tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post114568250538889573..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: The Hate Speech Ruling Crits Were Waiting ForDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1146229432373223122006-04-28T06:03:00.000-07:002006-04-28T06:03:00.000-07:00Listen... i'm libertarian on this issue. More spe...Listen... i'm libertarian on this issue. More speech is better. Restricting speech is troubling. <BR/><BR/>Would it be okay for kids to wear "Straight is Great”" t-shirts to school? That would seem to get around the requirement that the speech "strikes at a core identifying characteristic of students on the basis of their membership in a minority group". (Since it's a statement supporting heterosexuality, instead of being against homosexuality.)<BR/><BR/>I could point to several studies that show that the existence of pornography on the internet does injury to millions of women and kids across the country. <BR/><BR/>So, I suppose we should outlaw pornography?<BR/><BR/>I could create a study showing the injurious harm to our troops in the field when protesters take to the street... <BR/><BR/>So, I suppose that type of speech should be outlawed as well.<BR/><BR/>I'm very libertarian on this subject... the more speech, the better. If you want to go down this slippery slope, you might not like the consequences in other jurisdictions or if the makeup of the Ninth every changes.<BR/><BR/>It will be interesting to see the opinions of the SCOTUS should this ever make it there... Like the marijuana laws and the <I>Kelo</I> decision, you could see the "liberal" justices take illiberal positions and the conservative justices take libertarian positions.St Wendelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15248730004743579869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1145882324540670782006-04-24T05:38:00.000-07:002006-04-24T05:38:00.000-07:00Second, the judge is only talking about historical...<I>Second, the judge is only talking about historically oppressed minority groups. Clearly neither "pro-choice people" or "pro-life people" fit that bill.</I><BR/><BR/>Ok, so free speech is only protected if it doesn't offend "historically oppressed minority groups." Can you point to that phrase within the 1st amendment, please? <BR/><BR/>I suppose that during the Civil Rights era, only speech promoting the civil rights of African-Americans was Constitutionally protected, huh? <BR/><BR/>The whole point is that idiotic statements cannot be restricted - and that's a <I>good thing</I>, since it's the actual debate which will change people's minds.St Wendelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15248730004743579869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1145819898994943192006-04-23T12:18:00.000-07:002006-04-23T12:18:00.000-07:00I really don't think the "one-sided debate" argume...I really don't think the "one-sided debate" arguments are at all responsive to David's analysis, nor the analysis in the decision. The argument goes that schools do not have an obligation to give intolerance and bigotry "equal speaking time" when they try to inculcate positive values. Inviting a speaker on civil rights doesn't require the school to invite the leader of the KKK. <BR/><BR/>That being said, your missing out on a couple key distinctions.<BR/><BR/>First, the decision is only talking about issues of personhood. Saying the Iraq war was unjustified or abortion is murder or whatever else does not actively attack the personhood or identity of anyone. <BR/><BR/>Second, the judge is only talking about historically oppressed minority groups. Clearly neither "pro-choice people" or "pro-life people" fit that bill.<BR/><BR/>I really think most of the obejctions being raised here have been answered. Maybe give the post a nother read-through?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1145817883685681092006-04-23T11:44:00.000-07:002006-04-23T11:44:00.000-07:00Realize that as a procedural matter all of the "em...Realize that as a procedural matter all of the "emperical data" cited by Reinhardt concerning the harm to gays will probably be ignored on appeal. Courts commonly face so-called scientific studies in controversial matters, and have set up a rigorous process to determine whether to accept the results of these studies. Among other things, the other side gets the right to challege the validity of those studies. Reinhardt by-passed this process through the use of "judicial notice." The fill 9th Circuit is unlikely to let that dodge stand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1145816627713476892006-04-23T11:23:00.000-07:002006-04-23T11:23:00.000-07:00Concievably, the fact that the issue is still cont...<I>Concievably, the fact that the issue is still controversial is a reason to support restricting this speech over restricting fringe speech.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you serious?<BR/><BR/>So, if there are controversial issues, only one side of the debate should be allowed? <BR/><BR/>The Iraq War is controversial... thus, let's only allow speech which supports the war. <BR/><BR/>Abortion is still controversial... thus, we should only allow speech which supports abortion rights.<BR/><BR/>Is this what you're really advocating?<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>St Wendeler<BR/>Another Rovian ConspiracySt Wendelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15248730004743579869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1145736379973567702006-04-22T13:06:00.000-07:002006-04-22T13:06:00.000-07:00There is a second part that I believe belongs to e...There is a second part that I believe belongs to every freedom - that of responsibility.