‘Cursing cheerleader’ free speech

[Glitch]

Bupa.

Private healthcare | Bupa UK

Bupa are one of the UK's leading healthcare specialists. Get information on private medical insurance, health clinics and care homes from experts you can trust.

www.bupa.co.uk

There are also private hospitals in London and they do treatment on sportspeople and such.
I've personally used a private dentist for years until an NHS place opened in my area. The dentist still exists and doing well.

Next?

Okay, Bupa is definitely private. You got that one. I was not aware of them until you pointed them out, thanks for doing that much. So the UK is only 99.9% socialist, and 0.1% capitalist. You do understand that the more industries your government controls the more socialist it becomes, right?

The US is right behind the UK with regard to socialism. It doesn't get more socialist than Social Security. Democrats have been deliberately violating the US Constitution for decades trying to get the federal government to totally control the medical industry. It began with the illegal MediCare/MedicAid, and has culminated with the illegal Affordable Healthcare Act.

The UK is certainly better than Canada in that respect. Canada also allows private clinics, but under Canadian law private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Which probably explains why Bupa International Healthcare Company is nowhere to be found in Canada. That very effectively gives their government a complete monopoly on the healthcare industry.

 

[Grand Mal]

Okay, Bupa is definitely private. You got that one. I was not aware of them until you pointed them out, thanks for doing that much. So the UK is only 99.9% socialist, and 0.1% capitalist. You do understand that the more industries your government controls the more socialist it becomes, right?

The US is right behind the UK with regard to socialism. It doesn't get more socialist than Social Security. Democrats have been deliberately violating the US Constitution for decades trying to get the federal government to totally control the medical industry. It began with the illegal MediCare/MedicAid, and has culminated with the illegal Affordable Healthcare Act.

The UK is certainly better than Canada in that respect. Canada also allows private clinics, but under Canadian law private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Which probably explains why Bupa International Healthcare Company is nowhere to be found in Canada. That very effectively gives their government a complete monopoly on the healthcare industry.

False. The clinic I go to is a private practice. The doctor there bills the government-run heath care system for my charges and he charges patients directly who aren't covered by the government insurance. My neighbour didn't want to wait four weeks for the MRI covered by BC Medical so she went to a private clinic on Vancouver Island.

Nanaimo MRI

Private MRI Scan Services in Nanaimo , BC

www.nanaimomri.ca

And the government health insurance is run by the Provincial governments, not the feds.

 

[Glitch]

False. The clinic I go to is a private practice. The doctor there bills the government-run heath care system for my charges and he charges patients directly who aren't covered by the government insurance. My neighbour didn't want to wait four weeks for the MRI covered by BC Medical so she went to a private clinic on Vancouver Island.

Nanaimo MRI

Private MRI Scan Services in Nanaimo , BC

www.nanaimomri.ca

And the government health insurance is run by the Provincial governments, not the feds.

It is very true actually. It is your healthcare law, shouldn't you at least know it?

Canada Healthcare - Private Clinics:

Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act.

They do also mention that private clinics flaunt the law and regularly violate federal law. They even use obtaining an MRI appointment as an example of the violations of federal law.

 

[Grand Mal]

It is very true actually. It is your healthcare law, shouldn't you at least know it?

Canada Healthcare - Private Clinics:


They do also mention that private clinics flaunt the law and regularly violate federal law. They even use obtaining an MRI appointment as an example of the violations of federal law.

What is that website? It's certainly not connected to anything having to do with the health care system in Canada. Looks to me like a right-wing lobby set up in the US. Rightist filth.
Google Canadian Health Care. I did and scrolled through 38 hits and that site didn't appear.
There's absolutely nothing against using private clinics here. Hospitals mention them as an option.

 

[Grand Mal]

It is very true actually. It is your healthcare law, shouldn't you at least know it?

Canada Healthcare - Private Clinics:


They do also mention that private clinics flaunt the law and regularly violate federal law. They even use obtaining an MRI appointment as an example of the violations of federal law.

