14 year old boy to get year in jail for wearing NRA T-shirt

[bripat9643]

Show us where it says he can. bripat, you are so losing on this. What does your communist WHO literature of have to say about it, comrade?

since when do we live under the German bureaucracy rule - everything not allowed is forbidden?

That's the way the country works in Fakey's mind.

 

[Polk]

If they can ban T-shirts that are "violent" or "sexist" then why can't they ban pro-drug use banners? The rule that schools can ban speech they don't like was approved by the court long ago.

They can ban pro-drug banners. See Morse v. Frederick.

Students do not, the Court tells us in Tinker vs. Des Moines, "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

Anything else?

That's not really relevant. The First Amendment protects free speech, but that doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a theater.

 

[bripat9643]

They can ban pro-drug banners. See Morse v. Frederick.

Students do not, the Court tells us in Tinker vs. Des Moines, "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

Anything else?

That's not really relevant. The First Amendment protects free speech, but that doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a theater.

In other words, we don't really have free speech. That's the argument boot-lickers always give for limiting your speech.

The reason you can't yell fire in a movie theater is the fact that it's private property. The property owner sets the rules for what can be said and not said on his property.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They can ban pro-drug banners. See Morse v. Frederick.

Students do not, the Court tells us in Tinker vs. Des Moines, "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

Anything else?

That's not really relevant. The First Amendment protects free speech, but that doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a theater.

It is relevant. Your statement however, is a non sequitur. The shirt was in no way was impeding the "education mission" of the school. These people determined that for themselves, because it advocated a position they disagreed with. All they did was turn this into a circus. How exactly did he "yell 'fire'"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Students do not, the Court tells us in Tinker vs. Des Moines, "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

Anything else?

That's not really relevant. The First Amendment protects free speech, but that doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a theater.

In other words, we don't really have free speech. That's the argument boot-lickers always give for limiting your speech.

The reason you can't yell fire in a movie theater is the fact that it's private property. The property owner sets the rules for what can be said and not said on his property.

A school is public property, hence the name "Public School" therefore his parents tax dollars are going to fund his education, and as such he has a right to freely express himself without fear of reprisal.

 

[Polk]

Students do not, the Court tells us in Tinker vs. Des Moines, "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

Anything else?

That's not really relevant. The First Amendment protects free speech, but that doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a theater.

In other words, we don't really have free speech. That's the argument boot-lickers always give for limiting your speech.

The reason you can't yell fire in a movie theater is the fact that it's private property. The property owner sets the rules for what can be said and not said on his property.

None of the rights in the Constitution are limitless.

 

[Polk]

Students do not, the Court tells us in Tinker vs. Des Moines, "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

Anything else?

That's not really relevant. The First Amendment protects free speech, but that doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a theater.

It is relevant. Your statement however, is a non sequitur. The shirt was in no way was impeding the "education mission" of the school. These determined that for themselves, because it advocated a position they disagreed with. All they did was turn this into a circus. How exactly did he "yell 'fire'"?

Once again, you want to make it about the political statement. It's not. It's about the picture of a gun. And yes, allowing children to wear shirts to school with guns, crack pipes, and two people screwing each other is impeding the "educational mission".

 

[bripat9643]

That's not really relevant. The First Amendment protects free speech, but that doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a theater.

In other words, we don't really have free speech. That's the argument boot-lickers always give for limiting your speech.

The reason you can't yell fire in a movie theater is the fact that it's private property. The property owner sets the rules for what can be said and not said on his property.

None of the rights in the Constitution are limitless.

You mean they aren't absolute. In a sense. You have no right to free speech on someone else's property. Another way of saying it is that your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. However, wearing a shirt with a gun on it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights, so that argument is a non-starter.

 

[Polk]

In other words, we don't really have free speech. That's the argument boot-lickers always give for limiting your speech.

The reason you can't yell fire in a movie theater is the fact that it's private property. The property owner sets the rules for what can be said and not said on his property.

None of the rights in the Constitution are limitless.

You mean they aren't absolute. In a sense. You have no right to free speech on someone else's property. Another way of saying it is that your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. However, wearing a shirt with a gun on it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights, so that argument is a non-starter.

It's broader than that. Do you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?

 

[bripat9643]

That's not really relevant. The First Amendment protects free speech, but that doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a theater.

It is relevant. Your statement however, is a non sequitur. The shirt was in no way was impeding the "education mission" of the school. These determined that for themselves, because it advocated a position they disagreed with. All they did was turn this into a circus. How exactly did he "yell 'fire'"?

