A Culture of Intolerance

[PaintMyHouse]

"Freely" does not mean "whenever I feel like it."

The principal "felt like" the display would be controversial, despite not proving that assertion to be true. If that school receives government funds, they are obligated by the same constitutional constraints. Government shall not make laws (or rules in this case) that infringe on free speech.

There are many restrictions Free Speech. The schools have even more, in order to keep the peace.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know the rulings. Students, like employees, and especially soldiers, have limited free speech rights at work, at school, and in the active service. The authorities are allow to curtail them as they feel necessary. If they can spank your child, and they often can, they can tell her to put her anti-abortion display away and leave it at home next time. It actually is part of their job.

So, children are compelled to attend an institution which curtails their rights? Is there an opt-out?


Screen shot this folks, because this is the largest admission you will ever see that Public Schools are intended to be Training Facilities, instead of Educational Facilities. The reason we spend the most money per pupil, and have the worst educational results, is not because the Government is doing something wrong, it's actually doing exactly what it intends to do, produce constitutionally ignorant serfs, and it costs a lot of money to do that.

SCREENSHOT

Screen shot this, folks, so you can always have a witness to 2dA's dialogue wrongly describing public schooling as some how "Training Facilities" than "Educational Facilities."

Ask him what that even means. He does not have a clue.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I know the rulings. Students, like employees, and especially soldiers, have limited free speech rights at work, at school, and in the active service. The authorities are allow to curtail them as they feel necessary. If they can spank your child, and they often can, they can tell her to put her anti-abortion display away and leave it at home next time. It actually is part of their job.

So, children are compelled to attend an institution which curtails their rights? Is there an opt-out?

I'm afraid not. This is why I'm libertarian. People should be able to express themselves freely anywhere without any constraints but one, that such expression doesn't endanger the safety and welfare of others. Speech is nothing but words, words do no harm, actions do.

I am afraid that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Freely" does not mean "whenever I feel like it."

The principal "felt like" the display would be controversial, despite not proving that assertion to be true. If that school receives government funds, they are obligated by the same constitutional constraints. Government shall not make laws (or rules in this case) that infringe on free speech.

"Free Speech" is not unlimited. If I were teaching a class in biology on a particular core module, I would not permit you to talk about abortion unless it were (1) relevant to what we were doing and (2) if I, as instructor, wanted it incorporated at that point in the class.

It should be unlimited. Where in the First Amendment did the founders issue exceptions?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, children are compelled to attend an institution which curtails their rights? Is there an opt-out?

I'm afraid not. This is why I'm libertarian. People should be able to express themselves freely anywhere without any constraints but one, that such expression doesn't endanger the safety and welfare of others. Speech is nothing but words, words do no harm, actions do.

I am afraid that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Actually, I proved they disagreed with you. So stop with the shenanigans.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Freely" does not mean "whenever I feel like it."

The principal "felt like" the display would be controversial, despite not proving that assertion to be true. If that school receives government funds, they are obligated by the same constitutional constraints. Government shall not make laws (or rules in this case) that infringe on free speech.

There are many restrictions Free Speech. The schools have even more, in order to keep the peace.

Sure. Or do you not realize that such restrictions could have the opposite effect?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The principal "felt like" the display would be controversial, despite not proving that assertion to be true. If that school receives government funds, they are obligated by the same constitutional constraints. Government shall not make laws (or rules in this case) that infringe on free speech.

There are many restrictions Free Speech. The schools have even more, in order to keep the peace.

Sure. Or do you not realize that such restrictions could have the opposite effect?

Unlike you, I know what the law is, and the concepts behind it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

"Training Facilities" than "Educational Facilities."

Ask him what that even means. He does not have a clue.

A dog can be trained, but it cannot be educated.

But you're a Progressive dog, so no matter what we say, you can never be educated.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm still waiting on an answer to my question. Using the test that was employed in Tinker, Bethel and Hazelwood, can you prove to me this display would have hindered the school's educational goals or disrupted them?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Where in the First Amendment did the founders issue exceptions?

They didn't, and yet we have them and it is the law. Now what?

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are many restrictions Free Speech. The schools have even more, in order to keep the peace.

Sure. Or do you not realize that such restrictions could have the opposite effect?

Unlike you, I know what the law is, and the concepts behind it.

Of course you do. Such a display of arrogance can only mean your argument is dead in the water. Unlike you, I know that some laws are unjust, and need to be amended or repealed. Such as school rules that restrict harmless speech including expressions of a sociopolitical viewpoint.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Unlike you, I know what the law is, and the concepts behind it.

No one argues that you do, or do not know what the law states. What we argue is whether or not it is, or is not, Constitutional.

Rounding up Japanese was the law of the land during World War II, was it legal?

You seem to very content with laws that violate the Constitution. That's what's wrong with you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm still waiting on an answer to my question. Using the test that was employed in Tinker, Bethel and Hazelwood, can you prove to me this display would have hindered the school's educational goals or disrupted them?

I don't have to. That falls on the school's administrators. You can always take it to court but you will most likely lose. The school almost always is given the benefit of the doubt, the same as you are when you punish your child. It might have been too much but the courts hate to dig into such matters.

 

[Luissa]

It has become quite obvious to me that in the years after I left school, that there is little tolerance of certain political views that students hold in school. Especially on hot button issues like abortion. As this 17 year old high school student found out, it's not okay to freely express your worldviews in school. If you don't believe government and politics have any influence in the classroom, you're in for a rude awakening. There is a culture of intolerance that is nurtured in the minds of our children that cannot be allowed to continue. The school should be a place where ideas and views are accepted no matter what they are. The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just to those who hold like views.