<BR/><BR/>There is a responsibility to protect that freedom -<BR/><BR/>from misuse and abuse<BR/>from dimunition and loss<BR/><BR/>This case, in my mind, falls in the former.The probligohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17882103150181414348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1145727606123815192006-04-22T10:40:00.000-07:002006-04-22T10:40:00.000-07:00It seems like this case is going to be a situation...It seems like this case is going to be a situation where the issues get confused with the facts. From what I understand, the overarching issue is the method by which the students participated, which is valid under Tinker and Fraser (and by extension Kuhlmeier) while Harper's actions resembled Cohen's "f--- the draft" jacket which is not allowed under Fraser. <BR/><BR/>The debate will most likely run like I've seen in many sites, where if one side can speak their mind, then the other should, as well. There may be a valid point there, but that point is moot if the method of the speech isn't valid.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15148864091827107809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1145721992049964962006-04-22T09:06:00.000-07:002006-04-22T09:06:00.000-07:00To those who argue the ruling on the grounds of fr...To those who argue the ruling on the grounds of free speech:<BR/><BR/>Public schools are, superficially at least, pro-diversity. They celebrate black history month and host foreign exchange programs. Yet, if a child showed up in an Aryan Pride t-shirt, he or she would be disciplined.<BR/><BR/>Public schools are not a democracy, and students are not guarenteed the right to free speech. I realize that tolerance is not considered a value by many in this country, but it is by most of our public schools. If you honestly feel that your child should not have to conceal his or her contempt for others for the sake of his or her education, perhaps home-schooling is for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1145709047458077742006-04-22T05:30:00.000-07:002006-04-22T05:30:00.000-07:00It's like dismissing a fraud claim by saying: "Oh,...<I>It's like dismissing a fraud claim by saying: "Oh, look, the Court is saying that the first amendment doesn't apply when naive people get upset! Boohoo!" At the point where the court identifies an <B>empirically measurable harm</B>, I think opponents have to do more with the argument than just dismiss it as a case of "self-esteem" gone wild.</I><BR/><BR/>That's the main issue here... at what point are someone's hurt feelings an <B>empirically measurable harm</B>? <BR/><BR/>As opposed to a case of fraud, where this is actual empirical harm (typically monetary), whether a form of speech hurts one's feelings can only be determined by each individual that might witness the free speech. <BR/><BR/>Now, the speech which the scumbag was making is idiotic, stupid, and hurtful. And he should be ostracized for it and those of us who disagree with his message should stand up and condemn him.<BR/><BR/>Hiding ourselves behind the robes of justices each and every time we see something that offends us is surely <A HREF="http://www.courthouseawarenessnews.com/Archives%20of%20campaign%20for%20county%20judge/Ostrich%20head%20in%20sand.jpg" REL="nofollow">not the way to counter idiotic statements</A>... <BR/><BR/>What if this turdball had whispered his sentiments to someone he thought was a friend, out of earshot of those participating in the event? Since this speech is not protected, is the fellow student obligated to report the hate-speech to the authorities?<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>St Wendeler<BR/><A HREF="http://rovianconspiracy.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Another Rovian Conspiracy</A>St Wendelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15248730004743579869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1145703931246841342006-04-22T04:05:00.000-07:002006-04-22T04:05:00.000-07:00The problem with the ruling, as dmaestaz points ou...The problem with the ruling, as dmaestaz points out: who decides?<BR/>This is a greenlight for indoctrination, not education. There is <I><B>NO</B></I> constitutional provision guaranteeing a right to self-esteem. I'm kind of fierce on protecting the ones that are in there.Gaius Arbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021279408065871265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1145685244536336422006-04-21T22:54:00.000-07:002006-04-21T22:54:00.000-07:00I think you took the wrong idea from my post. The ...I think you took the wrong idea from my post. The basic gist of my argument against the ruling, was if your going to allow one side the right to free speech, you should allow the other side to speak as well. Granted I don't feel the same way as the student does, but I don't find his shirt that offensive, now your analogy of the Nazi shirt, that would be offensive.<BR/><BR/>The other problem with the ruling is who gets to decide? Say a principal who is religious, and believes the same way as this student comes along, using this ruling he can now just as easily ban the pro-gay shirts and call them offensive! <BR/><BR/>I believe both sides should be represented or none at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com