Once again, you want to make it about the political statement. It's not. It's about the picture of a gun. And yes, allowing children to wear shirts to school with guns, crack pipes, and two people screwing each other is impeding the "educational mission".

In the case of guns, NOT. Unless, of course, the "educational mission" is to teach students that the 2nd Amendment is evil.

 

[bripat9643]

None of the rights in the Constitution are limitless.

You mean they aren't absolute. In a sense. You have no right to free speech on someone else's property. Another way of saying it is that your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. However, wearing a shirt with a gun on it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights, so that argument is a non-starter.

It's broader than that. Do you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?

Yes.

 

[Polk]

It is relevant. Your statement however, is a non sequitur. The shirt was in no way was impeding the "education mission" of the school. These determined that for themselves, because it advocated a position they disagreed with. All they did was turn this into a circus. How exactly did he "yell 'fire'"?

Once again, you want to make it about the political statement. It's not. It's about the picture of a gun. And yes, allowing children to wear shirts to school with guns, crack pipes, and two people screwing each other is impeding the "educational mission".

In the case of guns, NOT. Unless, of course, the "educational mission" is to teach students that the 2nd Amendment is evil.

Yes, because what other possible reason would convince someone that people shouldn't walk around brandishing firearms...

 

[Polk]

You mean they aren't absolute. In a sense. You have no right to free speech on someone else's property. Another way of saying it is that your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. However, wearing a shirt with a gun on it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights, so that argument is a non-starter.

It's broader than that. Do you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?

Yes.

Thanks for further unmasking yourself as a crackpot.

 

[bripat9643]

It's broader than that. Do you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?

Yes.

Thanks for further unmasking yourself as a crackpot.

Am I?

Prove you don't have a right to own nuclear weapons.

 

[bripat9643]

Once again, you want to make it about the political statement. It's not. It's about the picture of a gun. And yes, allowing children to wear shirts to school with guns, crack pipes, and two people screwing each other is impeding the "educational mission".

In the case of guns, NOT. Unless, of course, the "educational mission" is to teach students that the 2nd Amendment is evil.

Yes, because what other possible reason would convince someone that people shouldn't walk around brandishing firearms...

How does having a picture of a firearm on your shirt equate to "brandishing firearms?"

 

[tubig]

In the case of guns, NOT. Unless, of course, the "educational mission" is to teach students that the 2nd Amendment is evil.

Yes, because what other possible reason would convince someone that people shouldn't walk around brandishing firearms...

How does having a picture of a firearm on your shirt equate to "brandishing firearms?"

There is a lot that is not being reported here. On the face of it the whole thing is exaggerated. For instance the thread title says "14 year old boy to get jail ...." Nothing in the report suggests that. Sounds to me like some whack-a-doodle adults are politicizing the poor kid. They should be before the court.

 

[paulitician]

The Authority Buffoons have clearly taken this one too far. Leave the kid alone. Putting him in Jail? Seriously, come on man. This is why Homeschooling is the logical way forward. Our Public School System is crumbling. The System only allows Government-approved messages. These are completely arbitrary rules. If he wore a shirt with a Teachers Union emblem on it, i'm sure this silly situation would have never occurred.

All that being said, these are State-Run Government apparatuses. So always expect the worst. It's time for Americans to seriously consider Homeschooling as a viable alternative to State-Run Education.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Once again, you want to make it about the political statement. It's not. It's about the picture of a gun. And yes, allowing children to wear shirts to school with guns, crack pipes, and two people screwing each other is impeding the "educational mission".

In the case of guns, NOT. Unless, of course, the "educational mission" is to teach students that the 2nd Amendment is evil.

Yes, because what other possible reason would convince someone that people shouldn't walk around brandishing firearms...

Did the gun magically jump out of his shirt and start killing random people on its own? Are you people stoned or something?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And Polk never did explain his definition of "lewd speech" to the rest of us. How is supporting the 2nd Amendment "lewd"? I'm still waiting for a rational answer.

 

[paulitician]

In the case of guns, NOT. Unless, of course, the "educational mission" is to teach students that the 2nd Amendment is evil.

Yes, because what other possible reason would convince someone that people shouldn't walk around brandishing firearms...

Did the gun magically jump out of his shirt and start killing random people on its own? Are you people stoned or something?

Interesting, if he wore a shirt with an Anti-Gun message, would it have been an issue? I doubt it. These rules are completely arbitrary. State-Run Education is a mess. This is just more proof of that.