free speech takes a hit

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Somer : do you honestly believe that Bush himself goes over the list. Do you,in fact, know if any Wiccan Organization has been turned down,or for that matter requested such aid? I'm not looking to argue,but let's not put the cart before the horse!

Don't be naive, Bush doesn't have to personally go over the list, he has hundreds of like-thinking cronies to do his dirty work. I know about the Wiccan soldiers who died in Iraq, their families weren't allowed to place Wiccan religious symbols on their tombstones. I know Bush stated to ABC that he doesn't think Wicca is a religion. I know his buddy Strom Thurman said it should be banned in the military and compared it to Satanism and cults. I doubt Bush has the slightest idea what Wicca or Witchcraft if you prefer is all about, what we believe etc.

[timmgirvan]

Naivete aside...you gotta fill out the paperwork before you get the goods!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Don't be naive, Bush doesn't have to personally go over the list, he has hundreds of like-thinking cronies to do his dirty work. I know about the Wiccan soldiers who died in Iraq, their families weren't allowed to place Wiccan religious symbols on their tombstones. I know Bush stated to ABC that he doesn't think Wicca is a religion. I know his buddy Strom Thurman said it should be banned in the military and compared it to Satanism and cults. I doubt Bush has the slightest idea what Wicca or Witchcraft if you prefer is all about, what we believe etc.

they have changed their stance, and the wiccan symbols have been allowed.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

they have changed their stance, and the wiccan symbols have been allowed.

Don't confuse him with the facts!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Don't confuse him with the facts!

well, just wasn't sure if somer saw that the wiccan religion has been added to the DoD list of recognized religions. symbols were placed on the tombstones of the deceased soldiers.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'm not sure if that is even allowed these days, I think that would also not be allowed because of possible insensitivity to other religious groups.

Just seems kinda silly that this issue took up the time of the supreme court.

the supreme court chooses which cases to hear, so they evidently felt it was worth their time.

no, it may not be the best example of rights being trampled--but it's one of several rulings lately that gives me and others pause. and of course many feel that any chipping away of rights weakens the constitution. i agree. altho most would say that what the boy did was silly, or inane, or somehow promoted drug use ( i wouldn't go that far, i think he did it to get attention, and it worked), and that they found it offensive (have to wonder, what if it had said bong hits for bozo the clown?) it is his right to express himself--whether his stance is popular or not. and the constitution is designed to protect the unpopular view.
it kills me whenever people say majority rules. it does NOT rule. the constitution was written to protect the minority, as majority rule can quickly become mob rule.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, just wasn't sure if somer saw that the wiccan religion has been added to the DoD list of recognized religions. symbols were placed on the tombstones of the deceased soldiers.

Danzig: Somer knows this, but it makes for a better story if we're still hunting Wiccans. Somer: if this is that important to you,please get the leaders on board so they can benefit from the program!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Danzig: Somer knows this, but it makes for a better story if we're still hunting Wiccans. Somer: if this is that important to you,please get the leaders on board so they can benefit from the program!

but he does have a point--so many want to judge others--a non-mainstream religion seems a good target for many. look at al sharptons comments about mitt romney for instance. it shows ignorance on behalf of the speaker when they denigrate a religion that they really know nothing about. it's different, therefore dangerous. i also felt that the wiccans should be able to put their symbol on their tombstone--those guys fought and died for everyone, not just those of the 'correct' faith. thankfully the error was corrected.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but he does have a point--so many want to judge others--a non-mainstream religion seems a good target for many. look at al sharptons comments about mitt romney for instance. it shows ignorance on behalf of the speaker when they denigrate a religion that they really know nothing about. it's different, therefore dangerous. i also felt that the wiccans should be able to put their symbol on their tombstone--those guys fought and died for everyone, not just those of the 'correct' faith. thankfully the error was corrected.

Thanks Mrs Z, I'm glad someone sees my point. Yes, after a considerable effort, the symbols were finally allowed...as I originally stated, "the families weren't allowed to place Wiccan religious symbols on their tombstones"...past tense. The courts will correct many abuses of the Constitution...DoD has recognized Wicca for some time but folks like Bush and Thurman have publically questioned this policy and called for it to be changed.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

From reading the article, the kid was suspended...so he wasn't just told to take the banner down, he was kicked out of school...that's more than telling a noisy kid to be quiet!

the way I read it, he was told to take the banner down and didn't. then
he was suspended.

whatever his message is, in fact he admits he doesn't have one, I wonder how many other avenues he has used in order to express himself and his ideas?, has he passed out leaflets, gone door to door, taken out ads in the paper, written letters to the editor, stood on the corner preaching his ideas, created a website or blog, written a book, gone on local TV, etc. It would seem that all of those are freely available to him and others, and could be used to exercise his free speech. However just because a principle thought a single banner was perhaps not appropriate for a particular school sponsored event we need to be concerned about living in a totalitarian state?

I think people sometimes go way out of there way to be offended or in claiming to be disenfranchised.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the way I read it, he was told to take the banner down and didn't. then
he was suspended.

whatever his message is, in fact he admits he doesn't have one, I wonder how many other avenues he has used in order to express himself and his ideas?, has he passed out leaflets, gone door to door, taken out ads in the paper, written letters to the editor, stood on the corner preaching his ideas, created a website or blog, written a book, gone on local TV, etc. It would seem that all of those are freely available to him and others, and could be used to exercise his free speech. However just because a principle thought a single banner was perhaps not appropriate for a particular school sponsored event we need to be concerned about living in a totalitarian state?

