amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
Preach, supernatural looks like it's going to be a monster of the week tonight, which sounds good, but the recent storyline developments make me not want to see monster of the week anymore
amateurhour on
are YOU on the beer list?
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I was thinking that if Netflix wants to call itself a streaming company it should have a hell of a lot more of its library available for streaming. They can call themselves a streaming company when every season of Top Gear is available!
I thought they had most of new format up for streaming, and really you aren't missing out on to much with the older stuff. Although seeing a young Jeremy Clarkson is pretty bizarre and interesting.
They only have seasons nine through twelve and some of the episodes are missing in a few of them. I've finished those already! I'd rather see everything rather than only some and then not have anything to watch.
Do they have the Vietnam special/ finale for 12, I made my roommates watch that on some crappy streaming site cause I didn't think of Netflix, it's soo good. After that I might make them watch the off-roading through the amazon special which I think was the end of season 11, it was pretty epic.
Actually it means enforcing a productive and smooth learning environment. Blocking offensive speech or actions falls under that provision, particularly when it creates a hostile environment for another group of students, in this case the gay students.
The bolded is just false. I challenge you to find a single piece of case law supporting that claim.
The latter, about a hostile environment, is more tenable. But even there you have to deal with the fact that the shirts are both religious and political, which are two of the very most protected types of speech, and furthermore, that they are being worn as passive symbols, which, again, is very difficult to restrict.
MrMister on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Preach, supernatural looks like it's going to be a monster of the week tonight, which sounds good, but the recent storyline developments make me not want to see monster of the week anymore
I like what they've done so far with the show, and it looked like it tied into the main story while still kind of being monster of the week.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
There needs to be a finding to the effect that there is substantial interference with school discipline and the rights of others. And being offended, or exposed to contradictory opinion, is explicitly designated as insufficient.
So you can't see how a quote affirming that it is just to kill homosexuals, worn on a day designed to foster a safe environment for gay students, would substantially interfere with school discipline and the right of certain students to not be assailed with inflammatory religious rhetoric?
That, importantly, is not a right.
School says clothing may not promote hatred as it fosters an unsafe learning environment, bam, done. There's no way in hell these students are going to win the suit.
did anyone else watch the wave when they were in school
we had a teacher try to do that to us once and she just wound up finding out that a bunch of 5th grade boys are perfectly okay with subverting others
i don't know what this is or means
you are talking in riddles, sir
It is a film about a youth movement that is basically fascism. It's a giant gotcha of a film that teachers delight in showing to classes of kids that are not yet fully politically aware.
I was thinking that if Netflix wants to call itself a streaming company it should have a hell of a lot more of its library available for streaming. They can call themselves a streaming company when every season of Top Gear is available!
I thought they had most of new format up for streaming, and really you aren't missing out on to much with the older stuff. Although seeing a young Jeremy Clarkson is pretty bizarre and interesting.
They only have seasons nine through twelve and some of the episodes are missing in a few of them. I've finished those already! I'd rather see everything rather than only some and then not have anything to watch.
Do they have the Vietnam special/ finale for 12, I made my roommates watch that on some crappy streaming site cause I didn't think of Netflix, it's soo good. After that I might make them watch the off-roading through the amazon special which I think was the end of season 11, it was pretty epic.
Yeah I've seen the Vietnam and Bolivia specials. I've also seen part of the Arctic special. They're all hilarious.
Sarksus on
0
Options
YamiNoSenshiA point called ZIn the complex planeRegistered Userregular
I was thinking that if Netflix wants to call itself a streaming company it should have a hell of a lot more of its library available for streaming. They can call themselves a streaming company when every season of Top Gear is available!
I thought they had most of new format up for streaming, and really you aren't missing out on to much with the older stuff. Although seeing a young Jeremy Clarkson is pretty bizarre and interesting.
They only have seasons nine through twelve and some of the episodes are missing in a few of them. I've finished those already! I'd rather see everything rather than only some and then not have anything to watch.
They're adding episodes. I noticed last night that the two missing ones from I think season 9 were added in.
YamiNoSenshi on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
School says clothing may not promote hatred as it fosters an unsafe learning environment, bam, done. There's no way in hell these students are going to win the suit.
I think you'd have to show that the environment was literally unsafe, i.e. that there was a real possibility of violence.
The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom--this kind of openness--that is [509] the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.
In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.
Actually it means enforcing a productive and smooth learning environment. Blocking offensive speech or actions falls under that provision, particularly when it creates a hostile environment for another group of students, in this case the gay students.
The bolded is just false. I challenge you to find a single piece of case law supporting that claim.
The latter, about a hostile environment, is more tenable. But even there you have to deal with the fact that the shirts are both religious and political, which are two of the very most protected types of speech, and furthermore, that they are being worn as passive symbols, which, again, is very difficult to restrict.
The case linked a page or so ago pretty clearly shows that the elimination of a hostile environment is prioritized over speech rights in schools. A literal threat of violence is not nessecary, only the creation of a hostile environment.
As I recall the reasoning behind this is has something to do with how school attendance is required, the students are minors, and that the school maintains some level of custody over the child while they're attending.
i mean, the mance of the threat is still extant but i think this is different from your initial phrasing
That someone else wore the shirt sans the hate speech, doesn't meant hey also weren't still advocating the message.
Not to mention I haven't heard of straight people being singled out and bullied based on the fact they are straight, so why would they need to advocate "pride" other then being dill weeds.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
School says clothing may not promote hatred as it fosters an unsafe learning environment, bam, done. There's no way in hell these students are going to win the suit.
I think you'd have to show that the environment was literally unsafe, i.e. that there was a real possibility of violence.
The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom--this kind of openness--that is [509] the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.
In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.
Right, but black armbands are a lot less explicit than shirts saying that gays should be put to death, and thus the latter fulfill that standard where the former as a symbolic protest against the Vietnam Police Action did not.
The case linked a page or so ago pretty clearly shows that the elimination of a hostile environment is prioritized over speech rights in schools.
As I recall the reasoning behind this is has something to do with how school attendance is required, the students are minors, and that the school maintains some level of custody over the child while they're attending.
You are clearly not talking about Tinker, since it concludes the opposite. Are you talking about Frasier? