SCOTUS: "You have the right to curse."
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2021, 16:42 last edited by Catseye3
"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.
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2021, 16:43 last edited by
I wonder if this decision will pave the way for a closer look at so-called "hate speech."
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2021, 17:09 last edited by
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…
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2021, 17:30 last edited by
I think they got it right.
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2021, 17:41 last edited by
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…
-
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…
wrote on 23 Jun 2021, 18:20 last edited by@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…
wrote on 23 Jun 2021, 19:59 last edited by -
@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.
wrote on 23 Jun 2021, 20:07 last edited by@axtremus said in SCOTUS: "You have the right to curse.":
If I go on Facebook and say **** the Cleveland Browns, I shouldn’t face repercussions
You sure won't from Mik!
-
wrote on 23 Jun 2021, 22:13 last edited by
Gedouddahere. I was a Browns fan before there was a Bengals.
So **** the Steelers.