I think people sometimes go way out of there way to be offended or in claiming to be disenfranchised.

As I said previously, the student was not on school property. The "banner" that he made was his own "property" and it was confiscated.
The event, the running of the Olympic torch, was not initated by the school.
Though I disagree with the "bong hits" part of the message, I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision, nor did four justices.
On a side note, the T shirts are already being made. It wouldn't surprise me to see many students wearing them to their schools in the future.

[trifecta124]

And those kids who will wear the bong hits shirts are what makes America great.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

So, kids should be able to do whatever the hell they want when they go on field trips?

no

but in the past the court ruled that free speech was disallowed if it was felt to be disruptive in class. he didn't yell anything, disrupt anything, and wasn't in class.

by the same token, we went on a field trip to d.c....those beer vendors on the mall didn't believe in carding. best school lunch i ever had.

[Downthestretch55]

Danzig,
I'll try to find Justice Steven's dissent in its entirety.
This makes mention of it, and I agree with his stand, and not Justice Thomas.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007...h-takes-a-hit/

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Danzig,
I'll try to find Justice Steven's dissent in its entirety.
This makes mention of it, and I agree with his stand, and not Justice Thomas.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007...h-takes-a-hit/

If anybody is really interested in reading this stuff, here's the full opinion:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...06-278_All.pdf

[Honu]

The way things go today , if the school hadnt done something about it Im sure some person would have freaked out and said "OMFG look at that , at a school function, is this where my tax dollars are going ? is this school district condoning this? my child has been adversley affected by this and he/ she may never be right again ." LOL

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

OK...And?

The past cases aren't on point, so that's why the Court took this case. It is a very narrow decision, so I am not sure I understand the hoopla. Essentially, public schools can censor student speech that is reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use. That's is it. It is hardly a landmark decision.

i know it's been their first free speech case in years, i just disagree with any further erosion of rights, and to say a child has less rights, or less rights in school--well, i disagree with that.

but then again.....don imus was fired, which some said took away his rights--no, he still has the right to say what he said, they just took his forum away. is that what the school was doing?

i just don't like it when they seem to be willing to erode the rights of minors, in public school, and i think this is one more example of that...i still think tho that had he not said bong hits FOR JESUS, this may not have gone so far.

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i know it's been their first free speech case in years, i just disagree with any further erosion of rights, and to say a child has less rights, or less rights in school--well, i disagree with that.

but then again.....don imus was fired, which some said took away his rights--no, he still has the right to say what he said, they just took his forum away. is that what the school was doing?

i just don't like it when they seem to be willing to erode the rights of minors, in public school, and i think this is one more example of that...i still think tho that had he not said bong hits FOR JESUS, this may not have gone so far.

In many ways, juveniles do have diminished protection of their constitutional rights. Whether you like it or not, that's the trend the appellate courts have been setting for years.

In my state, Pennsylvania, for example, the rules of criminal procedure are different in adult cases versus juvenile cases. There are, to be sure, procedures followed and rules applied in juvenile court, but the exacting yet more expansive and better defined standards that have developed with the rules of criminal procedure that apply to adult cases simply don't apply in juvenile court. The result is that judges have more power in juvenile court (or, shall we say, wider discretion) and rulings are sometimes made in juvenile cases that would not have been made in adult cases. Also, the rules of evidence and the accompanying standards that have developed for adult cases apply differently, more permissively, to situations involving juveniles, such as for searches conducted in schools. Evidence sometimes is admitted in juvie cases that would not have come in in adult court.

However, I digress. I don't think this case was particularly about the rights of juveniles (Frederick was 18 at the time of the incident), but, as I said in an earlier post, about the balancing of an individual's rights versus the competing interests of the school. I agree with Baba that this is a limited and narrow case, and shouldn't, by itself, be taken as a sign that individual rights are being irreparably eroded. The stuff that goes on with the Patriot Act scares me a lot more than this decision. Nevertheless, I applaud the people on this site who have taken the time to dabate this issue. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[Danzig]

well...as far as juveniles and the justice system, they seem to want to cherry pick in those as well....don't hold a child responsible, he isn't mature--then you try a juvenile as an adult in another case. no real consistency. you have a 15 year old considered a victim of a sex crime, but then turn around and have some argue that a 15 year old is old enough to choose to have an abortion, or be tried as an adult for murder.

but again, that's a whole other subject....

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

However, I digress. I don't think this case was particularly about the rights of juveniles (Frederick was 18 at the time of the incident), but, as I said in an earlier post, about the balancing of an individual's rights versus the competing interests of the school. I agree with Baba that this is a limited and narrow case, and shouldn't, by itself, be taken as a sign that individual rights are being irreparably eroded. The stuff that goes on with the Patriot Act scares me a lot more than this decision. Nevertheless, I applaud the people on this site who have taken the time to dabate this issue. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

it is nice to be able to express differing opinions in a civilized manner. An open mind I think is a good thing.

while I think this is a rather low level issue, the issue that has me really wondering and concerned about where this country is headed is not civil rights or the patriot act. Its the accumulative toll of tens of millions of illegal aliens roaming all over the countryside. In my view its not hard to imagine losing control of sectors of the country when you essemtially do not have control over the border. It's an issue with multi-faceted effects on the country from national security, cultural, and economic and on down the line.
anyway, that discussion is for another thread.