Ok. Let’s break this down: Your definition and interpretation of free speech is irrelevant. You can interpret anything however you want whenever you want and that is fine. Your arguments may not hold up in court and you cannot force that definition on others because you believe you are enlightened.
As broken as our legal system is, it is all we have for now. As such, you need to understand that the only definition of free speech that matters is the one that has been interpreted by a court of law.
Anyone can say anything they want at any time. What people forget is that words may come with consequences.
Schools must have rules for a number of reasons, mainly because they are full of kids. Dress codes for schools apply across all students and must not discriminate. So, if a school has a rule that any words can’t be on shirts, no child can have words on their shirt.
What we are saying is that you can say anything you want but there should be reasonable limits.
Freedom of speech covers most opinions and ideas except when words present a direct threat to others.
China can and does censor things on a broad scale and as an example, calling the government or dictator stupid would probably get you tossed in jail. That is not freedom of speech.
They said their speech, and got the consequence of being jailed for it, exactly what the comment I responded to said, my point is that freedom of speech doesn’t actually exist.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
18 U.S.C. § 242: Makes it a crime to willfully deprive someone of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States
Ok, that is a ton of reading. However, the point of this is to actually define what freedom of speech actually is.
You are free to tell your employer to fuck off and pound sand, but you will get fired. That is a consequence of words. The government won’t step in if you weren’t threatening anyone. You and your employer have specific rights in that regard.
In the US, you can go on the news and call anyone in the government stupid and they can’t do their jobs or that one party is incompetent. You might lose or gain friends from that, which is still a consequence.
Also in the US, if you directly threaten a person with physical harm and if intent of action can be shown, you are going to be arrested. Your words have now become an infringement on the rights of someone else.
I am just clarifying things, s’all.
Having a mouth and being able to speak words is a thing. You are “free to say words” and nobody can legally sew your mouth shut and make you incapable of talking.
When those words become a threat, someone else must now have their rights protected. This is mostly where the limitations on “Freedom of Speech” come from.
I am pulling this conversation back a hair to define what we are talking about as it’s easy to mix terms on social media.
When those words become a threat, someone else must now have their rights protected. This is mostly where the limitations on “Freedom of Speech” come from.
A good expression I’ve heard along these lines is “your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”
Well hate speech is free speech too. Schools don’t want to foster that behavior and so they can make and enforce policies to create the learning environment that they want.
Also your argument works for bringing guns into schools too. The second amendment is above those school policies too.
Minors have limited rights anyway, but mostly in the voting side of things. An adult is defined as someone who has reached the “age of majority”. After that, they are free to make adult decisions and be fully accountable for their actions.
Schools are basically forced to accept responsibility for kids for a number of hours per day. As such, schools must create a safe environment for all students and maintain some kind of order and ensure the rights of other kids aren’t infringed.
Me exercising my rights can never infringe on the rights of others. Many people don’t understand that.
I can see what you’re saying in the sense that nothing should physically be stopping them from saying it, but also nothing should be insulating them from the consequences of what they say, right? To take it to a logical extreme, if a kid says they’re going to shoot up the school the next day, I hope we can agree that requires more from school admins than just “well, it’s his right to say that”.
I personally also think it’s stupid for a school to be involved for a shirt like in the OP (western society is much too puritanical about simple nudity/body parts, imo), but there’s clearly a line somewhere about what speech/expression can be allowed in public. Assuming you can agree with that, where would you want that line to be? I’d personally draw the line before it reaches threats to peoples’ physical/mental health (like the nazis and gore I mentioned).
if a kid says they’re going to shoot up the school the next day,
What you brought up is a threat of violence, which is not the same thing as hurting someone’s feelings or making a statement that might be offensive to someone
Yep, not implying it is - like I said, just taking the point to a logical extreme where (ideally) everyone would agree that at least some speech can’t be allowed with no repercussions. I’m curious where along the spectrum of fucked up things to say you’d personally draw the line - were you focusing on the distinction between nazi shit/gore and a direct threat because you’d consider either/both allowable, or just wanting to point out a false dichotomy?
When a student goes to school, the school becomes in loco parentis and the student doesn’t have protection from school officials. Children, on campus, general do not have protection for free speech, protection from unreasonable searches or seizures, or really any of their rights.
The school, acting as parents, can restrict their speech, search their bags, and confiscate contraband.
The school can even waive most of the child’s rights even when dealing with law enforcement until parents arrive.
Schools are allowed to exercise “reasonable” discresion
free speech is above that shit. The school can’t infringe on that.
That’s not what free speech means.
Actually that is what free speech means
FREE SPEECH. Curse words and vulgarity is included in that and the constitution is above any authority the school has
The school is not congress and its rules are not laws. I’m not sure how you think the first amendment applies.
yes, I already said that. The constitution is above any authority the school has
It applies to everyone all the time within the US
At this point you either haven’t read the text, or are simply a troll.
