wrong conclusion

Post #287,889 by boxley 6/26/07 8:04:44 PM Reply	wrong conclusion "The Supreme Court is saying you can take intent into account when the speech concerns smoking dope, but you can't take the intent into account when the intent of the speech is to side step a election law/regulation." The speech of students attending a "school sponsored event" can be censored for pro-drug messages. The speech of issues during a campaign may not be abridged by censors. The speech concerning a candidate specifically can be censored. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,890 by Seamus 6/26/07 8:31:06 PM 6/26/07 8:31:31 PM Reply	I disagree If I am not mistaken the banner was not on school property. As to the commercial, the message of the commercial itself seemed to fit the guidelines, it was the website that they attempted to send voters didn't fit the guidelines. So, by keeping the commercial clean but having a website with content that basically asked voters not to vote for McCain, the regulators decided that the intent of the commercial was to violate the regulation. Justice Roberts said that they couldn't judge the intent of the message; just the message itself. So, in the case of the High School student the principal could judge the intent of the student's message, but that the FEC could not judge the intent of the commercial. That to me is wrong, either they both can use intent to judge the message and take action or neither should be able to. Now, if he let the FEC judge intent, he still could have ruled that they misjudged this message or that the standards used were inappropriate. Seamus Edited by Seamus June 26, 2007, 08:31:31 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #287,891 by crazy 6/26/07 8:47:10 PM Reply	School property is not the issue [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/index.html\|http://www.cnn.com/2...nghits/index.html] Even though Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk, school officials argue that he and other students were participating in a school-sponsored event. They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers. As much as I approve of bong hits, and disapprove of Jesus (or so some might think), I gotta say the school was 100% within their rights of determining the behaviour of the students they were responsible for.
Post #287,892 by Seamus 6/26/07 8:50:29 PM Reply	No it is not the issue The ability to judge the intent of the message is the issue. Box brought it up, just because the school considered them at a school function doesn't mean they couldn't have been skipping school and been protesting on their own time. But again, it is just a side issue. Seamus
Post #287,894 by boxley 6/26/07 8:51:47 PM Reply	its the CENTRAL ISSUE to the ruling sheesh Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,895 by Seamus 6/26/07 9:16:41 PM Reply	It was the intent to promote drug use that Judge Roberts ruled allowed the school to suspend the student and violate his rights: "It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's 6-3 majority. Breyer noted separately he would give Morse qualified immunity from the lawsuit, but did not sign onto the majority's broader free speech limits on students. ... In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message." [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html\|http://www.cnn.com/2...speech/index.html] His reasoning implies that if the banner mentioned drugs but didn't promote drug use the suspension would have been illegal. The ability to judge the intent of the message is the issue I was dealing with. Seamus
Post #287,896 by boxley 6/26/07 9:31:35 PM Reply	splutter! If he wasnt on a school outing, the schoolboard and the principal would have lost all down the line, dont you understand that? The school only has standing because it was a class sanctioned activity. Since it was a school sanctioned activity the intent is the dicerning of the principal. The principal determined the intent to be an non-school allowed message. If it was after hours she could have shit a brick as far as the court was concerned. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,902 by Seamus 6/27/07 5:28:16 AM Reply	Are you really this dense? The ability to judge theintent of the message has been the issue for me from the start. Everything else is details, without the right details we wouln't be talking about the intent of the message issue. The court could have decided to weigh in and say that by cutting class that the student wasn't under the supervision of the principal but the court didn't take this side issue into consideration. The students don't completely don't lose their first amendment rights when they are in school. The court ruled the school got to judge the intent of the message, as to whether is affected student saftey which is ridiculous in this case, but that the FEC didn't get to judge whether the intent of the message was to circumvent the regulation. Either the court should let both have the ability to judge the intent of the message or neither. Seamus
Post #287,905 by bepatient 6/27/07 7:03:48 AM Reply	Re: Are you really this dense? "The students don't completely don't lose their first amendment rights when they are in school." Yeah, they pretty much do. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #287,906 by CRConrad 6/27/07 8:06:35 AM Reply	What was that about "it's a free country", again?
Post #287,924 by bepatient 6/27/07 11:14:29 AM Reply	Couple of issues with this First, these are generally children under the age of consent. As such, they are under the protection of the school. So, are your children allowed to say anything they want to you or any other adult. Say, would you allow them to tell your mother to go get $#(Q&d? Or would you want to limit that speech? Different on a college campus... Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}*
Post #287,976 by jb4 6/27/07 8:58:13 PM Reply	Dude, not only is 18 over the "age of consent" (as if that has anything to do with this), 18 is also over the age of majority; the guy who displayed the sign was officially an adult, able to vote, and able to get shot all to hell in a war manufactured by the guy he most likely didn't vote for. jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
Post #287,985 by bepatient 6/27/07 11:41:43 PM Reply	Ask it another way had the boy been injured, would the parents of that boy sued the school for failure to protect him while at a school sanctioned event? If there was a reasonable expectation that this event was held by the school on behalf of the students then it is not a speech issue because the administration has the right and indeed the duty to control the environment and was within their rights to suspend him for policy violations. The rest was a nice rant but completely irrelevant. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #287,987 by Ashton 6/28/07 5:23:27 AM Reply	Begs the question of his Majority Were he a 50 yo perpetual grad student in Biz-Ad.. (perhaps on a field trip to apply the Michelson-Morley technique (to see if money really has any velocity, after-all)) and choked on a pretzel - would his academic retinue be deemed in loco parentis, too? 50 ~= >'18' for all legal purposes. Besides, as to these litmus decisions -- the creds lost by the USSC in the '00 Election-nullification only hinted at the next rash of 5-4 redefinitions of the Constitution. Now if all 3 branches of Govt. + the pathetic remnants of the 4th (Estate) also drop below 30% in these tiresome polls, we may achieve perfect consistency, at last - Nobody listening to anyone. A Nation of W-clones. I can hardly wait.
