Devolving

[Larkinn]

originally posted by Kat[/b
But the argument that SCOTUS cases are somehow 'conservative' or 'liberal' doesn't make a lot of sense.

Not the case itself, but the justices on the court. Since those who generally have leftist tendencies on the court voted to allow the speech and those who generally have conservative tendencies on the court voted to disallow the speech, I find it fairly obvious that in this particular case it can be somewhat accurately be said that liberals were more in favor of freedom of speech than conservatives.

originally posted by Cocky
That was what I said Larkin - the weight of law. I made the distinction from teh outset.

Thats nice. Why are we still talking about this? We both agree on what the distinction of the minority opinion is. It is important, but has no weight of law. But yet you feel the need to keep focusing on what I say when I am (accurately) correcting someone else on this matter (Gysgt).

By the way, I also find it telling that neither of you have addressed my point in bringing up this case in the first place, rather you have nitpicked on individual facets of the case which have either been incorrect or seemingly unjustified. The point was, again, to refute a generalization that liberals are always against free speech and conservatives always for it. Can we accept that I've done that and move on?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Liberals are for free speech.... when it benefits them. I never said anything different. Liberals care about one thing, power, they will ally themselves with ANYONE that can get them more power, as long as they believe they can control and manipulae the arrangement.

Conservatives believe in the Constitution, Liberals USE the Constitution and ignore it when it doesn't fit their agenda. Same with the law.

 

[JeffWartman]

Conservatives believe in the Constitution

Only in theory.

Honest Conservatives believe in the Constitution...and there isn't many left in Washington.

 

[Truthmatters]

And I can easily tell you haven't bothered to read the SCOTUS ruling, the opinions of the Justices, nor even the oral arguments presented by the student's counsel before SCOTUS. Figures. You're just another lemming who thinks that students have the right to do as they wish with impunity. Grow up.

Have you read the disenting positions?

 

[Truthmatters]

Natural outcome I suppose:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201704.html

Heres the rub, the others allowed to use it were not advocating the taking of the rights of the other people.

They can use the system to talk as long as that talk does not involve talking about other employees in a degrading manner.

Now tell me what this group said about their fellow employees who happen to be gay?

 

[Truthmatters]

Lets see the actual flyer?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/PDFS/Opinions/GoodNewsruling2-2005.pdf

heres some information G Will left out of his article.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

A school has a right to decide what is acceptable and what is not, the problem is if the rules are inconsistent. For example: a pro war shirt is not allowed, but anti war shirt is ok.

or being gay is wrong shirt is outlawed, and a being gay is great shirt is ok.

You cant use personal or political beliefs to outlaw expression unless, it is consistent and fair.

http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/PDFS/Opinions/GoodNewsruling2-2005.pdf

heres some information G Will left out of his article.

 

[Truthmatters]

Not when one is insulting personally your fellow workers and the other is not.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

What if, a mexican is offended by a white person having an american flag, it did happen. Its not good enough to say, if it offends someone ban it. Their are people who are offended if they hear merry christmas. Their are people who are offended for no reason. Now, I like the idea of common sense, but you cant let political beliefs dictate what is appropriate.

If the gay kid, can wear gay pride, I can wear straight pride.

If you can wear a their is no god shirt, i can wear a jesus loves you shirt

if i were christian.

Look, im not saying i want people wearing death to america shirts or nazi style shirts.

Not when one is insulting personally your fellow workers and the other is not.

 

[Larkinn]

Liberals are for free speech.... when it benefits them. I never said anything different. Liberals care about one thing, power, they will ally themselves with ANYONE that can get them more power, as long as they believe they can control and manipulae the arrangement.

Ah yes, your political persuasion determines whether you are a good person or not. Please, tell me who the liberal justices were trying to ally themselves with here. None of them are a fan of illegal drug use, are you suggesting they were trying to align themselves with the illegal drug lobby? (if one even exists...I suppose the closest would be NORML).

Really try not to generalize. It is incorrect and makes you look like an idiot.

 

[CockySOB]

Have you read the disenting positions?

Of course. I just think that the dissenting opinion of Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg ignores Fredericks actions and stated intentions which when combined with Fredericks words ("bong hits 4 Jesus") show ample evidence of disruptive intent and as such fall within the realm of Tinker. These Justices seem to want to look at only the words of the banner and not at the actual expression put forth by Fredericks which incorporates much more than the simple words "bog hits 4 Jesus." Moreover, I find it reasonable to conclude that Fredericks intended to provoke Morse using these words specifically to cause this sort of incident, which again goes to the heart of the Tinker decision.

The First Amendment is not restricted to "free speech" in the verbal form. Indeed, we have seen the First Amendment cited as protection for all manner of artistic expression, so it would hold (IMO) that Fredericks entire expression should be what is evaluated here, and trying to limit the ruling to only consider the words on his banner is insufficient and would potentially harm other forms of expression which are currently protected via the First Amendment.