Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Speech Police, Riding High In Oakland
By George F. Will
Sunday, June 24, 2007; B07
Marriage is the foundation of the natural family and sustains family values. That sentence is inflammatory, perhaps even a hate crime.
At least it is in Oakland, Calif. That city's government says those words, italicized here, constitute something akin to hate speech and can be proscribed from the government's open e-mail system and employee bulletin board.
When the McCain-Feingold law empowered government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of political campaign speech about government, it was predictable that the right of free speech would increasingly be sacrificed to various social objectives that free speech supposedly impedes. And it was predictable that speech suppression would become an instrument of cultural combat, used to settle ideological scores and advance political agendas by silencing adversaries.
That has happened in Oakland. And, predictably, the ineffable U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ratified this abridgement of First Amendment protections. Fortunately, overturning the 9th Circuit is steady work for the U.S. Supreme Court.
...
Bongs hit 4 Jesus....
liberals are censoring people?
Yes. Too bad alluding to the Morse ET AL v. Fredericks won't help you as the ruling was a sustaining of settled law.
Fredericks was a high school student who attended a high school authorized event during normal school hours. His actions violated existing school policy which justified Morse in disciplining the boy.
So how exactly were you trying to tie this case to the issue of First Amendment rights and censorship?
Yes...settled law that removes someones freedom of speech.
Umm no. The Constitution over-rides school policy.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe its because they are censoring him because its percieved to be promoting drug use, which is against school policy.
Figures. You're just another lemming who thinks that students have the right to do as they wish with impunity. Grow up.
I would hold, however, that the school's interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech "reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use," ante, at 1, cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more.
You're just another lemming who thinks that students have the right to do as they wish with impunity. Grow up.
Which, amusingly enough, I don't even believe. Rather I was pointing out that conservatives are not always for free speech and liberals are not always against it. But you decided to make the asinine claim that this case had nothing to do with the first amendment, and then accused me of not reading it when if YOU had read it, you would have noticed in the dissent Stevens specifically mentions the 1st Amendment.
And what was the ruling of the majority? Oh yeah, there was no action violating the First Amendment rights of Joseph Fredericks. The minority opinion does NOT carry the weight of law, unlike the majority opinion.
Moreover, I never said the case itself did not address First Amendment issues,
So how exactly were you trying to tie this case to the issue of First Amendment rights and censorship
but that the ruling was that no First Amendment violations occurred when Morse removed Fredericks' banner and suspended him for violating a standing school policy.
Natural outcome I suppose:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201704.html
Students in High school and lower schools have been ruled to not have the full protection of the 1st amendment and that has been true for the entire history of our country.
A minority opinion from a court carries no weight what so ever, it does not establish precedent nor law. Never has and again unless someone changes our laws, never will. It is simply the opinion of those that lost.
However, the rights of an individual may not intrude upon the rights of another. In high school, the right of free speech must be weighed against the common good of the other students, and any speech which is disruptive or harmful does not receive the protections of the First Amendment. The same holds true for actions. Protecting the freedoms of the majority is every bit as valuable as protecting the freedoms of the minority.Thats correct, but what you fail to realize is that this court case is an argument against such generalizations like "Liberals "know whats best" they are only for Free Speech when it benefits them. Just as any other "right" or privalege. They are the "enlightened" and consider the rest of us ignorant boobs that need taken care of." because here is a case where liberals were for expanding free speech and conservatives were for restricting it.
But that weight is not the weight of law, but of legal opinion - BIG difference. Legal opinion might be considered when someone is making a similar or related argument, but those arguments are not the equivalent of an existing law nor of a court ruling.Incorrect. It does not establish precedent nor law, but it does carry weight. There is a reason they spend their time righting dissenting opinions.
However, the rights of an individual may not intrude upon the rights of another. In high school, the right of free speech must be weighed against the common good of the other students, and any speech which is disruptive or harmful does not receive the protections of the First Amendment. The same holds true for actions. Protecting the freedoms of the majority is every bit as valuable as protecting the freedoms of the minority.
But that weight is not the weight of law, but of legal opinion - BIG difference. Legal opinion might be considered when someone is making a similar or related argument, but those arguments are not the equivalent of an existing law nor of a court ruling.
Which, amusingly enough, I don't even believe. Rather I was pointing out that conservatives are not always for free speech and liberals are not always against it. But you decided to make the asinine claim that this case had nothing to do with the first amendment, and then accused me of not reading it when if YOU had read it, you would have noticed in the dissent Stevens specifically mentions the 1st Amendment.
I believe they ruled it was not disruptive, but it was harmful, yes? After all, its hard to disrupt a situation where kids are throwing shit at each other. Or at least hard to think that its unjustifiable to disrupt that.
Again...for the third time now...my issue in bringing up this case was not to debate the relative merits of the case, which I have mixed feelings about, but rather to argue against the generalization that all liberals are always against freedom of speech and all conservatives are always for it.
Of course its different, its vastly different. But is not true that it "carries no weight whatsoever" as someone claimed.
And what was the ruling of the majority? Oh yeah, there was no action violating the First Amendment rights of Joseph Fredericks. The minority opinion does NOT carry the weight of law, unlike the majority opinion.