Post #287,993 by bepatient 6/28/07 8:25:13 AM Reply	This is a litmus decision? I'm surprised they even took it. Student, at a school event, deliberately (by his own admission) provokes the school administration with a sign that he considers a joke and they don't. He lost. He should have. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #288,047 by Ashton 6/28/07 9:45:57 PM Reply	Litmus only in the sense that - should an unbroken stream of reversals of minor issues ensue, converging, betraying a pattern asymptotic to some Major Reversals, now being brewed -- then we shall have the full measure of the degree of sophisticated lying within the ~~Bush~~Cheney/Rove-picks' {hah} 'testimony' before Congress. Man: The Lying Animal. 21st Century man: less and less interested in whether it matters.
Post #287,909 by boxley 6/27/07 9:09:08 AM Reply	Im not the one who cant understand the basis of the case the court sided with the school who claimed they had jurisdiction over speech content. What part of that dont you understand? If the school did not claim jurisdiction there is no case. Intent doesnt mean a damn thing here. Now the school has a policy of no gang crap, drug crap and race crap. Bong hits for Jesus was taken as a pro drug message (stupid yes) You wouldnt be a school teacher would you or maybe a government worker? thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,916 by JayMehaffey 6/27/07 10:14:47 AM Reply	Re: School property is not the issue School property is not the issue [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2...nghits/index.html\|http://www.cnn.com/2...nghits/index.html] Even though Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk, school officials argue that he and other students were participating in a school-sponsored event. They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers. As much as I approve of bong hits, and disapprove of Jesus (or so some might think), I gotta say the school was 100% within their rights of determining the behaviour of the students they were responsible for. Personally I think this case really hinges on the question of this being a school event or not. I suspect that if one of the students had gotten hurt at the event, the school would be arguing with equal vigor that once school was dismissed the students where on their own. Jay
Post #287,965 by Ashton 6/27/07 5:01:56 PM Reply	Prec\ufffdsamente - that would be a 100% Murican cop-out.
Post #287,893 by boxley 6/26/07 8:51:02 PM Reply	so all for censorship I see, no free speech allowed "School sponsored event" seems to make the case, he was under the jurisdiction of the school at the time he displayed the banner. [link\|http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1558\|http://www.splc.org/...flash.asp?id=1558] The Court agreed with Morse that the 14-foot banner could be read as a promotion of drug use, deciding that the \ufffdBong Hits\ufffd message could be interpreted as either encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or celebrating of drug use. The Court also agreed that the speech took place at a school-sponsored event, although the banner was held up off campus on a public street. \ufffdBecause schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be reasonably regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick,\ufffd the decision reads. personally I disagree Now on to politics All of the nasty little issue ads that are clearly sponsored by moveon.org should also be banned because they run web sites derogatory of republicans? I dont think thats fair either. I dont care who sponsors an issue attack ad as it is usually some venal little twat with an axe to grind. Supported of course at arms length from the candidates of both parties. Issue attack ads are fine. Sliming a candidate directly on the tube is fine also. Speech that is not commercial or screaming fire in a theatre should not be limited by medium. If you think differently remove the first ammendment and nanny state us to death. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,897 by Seamus 6/26/07 9:33:36 PM Reply	It is all about intent I don't agree with the logic that censoring speech about drug use is safe guarding the students. Nor would I agree with allowing the censorship even if I felt it would actually do anything to dissuade drug use. My point is about the who gets to judge the intent of the speech and who doesn't. The Supreme Court is allowing schools to use their judgment about speech supporting drug use because they generally agree with the schools judgments. But, they decided not to allow the FEC to judge the intent of the speech because in my opinion because they think they will agree with the FEC. If the web sites you mention ran ads similar to the Wisconsin Right to Life ad, they should be banned also. The first amendment is for an individual's speech. Speech from groups can be regulated. It is our job to agree on what is reasonable regulation. Seamus
Post #287,898 by boxley 6/26/07 9:43:01 PM Reply	speech from non commercial groups CANNOT be regulated go pass a law that the green party cannot say anything bad about the EPA. See how long that lasts thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,903 by Seamus 6/27/07 5:35:02 AM Reply	Let me be clearer If any other group, even a liberal group, ran an ad similar to one the Wisconsin group ran than their commercials should have been banned also. Seamus
Post #287,910 by boxley 6/27/07 9:10:25 AM Reply	I have not seen the ad, what in detail was the content Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]

Welcome to IWETHEY!