Too late to edit my previous reply. This is who runs that website...

https://www.seogirl.com/

From your cited source... "This website is currently being updated by Jessica Longarini of SEOGirl.com into a more modern website with a recent development in the Canadian healthcare system."

Garbage site.

 

[NotreDame]

Perhaps, it seems to me that there is a huge difference in the adult/juvenile examples you use. I think that in each case you talk about the adults you are referring to a workplace issue.

Does it matter? Does it matter when examining the claim kids do not have the same rights as adults?

Recall, your evidence kids do not have the same rights as adults was to illustrate the contexts where kids have reduced free speech rights in school, reduced expectation of privacy in school property, subjected to suspicionless drug testing to participate in school sanctioned extracurricular activities. What is the common denominators? Government property. Government schools with a unique purpose. The government as provider of a service, educating, extracurricular activities, etcetera.

You presented a picture adults have more rights but in comparison to what? To what context? It doesn’t make any sense to compare adult rights in the context of no government presence when the reduction of rights for kids IS within the context of a government presence as educator.

So, the parallel comparison is to adults where there is a government presence, such as government as employer. And here we see both kids and adults have a reduction of free speech and fourth amendment rights in relation to government as employer and government as educator.

So what if the government is the employer? Why does that distinction matter? This is just special pleading by you.

If you read the opinions of Tinker, Pickering, TLO, workplace search cases of government employees, the justification for reduced speech rights and lower expectation of privacy, are based on the unique setting the juveniles and adults are present or operating within.

Adults who are public teachers have a reduced free speech right while at school because of the unique situation of the school and operating as an official representative of the school as an educator when engaged in speech at school, just as kids have a reduced free speech right because of the unique nature of the public school setting.

Kids have a reduced expectation of privacy in their lockers and other government property they use, just as adults do who work for the government, based on the property is government property and the setting is a government office, government school, government property.

 

[lurchadams]

What if she messaged, "F Biden, F the Democratic Party, F it all," to the same people causing the same fuss?

Using the F bomb like she did instead of the initial like I did. It's reasonable to assume some students and parents would be upset and complain to the school. Can the school punish her? Should the school punish her?

I don't care. It's up to the rules of the school and how the teacher and parents feel about it. Remember when a gay student was expelled from a "Christian" private school because she came out on social media as gay? I'm sure you cheer-led that effort!

 

[NotreDame]

If that's the issue, the issue is settled. School administrations may discipline a student for lawful speech off campus while the student is not participating in a school activity.

Is settled? Settled accordIng to whom? It isn’t settled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, who ruled in favor of the juvenile, amd stated unequivocally schools cannot punish students for lawful speech off of school property and while not engaged in school activity. In point of fact, the Third Circuut has been ruling this way consistently for a few years now.

And if the tough questioning by the Justices, expressing skepticism the school can so punish, is a reflection of how they view this case, then SCOTUS is on the verge of giving a ruling stating exactly that, schools cannot punish lawful speech of students off campus, while not enaged in any school activity.

This is the correct outcome. Schools are already limited in its authority to participate punish students for speech made on school property or at a school activity. This is because students take their free speech rights into the school and the prism of the school merely shrinks its expansive scope that exists outside of school.

While off school property, and not at a school activity, the justification for reducing the full canopy of a kids’ free speech rights evaporates, which is being at school. Extending the four corners of a school boundary to the child’s home to include the speech a child makes while at home isn’t freedom, it’s tyranny.

School doesn’t like a student’s flag burning protest of U.S. policies posted to Instagram, Twitter, or Snapchat. That demonstration could cause a disturbance in the school’s hallways. The student is to serve detention for this speech.

School doesn’t like a student attending a pro-life rally, caught on video, and posted to Twitter, Snapchat, or Instagram. The school punishes the student because the speech could cause a disturbance in school.

A principal punishes a student for attending a rally for transgender rights, and it’s on Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Why? This may have cause a disturbance in school.

A rally for gay rights results in the school punishing a student for attending, disseminated thorough popular social media outlets, as this may cause problems at school.

