Freedom of speak what you what

Originally posted by Merk
Not allowing people to advocate illegal activities in a place that you're responsible for is completely reasonable.

Actually, bongs or waterpipes are legal in many states. It is what most people put in them that is illegal. If I were to say "Shots for Jesus" I could be advocating Jesus boozing or I could be advocating Jesus doing heroin. Would the principal be within his right to make me take down my sign? I mean, if I was saying Jesus should do a shot of whiskey, well, that wouldn't be illegal assuming Jesus was 21.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Actually, bongs or waterpipes are legal in many states. It is what most people put in them that is illegal. If I were to say "Shots for Jesus" I could be advocating Jesus boozing or I could be advocating Jesus doing heroin. Would the principal be within his right to make me take down my sign? I mean, if I was saying Jesus should do a shot of whiskey, well, that wouldn't be illegal assuming Jesus was 21.

I'm not sure that your post was coherent enough for me to give an accurate reply, but here goes.

Yes.

Originally posted by Merk
I'm not sure that your post was coherent enough for me to give an accurate reply, but here goes.

Yes.

So it isn't that he was espousing something illegal, it was that he was espousing something that principal didn't agree with? Hmmm... seems a bit like censorship.

Originally posted by Merk
Why be such a combative donkey?

Nobody said all laws are great, nor did I imply it.

If you don't think that its reasonable for the executive of a facility to protect that facility from liability, you need to get out into the real world a little more.

Your position implies that laws are not to be questioned. Whether you're aware of that implication is an open question.

What liability? The views expressed by one student at a school do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of its staff, faculty, other students, etc. Tell me (oh ye of great real-world expertise 🙄) - on what grounds would anyone sue?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yes, because there have never been any unjust laws, nor change in laws. The law is a static, perfect moral code that must never be questioned.

But this action of the principal WAS challenged -- in court.

Now, if someone wants to challenge this precedent by again displaying a banner and again going to court -- they will have a hard time because the Supreme Court has already ruled.

But the precedent can still be questioned by petitioning the legisltature. If a law is passed that says something like "students' right to free speech by displaying banners at school functions will not be abridged," that will trump the Supreme Court ruling.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Otherwise, where is the line to be drawn? Who decides and how? What's next in the firing line? Criticism of politicians?? Criticism of anyone and anything? Should every form of negative criticism be considered "hate speech"???

I believe anything and everything is fair game provided you can back up your claims and don't mind being challenged yourself if ...[text shortened]... should go for any and every religion, belief and theory regardless of who is offended by it.

Would you support my right to publish cartoons of your mother being sodomised with obvious enjoyment by a troop of baboons?

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Yes.

If thats the case then who has the right to draw the limits ?

What is normal for one person maybe an offence for another.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Would you support my right to publish cartoons of your mother being sodomised with obvious enjoyment by a troop of baboons?

I would, and do, support that right Bosse.

There are excetions to freedom of expression, the yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater example has been mentioned. The other example is related and that limit is; where something you say is untrue and also damages a persons reputation/business. They are related in that both are a type of fraud.

But if you were to publish those cartoons they would say more about you than my mother and there would be no need to take legal action against you.

Originally posted by RSMA1234
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6238672.stm

I have always thought that Freedom of speech is an illusion, why should a student lose his rights when entering a school

It was at a school event while the student was under the responsibility of the school staff.

And the fact that it was "non-sensical" seems like it should be taken as irrelevant. I can say all sorts of assinine things and pretend I don't understand the meaning.

Had the SC ruled in the students favor, all sorts of complete crab could be placed on T-shirts worn at school and the administrators would have no recourse.

Free Speech applies while in society at large. If someone enters my house, I can kick them out because they say my lawn has brown spots. You lose your right to free speech when you enter my house, car, and yacht (I wish). The school is a government organization so it has to be fair and reasonable, but some sensical control on student behaviour is within the spirit of free speech.

What if a student wore a T-shirt to school that said "My teacher is a Ni****"? Would you suggest the first ammendment prevents the school from having any say?

Originally posted by spruce112358
But this action of the principal WAS challenged -- in court.

Now, if someone wants to challenge this precedent by again displaying a banner and again going to court -- they will have a hard time because the Supreme Court has already ruled.

But the precedent can still be questioned by petitioning the legisltature. If a law is passed that says somet ...[text shortened]... banners at school functions will not be abridged," that will trump the Supreme Court ruling.

The new law is just like the first amendment, except it's applied only to one situation. There's nothing to stop the supreme court from (mis)interpreting it in the same way.

Originally posted by spruce112358
But this action of the principal WAS challenged -- in court.

Now, if someone wants to challenge this precedent by again displaying a banner and again going to court -- they will have a hard time because the Supreme Court has already ruled.

But the precedent can still be questioned by petitioning the legisltature. If a law is passed that says somet ...[text shortened]... banners at school functions will not be abridged," that will trump the Supreme Court ruling.

Say what? I thought the only thing to trump a Supreme Court Ruling was an amendment to the constitution? The Supreme Court has the final say as to what law, passed by the Legislature, is constitutional or not?

Originally posted by RSMA1234
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6238672.stm

I have always thought that Freedom of speech is an illusion, why should a student lose his rights when entering a school

Because he was at a school and they have their own set of rules.

I'd like to see a teenager try the freedom of speech excuse for lipping off to his father/mother. Whack!

Or at church, yell out, Jesus was a Ho!!...see how long ya last there.

Originally posted by smw6869
Say what? I thought the only thing to trump a Supreme Court Ruling was an amendment to the constitution? The Supreme Court has the final say as to what law, passed by the Legislature, is constitutional or not?

In Canada a government can use the "nothwithstanding Clause" which states the government can choose to ignore a Supreme Court ruling if it chooses to.

Our current government (Conservative) was considering using this clause after the supreme court ruled banning gay marriage was unconstitutional but backed down when the majority of canadians agreed with our supreme court.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Would you support my right to publish cartoons of your mother being sodomised with obvious enjoyment by a troop of baboons?

Absolutely! Provided of course you don't mind me doing the same about your own mother. There'd be no point of course because most public cartoons are of famous people (famous for whatever reason), whereas my mother is hardly famous.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Would you support my right to publish cartoons of your mother being sodomised with obvious enjoyment by a troop of baboons?

But anyway you didn't answer my question: Should David Irving's theories about the Holocaust and the cartoons of Muuuhhhammmmad be classified as hate speech or was their censorship an attack on freedom?

If so, where is the line to be drawn? Who decides and how? What's next in the firing line? Criticism of politicians?? Criticism of anyone and anything? Should every form of negative criticism be considered "hate speech"???