BRANFORD, Conn. (WTNH)– Life-sized replicas of fetuses are too much for lunchtime at Branford High School. A student leader of the school’s pro-life club says the principal banned her from using the models and she is fighting that.



Seventeen-year-old Samantha is a senior at Branford High School and she is learning a harsh lesson in education policy after trying to set up a pro-life table during lunch at Branford High.



“When we asked our principal at our school if we can have this set up during lunch and have an opportunity for kids to come over and take a look at our display, he said no,” said Samantha Bailey-Loomis.



Samantha is the founder of the students for life club. Their table is complete with blown-up images of fetuses and real- life sized fetus models that look just like the real thing and she says that doesn’t sit well with her principal.



“He tells us that this topic in particular is too controversial to be talked about in public school,” said Bailey-Loomis.

Life-sized fetus causes cafeteria controversy at Connecticut school | WWLP

Do they allow Planned Parenthood to set up a table?
If not you have no point. The girl should leave her crusade for after school. When I was in high school Pro Life people walked up and down across the street with large signs of aborted fetuses. It was horrible. What is it with some Pro Life people?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Unlike you, I know what the law is, and the concepts behind it.

No one argues that you do, or do not know what the law states. What we argue is whether or not it is, or is not, Constitutional.

Rounding up Japanese was the law of the land during World War II, was it legal?

You seem to very content with laws that violate the Constitution. That's what's wrong with you.

Nothing is wrong with me. I deal in reality, not Ayn Rand Fantasyland.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You're twisting it, and no you don't. You were no more aware of the rulings before I presented them than you are now.

Tinker vs. Des Moines says administrators in schools cannot punish students free speech if it doesn't disrupt the educational environment. So, what about that pro-life display disrupted that school's educational environment? Care to elaborate?

Tinker said that the arm bands were expressing a Political View and not disruptive to educational environment, which the authorities are charged with maintaining. Had it been a Nazi armband they would have lost, as that would have been considered to be disruptive by a reasonable person.

The Pro-life display, with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses in the lunchroom, would be an obvious one to crack down on. They did not stop an abortion debate in a debate class, although they certainly could have, they stopped what they felt was disruptive to, in this case, kids eating lunch. They could just have easily stopped other forms or protected speech outside the environment as well such as Preaching, Stripping, and Singing God Bless America. They are charged with keeping the order and the courts usually give them the benefit of the doubt even when they error.

A time and a place my young friends, a time and a place.

You don't know that, PMH!

Being Pro-Life is also a sociopolitical viewpoint, so why doesn't that fall under the same reasoning you've used? Also, there were no displays of "aborted fetuses", just a display of the human gestation cycle. If that had been the case, I would have agreed with the principal. Lovely how you spun that into something it wasn't.

Now prove to me how this would have actually be a disruption to the stated educational goals of that school? Is Human Biology not taught in school? That's all such a display represents.

Say what? You would have shut her down too.....if she had some images of aborted fetuses? Why?

Also....please stop looking things up on Wikipedia and pretending to understand them.

Thanks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm still waiting on an answer to my question. Using the test that was employed in Tinker, Bethel and Hazelwood, can you prove to me this display would have hindered the school's educational goals or disrupted them?

I don't have to. That falls on the school's administrators. You can always take it to court but you will most likely lose. The school almost always is given the benefit of the doubt, the same as you are when you punish your child. It might have been too much but the courts hate to dig into such matters.

Yes you do. You made the contention that it was a disruptive influence. Stop dodging. Using applicable case law, show me where such a display would have been such. You're already biased towards pro-choice, which I would surmise leads you to favor the school's actions, even when they clearly were wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unlike you, I know what the law is, and the concepts behind it.

No one argues that you do, or do not know what the law states. What we argue is whether or not it is, or is not, Constitutional.

Rounding up Japanese was the law of the land during World War II, was it legal?

You seem to very content with laws that violate the Constitution. That's what's wrong with you.

Nothing is wrong with me. I deal in reality, not Ayn Rand Fantasyland.

Does reality include insulting others viewpoints?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sure. Or do you not realize that such restrictions could have the opposite effect?

Unlike you, I know what the law is, and the concepts behind it.

Of course you do. Such a display of arrogance can only mean your argument is dead in the water. Unlike you, I know that some laws are unjust, and need to be amended or repealed. Such as school rules that restrict harmless speech including expressions of a sociopolitical viewpoint.

The school found it disruptive. That's their call. They could have told her to put on a sweater, put on a longer skirt, cover her bra straps, or stop singing Jesus Loves Me This I Know during class. She is a student, they are the authorities. Like it or not, that's how it works in the real world.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unlike you, I know what the law is, and the concepts behind it.

No one argues that you do, or do not know what the law states. What we argue is whether or not it is, or is not, Constitutional.

Rounding up Japanese was the law of the land during World War II, was it legal?

You seem to very content with laws that violate the Constitution. That's what's wrong with you.

Nothing is wrong with me. I deal in reality, not Ayn Rand Fantasyland.

There is a lot wrong with you. You have an obvious selective interpretation of the First Amendment when it pertains to undesirable expressions of speech that contradict your stated worldviews. We call that hypocrisy.