About time !

[Kutnupe14]

Uh-Huh. I'llbet you that if anybody flew that flag (Rainbow) back when I was in H S, he would have gotten hiss ASS beaten.....

Where did YOU go to school, Reich Prep? Even back home, while people may have been ridiculed, no one would resort to violence. I went to school with atheists, Catholics, and a few foreign students...and while they were certainly given grief, if someone dared to tr and do harm to them, there would be a good number of people that would've stepped in.

 

[El-Cigarro]

Well... Maybe not BEATEN. But they would have gotten made fun of!!!!!

 

[HoughMade]

Well... Maybe not BEATEN. But they would have gotten made fun of!!!!!

Slight​ difference.

 

[El-Cigarro]

Well, yeah, but you wouldn't of had any FRIENDS. And you might have gotten beaten up too....

 

[BADWOLF]

The framers of the constitution knew human nature as well as we do. They too had lived in dangerous days; they too knew the suffocating influence of orthodoxy and standardized thought. They weighed the compulsions for restrained speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty."

"Without Freedom of Thought, their can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know."
Benjamin Franklin

From an old school of thought I believe that the speech we find most distasteful, unagreeable, vicious, and horrifying is the most deserving to be protected by the first amendment. Because speech that is held by the majority to be with out contempt does not require that protection.

Anybody should be allowed in the case of the Confederate battle flag t-shirt in school or anywhere else to exercise there freedom of speech. No where have I ever seen or read is there a RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED...

And what kind of value is the school teaching the students, that if you don't like or agree with someone else, to marginaliz their thoughts and force them to comply with what you think is right.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well, not to give the game away but I imagine that when we were kids the world was less focused on litigation and the insurance rates were not as high.

But I imagine that is why your school in Mississippi made such harrassment against the rules just as the school here in West Virginny makes clothing that displays fighting words, such as a Confederate banner, a prohibited item.

It was against the rules. That matters not a whit when a blind eye is turned to it and it's allowed to continue.

The framers of the constitution knew human nature as well as we do. They too had lived in dangerous days; they too knew the suffocating influence of orthodoxy and standardized thought. They weighed the compulsions for restrained speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty."

"Without Freedom of Thought, their can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know."
Benjamin Franklin

From an old school of thought I believe that the speech we find most distasteful, unagreeable, vicious, and horrifying is the most deserving to be protected by the first amendment. Because speech that is held by the majority to be with out contempt does not require that protection.

Anybody should be allowed in the case of the Confederate battle flag t-shirt in school or anywhere else to exercise there freedom of speech. No where have I ever seen or read is there a RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED...

And what kind of value is the school teaching the students, that if you don't like or agree with someone else, to marginaliz their thoughts and force them to comply with what you think is right.

^^This right here. Free speech be da*ned, I suppose, someone might be offended. If he's going up and fastening iron collars on the necks of his classmates, OK, punish that, but no one is being enslaved because he wore a shirt with that emblem on it. No one is being harmed. Likewise, if someone wears a shirt promoting Nazi stuff, I don't think it should be disallowed, but I personally would choose to not associate with him.

This is the problem: No one is learning that other people have other opinions, and that's OK. No one is learning that they're NOT a Very Special Snowflake and their wants don't translate into action against others, just because they want something to happen.

When I was young, my mother RAILED about the fact that "the Nazis are marching in Skokie, IL!!!!!!one!!!" and how that shouldn't be allowed... but I disagree. It SHOULD be allowed.. and if I had my way, the community would rally against them, ostracize them, and they would fade into obscurity. The KKK marched in Lafayette about 20 years ago... and while there were reports that the manhole covers were welded shut and there were police snipers on rooftops, the only sign of it that I saw was the chainlink fence down the main streets in downtown, around the courthouse. Kirk, you might remember that better than I do, as your office is in that area. But the fact is that I've never heard of either group congregating like that again in the time since those marches. The communities did what they had to do to minimize any harm (though in retrospect, it was probably harm TO, not BY the marchers that concerned them,) let people exercise their rights, and let it all blow over as a non-event.

So it should be with a kid wearing a shirt that "might offend". Pull him into the office, maybe call a parent, tell them, "You do realize this might get some folks angry enough to want to fight with you, right?" and when the answer is yes, he's been advised of the possible result of his actions. You still punish the ones who actually do start the fight, by suspension, expulsion, or transfer to an "alternative school".

