SCOTUS: "You have the right to curse."
-
"It might be tempting to dismiss (the student's) words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary." -- Justice Stephen Breyer.
Right on.
ETA: I know I'm praising a man so despised by AOC. I feel really bad about that -- really, really bad.
I might even have to skip lunch, I feel so bad. That's how bad I feel.
-
I kind of agree with Clarence Thomas. This was a posting about the program by a member of the program.
It was stupid of the school to punish her. She was just hurt and lashed out, but…
-
If I go on Facebook and say **** the Cleveland Browns, I shouldn’t face repercussions from work. If I go online and say **** Jordan Kitt’s, I should expect repercussions…
The Brad
-
If I go on Facebook and say **** the Cleveland Browns, I shouldn’t face repercussions from work. If I go online and say **** Jordan Kitt’s, I should expect repercussions…
@lufins-dad said in SCOTUS: "You have the right to curse.":
If I go on Facebook and say **** the Cleveland Browns, I shouldn’t face repercussions from work. If I go online and say **** Jordan Kitt’s, I should expect repercussions…
That’s the difference between “private” entities and “public” entities. Your Jordan Kitt example involves no “public” entity, no agent of the state. But the public school is a “public” entity, an agent of the state. A private entity can censor their own employees if they want (e.g., just write a non-disparaging clause into the employment agreement), but the state (and agents of the state) are restrained by the First Amendment from doing so.
-
If I go on Facebook and say **** the Cleveland Browns, I shouldn’t face repercussions from work. If I go online and say **** Jordan Kitt’s, I should expect repercussions…
-
@lufins-dad said in SCOTUS: "You have the right to curse.":
If I go on Facebook and say **** the Cleveland Browns, I shouldn’t face repercussions from work. If I go online and say **** Jordan Kitt’s, I should expect repercussions…
That’s the difference between “private” entities and “public” entities. Your Jordan Kitt example involves no “public” entity, no agent of the state. But the public school is a “public” entity, an agent of the state. A private entity can censor their own employees if they want (e.g., just write a non-disparaging clause into the employment agreement), but the state (and agents of the state) are restrained by the First Amendment from doing so.