The idea the school can shrink the free speech rights of kids away from school is anathema to free speech rights.

 

[Loulit01]

I don't care. It's up to the rules of the school and how the teacher and parents feel about it. Remember when a gay student was expelled from a "Christian" private school because she came out on social media as gay? I'm sure you cheer-led that effort!

What are you talking about? I went to Catholic schools for ten years and wound up an atheist. I've been defending that cheerleader constantly. My nephew flies a beautiful new Gay Pride flag I bought him for his birthday.

I think you have me confused with a Trumpette.

 

[NotreDame]

Having both stated our position, repeating it back and forth accomplishes nothing. However, do you agree the ruling can have far reaching consequences regardless of what the decision is?

Whether or not someone is picked out of a group of competitors for a promotion or advancement over the others for activities such as cheerleading is now subject to federal court review? It costs the school board $1.1 million if they win and under federal court supervision costing $2.3 million dollars in legal fees if they lose - as students flock online to attack all other aspects of the school, school activities and those participating in those activities - things to read online when in school - seizing phones to learn if it was posted during or after school hours? Just let anyone who wants to be a cheerleader be one and give them all a participant certificate since that's all there could be to be fair.

Whether or not someone is picked out of a group of competitors for a promotion or advancement over the others for activities such as cheerleading is now subject to federal court review? It costs the school board $1.1 million if they win and under federal court supervision costing $2.3 million dollars in legal fees if they lose - as students flock online to attack all other aspects of the school, school activities and those participating in those activities - things to read online when in school - seizing phones to learn if it was posted during or after school hours? Just let anyone who wants to be a cheerleader be one and give them all a participant certificate since that's all there could be to be fair.

And yet, the above is avoidable of the school authorities and administrators didn’t get their panties in a bunch and punish a student for exercising her free speech rights in a lawful manner. A ruling in her favor doesn’t require seizing phones, which would be unlawful to do on the basis to determine whether the lawful message was made in school property, it doesn’t require a policy of everyone makes the cheer team.

What it does require is adults and school administrators swallow what the hell they’ve been shoveling since time immemorial, “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”

Apparently these adults and school administrators have thin skins. Ohs noes, what the hell is the world coming too? This juvenile teen used the F bomb, disregard the fact this word is no novelty to the lips and tongues of the adult teachers and school administrators. We can speak it with impunity, but when a juvenile teenager does, hell, we travel back to the age of the Puritans.

It is tenuous a ruling in her favor has the supposed cataclysmic outcomes you reference. There is no logical connection made between such a ruling and those outcomes you reference.

 

[mrjurrs]

Does it matter? Does it matter when examining the claim kids do not have the same rights as adults?

Recall, your evidence kids do not have the same rights as adults was to illustrate the contexts where kids have reduced free speech rights in school, reduced expectation of privacy in school property, subjected to suspicionless drug testing to participate in school sanctioned extracurricular activities. What is the common denominators? Government property. Government schools with a unique purpose. The government as provider of a service, educating, extracurricular activities, etcetera.

You presented a picture adults have more rights but in comparison to what? To what context? It doesn’t make any sense to compare adult rights in the context of no government presence when the reduction of rights for kids IS within the context of a government presence as educator.

So, the parallel comparison is to adults where there is a government presence, such as government as employer. And here we see both kids and adults have a reduction of free speech and fourth amendment rights in relation to government as employer and government as educator.

So what if the government is the employer? Why does that distinction matter? This is just special pleading by you.

If you read the opinions of Tinker, Pickering, TLO, workplace search cases of government employees, the justification for reduced speech rights and lower expectation of privacy, are based on the unique setting the juveniles and adults are present or operating within.

Adults who are public teachers have a reduced free speech right while at school because of the unique situation of the school and operating as an official representative of the school as an educator when engaged in speech at school, just as kids have a reduced free speech right because of the unique nature of the public school setting.

Kids have a reduced expectation of privacy in their lockers and other government property they use, just as adults do who work for the government, based on the property is government property and the setting is a government office, government school, government property.

