Tolerant, progressive Boston Bruins fans tweeting racist comments re: Ward

[AttackPlanR]

And it's their narcisism that makes them want to share their every thought.

Did you really just say that??!!

[betamanlet]

http://wtop.com/41/2855235/Students-...-racist-tweets

This is why I can't stand PCness. You shoudn't get punished for being a jerk. I think these kids have a first amendment claim to make now.

[Calamari]

Did you really just say that??!!

Amazing, isn't it?

[Brohan]

Typical Boston liberals.

This is as predictable as John F. Kerry docking his yacht in RI to avoid taxes and Teddy Kennedy fighting the Nantucket Sounds Wind Farms because they would block his sailing lanes and view.

I wouldn't be surprised if Elizabeth Warren donned a Cleveland Indians hat if it would get her elected.

[banner1124]

http://wtop.com/41/2855235/Students-...-racist-tweets

This is why I can't stand PCness. You shoudn't get punished for being a jerk. I think these kids have a first amendment claim to make now.

Again showing that you have virtually no understanding of how the first amendment works.

[banner1124]

What's with the idiotic assumption being made by some that just because these people are from Boston they just MUST be liberal? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

[Brohan]

What's with the idiotic assumption being made by some that just because these people are from Boston they just MUST be liberal? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

Not nearly as stupid, offensive and intolerant as your avatar.

No surprise the incredibly racist name Redskins originated in Boston.

Elizabeth Warren must be outraged.

[betamanlet]

Again showing that you have virtually no understanding of how the first amendment works.

A student is being punished by a state actor for speech. And you are telling me I don't understand how the first amendment works?

[banner1124]

A student is being punished by a state actor for speech. And you are telling me I don't understand how the first amendment works?

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. The school is well within its rights and everyone knows that except you. You consistently make the same tired state actor argument and it's roundly trounced each and every time. Your argument doesn't hold water and you either don't realize it or you are fully aware of it and just don't care.

[banner1124]

Not nearly as stupid, offensive and intolerant as your avatar.

No surprise the incredibly racist name Redskins originated in Boston.

Elizabeth Warren must be outraged.

You are the authority on stupid and offensive. Please don't bother responding to any of my posts if all you're going to do is keep bringing up the avatar. It's getting old and tired. You really are a waste of space.

[betamanlet]

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. The school is well within its rights and everyone knows that except you. You consistently make the same tired state actor argument and it's roundly trounced each and every time. Your argument doesn't hold water and you either don't realize it or you are fully aware of it and just don't care.

So you are saying that a state actor can ban all speech it doesn't approve of?

Are you denying public schools are state actors?

[betamanlet]

You are the authority on stupid and offensive. Please don't bother responding to any of my posts if all you're going to do is keep bringing up the avatar. It's getting old and tired. You really are a waste of space.

He's pointing out your hypocrisy, yet like a liberal, al lyou can do is make a personal attack in response.

All you do is insult people, because you know you have no logical arguments.

[banner1124]

He's pointing out your hypocrisy, yet like a liberal, al lyou can do is make a personal attack in response.

All you do is insult people, because you know you have no logical arguments.

What hypocrisy? What in God's name are you talking about? I will respond in kind to the type of post that Brohan made. Don't want me to take a shot at you, then don't take one at me. And you really shouldn't be lecturing anyone about logical arguments because your posting tenure here has clearly displayed your stunning lack of the smallest shred of logic and critical thinking skills.

[banner1124]

So you are saying that a state actor can ban all speech it doesn't approve of?

Are you denying public schools are state actors?

The school has not banned the speech. There's no law saying that you cannot be punished for what you say even though you may be free to say it. Why is that simple concept so hard for you to grasp. By the way, the first amendment says nothing about "state actors"

By the way, you are still glossing over the fact that you completely made up the "liberal" angle that you presented.

[Jeebus]

So you are saying that a state actor can ban all speech it doesn't approve of?

Are you denying public schools are state actors?

