

The Constitution explicitly states that
individuals have the right to speak freely, and that the government has
no authority to infringe upon that right. _No where_ does the
Constitution give the government the authority to creat _mandatory_
government-controlled education centers. The right to speak your mind
supercedes the right of the government to protect such centers.

That is an excellent point, strider.

@strider72

AL said:

That's not favoring one persons rights over another; it's treating them all with equal dignity and protection."

strider72 said:

"It _is_ favoring one person's rights above another's. It's a free speech issue, ..."

Nope. They are all being treated the same.

"...and the school (ultimately under the authority of the federal government)..."

As is everyone, with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter a branch of the Fed. government...

is deciding what speech is approved and what is not.

as is its right on its campus.

The First Amendment does not _allow_ the government to make that decision -- the gov...

read more»

@strider72

AL said:

That's not favoring one persons rights over another; it's treating them all with equal dignity and protection."

strider72 said:

"It _is_ favoring one person's rights above another's. It's a free speech issue, ..."

Nope. They are all being treated the same.

"...and the school (ultimately under the authority of the federal government)..."

As is everyone, with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter a branch of the Fed. government...

is deciding what speech is approved and what is not.

as is its right on its campus.

The First Amendment does not _allow_ the government to make that decision -- the government has not the authority nor the right.

The government did not make that decision (even though it has the right). The SCHOOL made that decision and the court agreed it has that right.

All speech is not free. That is the essence. Ever heard of Libel? Ever heard of Slander? It is in fact illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, esp. where there is none.

Is it free speech? Yes. Is it allowed? No.

The only real reason this is an issue is that these kids are _required_ to attend a government-run education center.

False. It is an issue because the school felt such hate speech could be incendiary and cause harm to its students. The judge agreed.

Sorry; everything else you mentioned is irrelevant to the case. The school has the right to restrict behavior that could cause harm to others.

It has nothing to do with private or public, religion or god.

With every point you make you just insist that liberty take a back seat to YOUR opinion.

Again, you only hear what's in your own mind. I said nothing about individuality and liberty. Here's what I said:

"What IS relevant is harassing other students with hate speech designed to provoke. The school has a responsibility to protect all students equally.

Allowing hate speech of any kind while on campus undermines that responsibility. The judge agreed. That's not favoring one persons rights over another; it's treating them all with equal dignity and protection."

If this is absurd in your own mind, then so be it. The judge and the school simply disagree with y...

With every point you make you just insist that liberty take a back seat to YOUR opinion.

Again, you only hear what's in your own mind. I said nothing about individuality and liberty. Here's what I said:

"What IS relevant is harassing other students with hate speech designed to provoke. The school has a responsibility to protect all students equally.

Allowing hate speech of any kind while on campus undermines that responsibility. The judge agreed. That's not favoring one persons rights over another; it's treating them all with equal dignity and protection."

If this is absurd in your own mind, then so be it. The judge and the school simply disagree with you. But then, they are charged with the protection of these children. You are not.

Perhaps one day, kids would like the right to bring guns to school. And I'm sure you will defend their Constitutional right to do so. And I'm sure the school will not allow it. And I'm sure the courts will agree with the school.

The world continues to turn...

Perhaps one day, kids would like the right to bring guns to school. And
I'm sure you will defend their Constitutional right to do so. And I'm
sure the school will not allow it. And I'm sure the courts will agree
with the school.

I am in shock. After 1 entire year you are actually able to make a half way decent point - even though technically it is a non-sequitur as the two points vary in the application of personal liberty.
Too bad it was muct too little too late. The inanities of your absurdities prevailed.

I would normally be happy to take this latest point to the new direction you propose, but as I told you months ago: you are incorrigible and I am not drawn to the futili...

Perhaps one day, kids would like the right to bring guns to school. And
I'm sure you will defend their Constitutional right to do so. And I'm
sure the school will not allow it. And I'm sure the courts will agree
with the school.

I am in shock. After 1 entire year you are actually able to make a half way decent point - even though technically it is a non-sequitur as the two points vary in the application of personal liberty.
Too bad it was muct too little too late. The inanities of your absurdities prevailed.

I would normally be happy to take this latest point to the new direction you propose, but as I told you months ago: you are incorrigible and I am not drawn to the futility of your obfuscation that is excrutiatingly evident in this thread.

"...and the school (ultimately under the authority of the federal government)..."

As is everyone, with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter a branch of the Fed. government...

By "under the authority" I meant that the school acts as a _part_ of that authority.

The First Amendment does not _allow_ the government to make that decision -- the government has not the authority nor the right.

The government did not make that decision (even though it has the
right). The SCHOOL made that decision....

... and as the school acts as _part_ of federal authority, this statement is not true.

The only real reason this is an issue is t...

read more»

"...and the school (ultimately under the authority of the federal government)..."

As is everyone, with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter a branch of the Fed. government...

By "under the authority" I meant that the school acts as a _part_ of that authority.

The First Amendment does not _allow_ the government to make that decision -- the government has not the authority nor the right.

The government did not make that decision (even though it has the
right). The SCHOOL made that decision....

... and as the school acts as _part_ of federal authority, this statement is not true.

The only real reason this is an issue is that these kids are _required_ to attend a government-run education center.

False. It is an issue because the school felt such hate speech could be incendiary and cause harm to its students.

You miss the point. if the student has the choice to leave at will, free speech would not be an issue. They could say "you can't wear that shirt", and he could respond "Okay. Goodbye...." What they would really be saying is "You can't wear that shirt and stay here, but you can go elsewhere."

The student _does not_ have the freedom to leave, by government mandate. In that context, a rule limiting his speech carries the same weight as a law limiting his speech, because a law requires him to submit to those rules.

As to the distinction between "hate speech" and any other speech -- it's a mirage: a politically plausible way to outlaw "speech I don't agree with". Such laws completely miss the point that the First Amendment is specifically there to protect UNPOPULAR speech, as of course popular speech needs no protection.

I do not agree with the tenets of the communist party, but I will defend their right to speak their minds. Ditto the KKK, the Nazis, and whatever other reprehensible groups you might come up with. Free speech is free speech.