Of course it matters. In a workplace, your employer determines what free speech is. Violate it, you can be fired. No matter what the content.

"It is unlawful for any minor under the age of 18 years to remain in any public place, or any private business open to the public, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. on any day and sunrise of the immediately following day; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply when:..."
"It is unlawful for any minor under the age of 18 years to remain in any public place, or any private business open to the public, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on days when schools are in session; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply when:..."

Chapter 9.72 CURFEW AND TRUANCY

www.codepublishing.com

None of what you post, while legitimate and accurate, responds to the topic...Can the school do it? The school can.

 

[mrjurrs]

Is settled? Settled accordIng to whom? It isn’t settled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, who ruled in favor of the juvenile, amd stated unequivocally schools cannot punish students for lawful speech off of school property and while not engaged in school activity. In point of fact, the Third Circuut has been ruling this way consistently for a few years now.

And if the tough questioning by the Justices, expressing skepticism the school can so punish, is a reflection of how they view this case, then SCOTUS is on the verge of giving a ruling stating exactly that, schools cannot punish lawful speech of students off campus, while not enaged in any school activity.

This is the correct outcome. Schools are already limited in its authority to participate punish students for speech made on school property or at a school activity. This is because students take their free speech rights into the school and the prism of the school merely shrinks its expansive scope that exists outside of school.

While off school property, and not at a school activity, the justification for reducing the full canopy of a kids’ free speech rights evaporates, which is being at school. Extending the four corners of a school boundary to the child’s home to include the speech a child makes while at home isn’t freedom, it’s tyranny.

School doesn’t like a student’s flag burning protest of U.S. policies posted to Instagram, Twitter, or Snapchat. That demonstration could cause a disturbance in the school’s hallways. The student is to serve detention for this speech.

School doesn’t like a student attending a pro-life rally, caught on video, and posted to Twitter, Snapchat, or Instagram. The school punishes the student because the speech could cause a disturbance in school.

A principal punishes a student for attending a rally for transgender rights, and it’s on Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Why? This may have cause a disturbance in school.

A rally for gay rights results in the school punishing a student for attending, disseminated thorough popular social media outlets, as this may cause problems at school.

The idea the school can shrink the free speech rights of kids away from school is anathema to free speech rights.

The content of speech cannot be restricted, but the time, place and manner may be. For students, that means that that speech may have consequences. Easiest example...bullying. A student that bullies another student may regret using social media to do that if there is existing disciplinary action already in place. You mistake my position if you think I am saying students have no free speech rights. I'm saying they are limited.

 

[NotreDame]

None of what you post, while legitimate and accurate, responds to the topic...Can the school do it? The school can.

Oh, so you think this was a dialogue as to what the school is physically able to do? Really? Who knew the dialogue was about what legally the school can do? Apparently most people in this thread, minus you.

Of course it matters. In a workplace, your employer determines what free speech is. Violate it, you can be fired. No matter what the content.

Nope. The government as employer means the 1st Amendment applies, just as the government as educator means the 1st amendment applies. Hence, this is why SCOTUS espoused the Pickering test for government employees engaged in speech while acting in their official capacity as a government employee or on government property as part of their job as a government employee.

The Court has been very clear the government may not “fire” a government employee for their speech “no matter what the content.” SCOTUS rejected any such idea and instead developed the Pickering test. Similarly, SCOTUS has held students do not lose their free speech rights at school, and neither can a school punish speech “no matter what content.”

Once again, your argument is predicted upon legal fictions.

So, no, once again, you’ve not provided an example where kids have different rights than adults with your reference to kids in government schools because adults have reduced free speech rights when the government is their employer.
Neither surrender their free speech rights in relation to government as educator/employer, but they are reduced.

"It is unlawful for any minor under the age of 18 years to remain in any public place, or any private business open to the public, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. on any day and sunrise of the immediately following day; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply when:..."

So the hell what? There’s no right in the Constitution saying anyone has such a right.

"It is unlawful for any minor under the age of 18 years to remain in any public place, or any private business open to the public, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on days when schools are in session; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply when:..."

