- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Well, I'm just using the progressive knee-jerk reaction to anything and everything they don't agree with.
It's called fighting fire with fire.
Biology isn't a matter of opinion. They were presenting models of what looked like fully developed babies and declaring this was what a fetus looks like at like 8 weeks.
Then it would be easy for you to cite the relevant decision.
Do not deflect. Gay sex sou;d be just as much free speech as pro-choice advocacy.
Poutrage noted.
`
`
`
"The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."IF a school allows one group, Pro-life student group, without an opposing perspective such as a Pro-Choice student group, that is where the problem starts. In public K-12 schools, that is just crying for future litigation.
Public schools can routinely and legally ban any and all, non-academic groups.
`
Ignoring the Bill of Rights on purpose, which is going against our founding fathers ideas of freedom, hence going against the United States, our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There are many forms of tyranny, however they ALL have one thing in common - destroy classical liberalism.
No worries, neither do I and that is irrelevant as usual from you.I don't give one **** what you believe.
But I do, at least as expressed by you in your posts. You see the world and the issues in it with the narrow focus of a limited knowledge that is mostly dogma driven.It is quite obvious you're incapable of understanding my position and only care about yours.
Do you believe that if not broken up the irrelevance would be somehow lost in the drivel?Furthermore, only a desperate "collectivist" would break my posts up like you do.
Not much and you couldn't if you tried.I'm telling you NOT teaching you.
`
`
`
"The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."IF a school allows one group, Pro-life student group, without an opposing perspective such as a Pro-Choice student group, that is where the problem starts. In public K-12 schools, that is just crying for future litigation.
Public schools can routinely and legally ban any and all, non-academic groups.
`
I did, the difference being that I actually understand it as opposed to you who need to rely on talking points and ignorance.If you want an intelligent argument go read the Bill of Rights.
You are making again moronic assumptions for which you have no basis.Oh yeah you never did nor did you embrace the US Constitution
Pretty much this. Tinker pretty much said that public schools cannot restrict students’ expression, unless it would “materially and substantially interfere” with appropriate school discipline. However, there are still exceptions to the Tinker rule, like Hazelwood, Bethel, and Morse.
In other words you have nothing and are spouting from a point of ignorance.i don't need to cite common knowledge.
You need to learn what a logical fallacy is so you do not look foolish. If one group, under the guise of free speech, is allowed to promote an anti-abortion position then so should be another to promote gay sex.it isn't a deflection you committed a logical fallacy by bringing up gay sex that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Free speech is not limited to content you like. That you support some contend and oppose other only demonstrates hypocrisy.they are not showing any type of public display of sexual positions or demonstrations of such.
yet you are unable to reference a single case, why?school are constantly sued of this and lose on a consistent basis.
Nobody is forcing kids to join this group...they join because of common interests.
Of course it's not, because all schools are exactly the same, run by the same people. Obviously schools have no local influence, either in terms of community leaders or persuasion of school administrators, all schools are exactly the same. After all, we know what a liberal position "abstinence only" programs are, right?Very well...then why say it? Were you under the impression that I was pro-life?
I'm not against liberal agendas in schools. I'm against the hypocrisy involved, where conservatives aren't afforded those same rights. If you have the "rainbow brigade" in one room and the "ABORTION IS MURDER!" crowd in the next room, I'm good with it. However, we both know that it's not the case.
Right, of course. The fact it happened in a school is all most people need, schools and their "liberal agendas".The school's in Connecticut. That's all the evidence anyone should need. :wink:
And if this were a group of gay students, you would be the first to scream about their right to free speech.
school are constantly sued of this and lose on a consistent basis. why? because they have to prove that said poster will cause a threat or actually induce physical violence of some kind. they cannot ban something simply because they have a feeling or don't like what is being said.
That's no excuse to violate someone's rights.
How do you know pro-choice was forbidden? That was never mentioned. Though it still has nothing to do with religion.
I didn't say it was. But it is a fact that no pro-choice student group existed there. I agree though, this is not about religion.
The supreme court has ruled numerous times that students do not give up their 1st amendment rights when they walk into school. Schools can only limit speech when it comes to if it is going to cause a classroom disruption (which at lunch it isn't) or they can prove that it will cause physical harm.
i can understand this principle but he overstepped his bounds. according to the supreme court just because something might be controversial doesn't mean that you can limit the speech of the student.
...Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
OK, so you can cite a lack of a pro-choice group at school? Is there no pro-choice at school because the school denies it or lack of interest?
That is not entirely correct...the SC did not say just in cases of disruption in the class or speech that will insight danger... The SC was not that specific.
In HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER, The court ruled:
It doesn't matter and is not a legal issue. The issue is, can a public school limit the expression of free speech from a sanctioned student group. In cases like this, a federal law must have been violated. The "Establishment Clause" seems most likely.
Biology isn't a matter of opinion. They were presenting models of what looked like fully developed babies and declaring this was what a fetus looks like at like 8 weeks.
It doesn't matter and is not a legal issue. The issue is, can a public school limit the expression of free speech from a sanctioned student group. In cases like this, a federal law must have been violated. The "Establishment Clause" seems most likely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?