Oklahoma banned students could sue the college and win big

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Of course Ferguson is racist ... Ferguson, is today what it has been for the entirety of the lives of those living in Ferguson and that is that Ferguson, MO is a wholly owned subsidiary of:

DEMOCRAT Inc.​

I'm not sure what the point of your word salad is, but the mayor of Ferguson is a Republican.

ROFLMNAO!

YOU? You're saying that YOU can't discern a point, which is as obvious as it is incontestable... ?

And to deflect from that obviously incontestable point, which you claim ya can't understand, ya offer up the trinket that the Mayor of Ferguson is a REPUBLICAN? Like John McCain, Olivia Snow and Peter King? How about the City Council, School Board, and so on?

See the problem? You also do not get the point of 'government', neither do you 'get the point' of the consequences of poor, unsound, inviable governance.

Which in Ferguson (St. Louis...) has been PROGRESSIVE; OKA: 'Leftist' for DECADES!

If a city is run by a Republican government, and that government is incompetent,

how does that make it an incompetent Democratic government?

Can you do something about your chronic redundancy? "Incompetent Government" or "Democratic Government" The two terms are synonymous. You do not need to combine them.

But to answer your question: the PROGRESSIVISM common to those Republicans... which is intrinsic to DEMOCRAT GOVERNMENT. You probably recognize such as "Moderate Republicans".

FYI: That's the reason behind "THE TWO PARTIES ARE THE SAME!"... The Moderate Republicans compromise with the Left... rendering those Republicans into Leftists, er huh... Progressives.

If it helps, we, the Americans, are in the process of running the Progressives out of the GOP.

You'll recall that you refer to Americans as: EXTREMISTS...

Let me ask ya... is the Ferguson Mayor, an Extremist? If so, what are the policies which THE REPUBLICAN MAYOR HAS ADVANCED which you feel represents EXTREMISM!

(Reader, the conversation is about to dry up on around that point...)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

For instance, the right to speak publicly, requires that one bear the responsibility to speak truth, through intellectually sound, logically valid constructs.

Where, explicitly or implicitly, does the 1st amendment's free speech guarantee require the responsibility to be honest when publicly speaking?

Oh that is in the use of the word "Right"... where there exist a right, there must exist a correlating responsibility.

Can't have one without the other. If one bears the responsibility, they exercise the right... if they claim the right, they must bear the correlating responsibility.

On what is THAT based?

It's based upon the declared, self-evident principle: "... that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Meaning that where all men are created with equal rights, that any right one claims for themselves, within that principle, one must axiomatically recognize that right as being common to everyone. Therefore, it follows that one is entitled to exercise their right, as long as they bear the responsibility to not injure the means of another to exercise their own rights... and where I advance falsity as truth, I fail to bear my responsibility to speak, as falsity represented as truth, is axiomatically injurious.

Now you may say that "I have a right to lie to myself...". Ya don't. You have no right to injure yourself, as such is axiomatically injurious to others, who must bear your weight... subsequent to your injury.

If you claim a right to mislead others, you must recognize the right in others to mislead you. And THAT presents as INSANITY.

I have a TOTAL, UNBRIDGED RIGHT TO SPEAK PUBLICLY. Because I am bound by my responsibility to speak truthfully.

I HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK FALSITY, REPRESENTING SUCH AS TRUTH TO ANYONE, in public or in private.

The SCOTUS has made this clear, they just failed to do so in a way which made sense, and in so doing advanced the idiocy that Government has the RIGHT to limit speech.

When in truth.. NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK FALSITY AS TRUTH. That's all they had to say.

Imagine how different the world would be today, IF THEY HAD DONE SO.