Ok. Let’s break this down: Your definition and interpretation of free speech is irrelevant. You can interpret anything however you want whenever you want and that is fine. Your arguments may not hold up in court and you cannot force that definition on others because you believe you are enlightened.
As broken as our legal system is, it is all we have for now. As such, you need to understand that the only definition of free speech that matters is the one that has been interpreted by a court of law.
Here ya go: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser
You can keep babbling on like a SovCit if you want, but you need to understand our legal system and how rights work, especially for minors.
Anyone can say anything they want at any time. What people forget is that words may come with consequences.
Schools must have rules for a number of reasons, mainly because they are full of kids. Dress codes for schools apply across all students and must not discriminate. So, if a school has a rule that any words can’t be on shirts, no child can have words on their shirt.
Here is a breakdown for you: https://www.freedomforum.org/school-dress-codes/
What you are talking about has been in the courts a number of times.
Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of said speech.
By that definition even the Chinese have freedom of speech.
What we are saying is that you can say anything you want but there should be reasonable limits.
Freedom of speech covers most opinions and ideas except when words present a direct threat to others.
China can and does censor things on a broad scale and as an example, calling the government or dictator stupid would probably get you tossed in jail. That is not freedom of speech.
They said their speech, and got the consequence of being jailed for it, exactly what the comment I responded to said, my point is that freedom of speech doesn’t actually exist.
Ok, that is a ton of reading. However, the point of this is to actually define what freedom of speech actually is.
You are free to tell your employer to fuck off and pound sand, but you will get fired. That is a consequence of words. The government won’t step in if you weren’t threatening anyone. You and your employer have specific rights in that regard.
In the US, you can go on the news and call anyone in the government stupid and they can’t do their jobs or that one party is incompetent. You might lose or gain friends from that, which is still a consequence.
Also in the US, if you directly threaten a person with physical harm and if intent of action can be shown, you are going to be arrested. Your words have now become an infringement on the rights of someone else.
I am just clarifying things, s’all.
Having a mouth and being able to speak words is a thing. You are “free to say words” and nobody can legally sew your mouth shut and make you incapable of talking.
When those words become a threat, someone else must now have their rights protected. This is mostly where the limitations on “Freedom of Speech” come from.
I am pulling this conversation back a hair to define what we are talking about as it’s easy to mix terms on social media.
A good expression I’ve heard along these lines is “your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”
Well hate speech is free speech too. Schools don’t want to foster that behavior and so they can make and enforce policies to create the learning environment that they want. Also your argument works for bringing guns into schools too. The second amendment is above those school policies too.
Minors have limited rights anyway, but mostly in the voting side of things. An adult is defined as someone who has reached the “age of majority”. After that, they are free to make adult decisions and be fully accountable for their actions.
Schools are basically forced to accept responsibility for kids for a number of hours per day. As such, schools must create a safe environment for all students and maintain some kind of order and ensure the rights of other kids aren’t infringed.
Me exercising my rights can never infringe on the rights of others. Many people don’t understand that.
A school if free to throw you off their premises for violating their rules too.
They are not forced to give you a platform.
Out of curiosity, would you say the same applies to putting nazi propaganda or violent gore on a shirt and wearing it in a school?
Even if I hate what someone has to say I think they should be allowed to say it
I can see what you’re saying in the sense that nothing should physically be stopping them from saying it, but also nothing should be insulating them from the consequences of what they say, right? To take it to a logical extreme, if a kid says they’re going to shoot up the school the next day, I hope we can agree that requires more from school admins than just “well, it’s his right to say that”.
I personally also think it’s stupid for a school to be involved for a shirt like in the OP (western society is much too puritanical about simple nudity/body parts, imo), but there’s clearly a line somewhere about what speech/expression can be allowed in public. Assuming you can agree with that, where would you want that line to be? I’d personally draw the line before it reaches threats to peoples’ physical/mental health (like the nazis and gore I mentioned).
What you brought up is a threat of violence, which is not the same thing as hurting someone’s feelings or making a statement that might be offensive to someone
Yep, not implying it is - like I said, just taking the point to a logical extreme where (ideally) everyone would agree that at least some speech can’t be allowed with no repercussions. I’m curious where along the spectrum of fucked up things to say you’d personally draw the line - were you focusing on the distinction between nazi shit/gore and a direct threat because you’d consider either/both allowable, or just wanting to point out a false dichotomy?
no right is unlimited
When a student goes to school, the school becomes in loco parentis and the student doesn’t have protection from school officials. Children, on campus, general do not have protection for free speech, protection from unreasonable searches or seizures, or really any of their rights.
The school, acting as parents, can restrict their speech, search their bags, and confiscate contraband.
The school can even waive most of the child’s rights even when dealing with law enforcement until parents arrive.
That’s not what free speech means, a school can absolutely punish you for your speech
They can, and they do all of the time
deleted by creator