So? There’s no right in the constitution to do otherwise.

 

[mrjurrs]

Oh, so you think this was a dialogue as to what the school is physically able to do? Really? Who knew the dialogue was about what legally the school can do? Apparently most people in this thread, minus you.



Nope. The government as employer means the 1st Amendment applies, just as the government as educator means the 1st amendment applies. Hence, this is why SCOTUS espoused the Pickering test for government employees engaged in speech while acting in their official capacity as a government employee or on government property as part of their job as a government employee.

The Court has been very clear the government may not “fire” a government employee for their speech “no matter what the content.” SCOTUS rejected any such idea and instead developed the Pickering test. Similarly, SCOTUS has held students do not lose their free speech rights at school, and neither can a school punish speech “no matter what content.”

Once again, your argument is predicted upon legal fictions.

So, no, once again, you’ve not provided an example where kids have different rights than adults with your reference to kids in government schools because adults have reduced free speech rights when the government is their employer.
Neither surrender their free speech rights in relation to government as educator/employer, but they are reduced.



So the hell what? There’s no right in the Constitution saying anyone has such a right.



So? There’s no right in the constitution to do otherwise.

First Amendment, freedom of assembly, limited if you are a minor, does not apply to those who have reached the age of majority.

 

[NotreDame]

First Amendment, freedom of assembly, limited if you are a minor, does not apply to those who have reached the age of majority.

Nope. Freedom of assembly can be and has lawfully been limited for adults. Time, place, and manner limitations can and have been used to lawfully limit the “freedom of assembly” for adults.

 

[NotreDame]

The content of speech cannot be restricted, but the time, place and manner may be. For students, that means that that speech may have consequences. Easiest example...bullying. A student that bullies another student may regret using social media to do that if there is existing disciplinary action already in place. You mistake my position if you think I am saying students have no free speech rights. I'm saying they are limited.

I know your position very well. In fact, I know yuur view so well that your view isn’t merely free speech of students is limited. Your view is more specific. Your view is free speech of students isn’t just limited to school property or functions, but the boundary of school authority follows the student like a shadow, and can attach for lawful speech done in private on the premise it can affect what happens in school. That is your view.

And, for your edification, it is a view the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has unequivocally and repeatedly rejected, and is about to be rejected by SCOTUS. Your nanny state theory of free speech is anathema to free speech. Based on your logic, the school can lawfully punish students for the speech in each one of my examples.

You’ve made free speech for juveniles a facade, existing at the mercy of the public school, which is a perversion of the free speech clause. There’s no historical evidence or precedent for your view, which may explain why even the liberals on SCOTUS were cynical of the very argument you’ve made.

Yes, bullying outside of school is a problem. There are limits to bullying under the speech clause as speech that is bullying but is criminal harassment or criminal intimidation is a crime. But logically kids do have a private life that public schools or the government cannot regulate, and this will include bullying, speech that is lawful but is also bullying. Free speech means the freedom to speak ornery, offensive, and hurtful speech, especially done in private.


You’ve made the porous argument of time, place, and manner, before. You want to double down again? Really?

Review: Time, place, and manner restrictions deal with speech restrictions that are too noisy for the time of day, expressive speech that obstructs traffic.

In addition, time, place, and manner restriction cannot be based on the content of the speech.

But the school’s punishment IS based on the content of the cheerleader’s speech. So, time, place, and manner cannot vindicate the school’s action.

In addition, time, place, and manner restrictions MUST allow for alternative routes and methods for the speech to be communicated! That’s missing here because the school was objecting to the content of the message no matter how it was communicated. And your own argument is to allow a school to punish a student for the speech not matter the route of communication.

So, no, your repeated but mistakenly applied time, place, and manner approach cannot justify the school’s action in regards to the cheerleader, and neither can it vindicate your view.

 

[mrjurrs]

Nope. Freedom of assembly can be and has lawfully been limited for adults. Time, place, and manner limitations can and have been used to lawfully limit the “freedom of assembly” for adults.