That would be my solution to this. Maybe it makes too much sense for the schools in WV to adopt that line of thought.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kutnupe14]

The framers of the constitution knew human nature as well as we do. They too had lived in dangerous days; they too knew the suffocating influence of orthodoxy and standardized thought. They weighed the compulsions for restrained speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty."

"Without Freedom of Thought, their can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know."
Benjamin Franklin

From an old school of thought I believe that the speech we find most distasteful, unagreeable, vicious, and horrifying is the most deserving to be protected by the first amendment. Because speech that is held by the majority to be with out contempt does not require that protection.

Anybody should be allowed in the case of the Confederate battle flag t-shirt in school or anywhere else to exercise there freedom of speech. No where have I ever seen or read is there a RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED...

And what kind of value is the school teaching the students, that if you don't like or agree with someone else, to marginaliz their thoughts and force them to comply with what you think is right.

Free speech is not absolute. I guess the technical answer to whether this shirt should be allowed, is, "it depends." When I went to school, there was no prohibition against students wearing certain colors, as there was no gangs. In Compton HS, if they were to ban the wearing of gang colors, I think that would be justified?

 

[MisterChester]

It was against the rules. That matters not a whit when a blind eye is turned to it and it's allowed to continue.



^^This right here. Free speech be da*ned, I suppose, someone might be offended. If he's going up and fastening iron collars on the necks of his classmates, OK, punish that, but no one is being enslaved because he wore a shirt with that emblem on it. No one is being harmed. Likewise, if someone wears a shirt promoting Nazi stuff, I don't think it should be disallowed, but I personally would choose to not associate with him.

This is the problem: No one is learning that other people have other opinions, and that's OK. No one is learning that they're NOT a Very Special Snowflake and their wants don't translate into action against others, just because they want something to happen.

When I was young, my mother RAILED about the fact that "the Nazis are marching in Skokie, IL!!!!!!one!!!" and how that shouldn't be allowed... but I disagree. It SHOULD be allowed.. and if I had my way, the community would rally against them, ostracize them, and they would fade into obscurity. The KKK marched in Lafayette about 20 years ago... and while there were reports that the manhole covers were welded shut and there were police snipers on rooftops, the only sign of it that I saw was the chainlink fence down the main streets in downtown, around the courthouse. Kirk, you might remember that better than I do, as your office is in that area. But the fact is that I've never heard of either group congregating like that again in the time since those marches. The communities did what they had to do to minimize any harm (though in retrospect, it was probably harm TO, not BY the marchers that concerned them,) let people exercise their rights, and let it all blow over as a non-event.

So it should be with a kid wearing a shirt that "might offend". Pull him into the office, maybe call a parent, tell them, "You do realize this might get some folks angry enough to want to fight with you, right?" and when the answer is yes, he's been advised of the possible result of his actions. You still punish the ones who actually do start the fight, by suspension, expulsion, or transfer to an "alternative school".

That would be my solution to this. Maybe it makes too much sense for the schools in WV to adopt that line of thought.

Blessings,
Bill

Well put, Bill. Too bad that schools are more concerned with lawsuits than anything else. Zero tolerance policies are getting in the way of how students learn how the real world works.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well put, Bill. Too bad that schools are more concerned with lawsuits than anything else. Zero tolerance policies are getting in the way of how students learn how the real world works.

It the "real" world, such prohibitions are common.

 

[MisterChester]

It the "real" world, such prohibitions are common.

You mean zero tolerance policies? It doesn't work in a court of law, as that is a direct violation of due process.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It the "real" world, such prohibitions are common.

Prohibitions on what you, a free adult, wear in a place you are in under compulsion of law? Your freedom of expression is curtailed in what such place? For that matter, what place are you in that you occupy because the law requires you to be there? (School of some sort is compulsory)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BADWOLF]

Slight​ difference.

I don't think the school is projecting any morality. The school wants to prevent fights.

Well how about the same stance as pitbull owners take blame the deed not the breed. You start a fight in school for any reason your expelled for the year. You know punishing the deed of fighting not punishing some one for wearing, righting or flying ****** something inflammatory. Because obviously if your going to start or pick a fight over somebody exercising their legal rights you don't know how to behave in public and maybe a year off will give them a chance to mature to the point of being able to exert some form of self control the the next year when allowed to return to school. That and being criminally charged for assault and battery.

Ohhh just had a great idea!

A private Libertarian consolidated school system........ Hmmm