SCOTUS has already ruled that schools can restrict speech.

The case is famously known as "Bong Hits For Jesus" but the actualy case name is Morse v. Frederick.

[betamanlet]

The school has not banned the speech. There's no law saying that you cannot be punished for what you say even though you may be free to say it. Why is that simple concept so hard for you to grasp. By the way, the first amendment says nothing about "state actors"

By the way, you are still glossing over the fact that you completely made up the "liberal" angle that you presented.

So if teacher posted on twitter that he's voting for Obama, and a school system fires him for it, you're going to claim that there's no law saying you can't be punished for what you say even though you may be free to say it?

Do you believe the rubbish you write?

I recommend you read something about the constitution and the first amendment, before you comment on it again.

[betamanlet]

SCOTUS has already ruled that schools can restrict speech.

The case is famously known as "Bong Hits For Jesus" but the actualy case name is Morse v. Frederick.

That was limited to a school sponsored event, and involved advocating an illegal activity.

twitter is not school sponsored, let alone an event, and making racial slurs isn't illegal. So it has no relevance on this case.

[banner1124]

So if teacher posted on twitter that he's voting for Obama, and a school system fires him for it, you're going to claim that there's no law saying you can't be punished for what you say even though you may be free to say it?

Do you believe the rubbish you write?

I recommend you read something about the constitution and the first amendment, before you comment on it again.

What kind of ridiculous example is that?

Talk about rubbish. Just keep digging beta... you look more foolish by the minute.

[betamanlet]

What kind of ridiculous example is that?

Talk about rubbish. Just keep digging beta... you look more foolish by the minute.

Can you please shock us and actually for once answer a question?

It's called a hypothetical. Yo usaid that people are free to say whatever they want, but aren't free from the consequences of it. I gave you a hypothetical, and you refused to answer it. You are the one who looks foolish becuase you refuse to back up your own statements by showing you believe in them by answer a hypothetical.

Now answer the question, do you think a school could punish a teacher for saying that he support obama on twitter, given you've just stated that people can say what they want, but only if they are prepared to face the consequences.

Well?

Are you going to answer the question?

[Jeebus]

That was limited to a school sponsored event, and involved advocating an illegal activity.

twitter is not school sponsored, let alone an event, and making racial slurs isn't illegal. So it has no relevance on this case.

No, it goes much father that you think.

The 9th circuit's decision to uphold the school's right to restrict speech was not only about drug use.

"the question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school-authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly 'No.'

This decision of course was reveresd by the SCOTUS.

Judge Roberts wrote the majority decision, excepted below.

First Amendment permits schools to restrict such speech

Finally, Roberts inquired whether a principal may restrict such speech. He concluded that she can.

He began by reviewing the court’s school speech jurisprudence:

• First, Roberts recapitulated that student expression may be suppressed only if school officials reasonably conclude that it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school” -- observing however that this doctrine came from a case (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.) in which the students were engaging in "political speech” in "a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance” (wearing armbands, to express “disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them.” Id., at 514), and in which "[t]he only interest the Court discerned underlying the school’s actions was the “mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” or “an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression.” Roberts commented on this opinion with a quote from Virginia v. Black -- that political speech is “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” 538 U. S. 343, 365 (2003).
  
  
• Second, Roberts cited Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser. The jurisprudence of Fraser is controversial, but Roberts declined to apply or resolve the disputed holding of that case ("We need not resolve this debate to decide this case”); instead, he explained that "[f]or present purposes, it is enough to distill from Fraser two basic principles”: that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings” (“in light of the special characteristics of the school environment”). that the “substantial disruption” analysis prescribed by Tinker "is not absolute” (i.e. it is flexible/optional).
  
  
• Third, Roberts cited the most recent student speech case, Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier. In that case, the Court permitted a school to "exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities” (declining to publish articles in the school paper that "the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school”) ”so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Robert found that this case, though factually distinct, was "nevertheless instructive because it confirms both principles cited above.”