True, my wording was bad. Those were specific examples of where a juveniles rights are limited and an adults are not.

 

[mrjurrs]

I know your position very well. In fact, I know yuur view so well that your view isn’t merely free speech of students is limited. Your view is more specific. Your view is free speech of students isn’t just limited to school property or functions, but the boundary of school authority follows the student like a shadow, and can attach for lawful speech done in private on the premise it can affect what happens in school. That is your view.

And, for your edification, it is a view the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has unequivocally and repeatedly rejected, and is about to be rejected by SCOTUS. Your nanny state theory of free speech is anathema to free speech. Based on your logic, the school can lawfully punish students for the speech in each one of my examples.

You’ve made free speech for juveniles a facade, existing at the mercy of the public school, which is a perversion of the free speech clause. There’s no historical evidence or precedent for your view, which may explain why even the liberals on SCOTUS were cynical of the very argument you’ve made.

Yes, bullying outside of school is a problem. There are limits to bullying under the speech clause as speech that is bullying but is criminal harassment or criminal intimidation is a crime. But logically kids do have a private life that public schools or the government cannot regulate, and this will include bullying, speech that is lawful but is also bullying. Free speech means the freedom to speak ornery, offensive, and hurtful speech, especially done in private.


You’ve made the porous argument of time, place, and manner, before. You want to double down again? Really?

Review: Time, place, and manner restrictions deal with speech restrictions that are too noisy for the time of day, expressive speech that obstructs traffic.

In addition, time, place, and manner restriction cannot be based on the content of the speech.

But the school’s punishment IS based on the content of the cheerleader’s speech. So, time, place, and manner cannot vindicate the school’s action.

In addition, time, place, and manner restrictions MUST allow for alternative routes and methods for the speech to be communicated! That’s missing here because the school was objecting to the content of the message no matter how it was communicated. And your own argument is to allow a school to punish a student for the speech not matter the route of communication.

So, no, your repeated but mistakenly applied time, place, and manner approach cannot justify the school’s action in regards to the cheerleader, and neither can it vindicate your view.

You misstate my position. Let me be clear. On an island, bullying outside of school is free speech. In the classroom, off campus speech can have very specific repercussions. It's a great civics lesson in that whatever you believe your rights may protect you from, you won't know for sure until you're in the system and a court makes a final decision.

 

[NotreDame]

True, my wording was bad. Those were specific examples of where a juveniles rights are limited and an adults are not.

Nope. Because there isn’t any constitutional right to do that which is restricted in your examples. None. Your examples aren’t involving any “rights.”

But to go beyond the flaw of no constitutional right at issue in your examples, what your view ignores is a curfew can and has been made applicable to adults, so this isn’t really fertile terrain to make your point.

 

[NotreDame]

You misstate my position. Let me be clear. On an island, bullying outside of school is free speech. In the classroom, off campus speech can have very specific repercussions. It's a great civics lesson in that whatever you believe your rights may protect you from, you won't know for sure until you're in the system and a court makes a final decision.

Then I didn’t misstate your position. What you just said above is consistent with my statement of your position as being “Your view is free speech of students isn’t just limited to school property or functions, but the boundary of school authority follows the student like a shadow, and can attach for lawful speech done in private on the premise it can affect what happens in school.”

The above in quotes is precisely what you are saying when referencing “off campus speech can have very specific repercussions” within the school, within the classroom.

Your reasoning leaves lawful speech of the students made in private at the mercy of the government. Free speech exists to limit the reach of government in relation to speech, not stretch it to lawful speech made in private, off government property. The fact lawful speech off of school property, and made in private, can or could have “repercussions” in school is an outcome the free speech clause says must be tolerated. The remedy is to address the repercussions as they manifest themselves in school, and not punish the speaker who spoke off campus in a lawful manner.

 

[skeptic llc]

This is so confusing. Student said (basically) **** this school. On or off school grounds, with internets and vacuum tubes and whatever, who cares? School needs to grow up and be less snowflake, student gets to say what she thinks.

 

[Loulit01]

Opinion was 8-1 in favor of student.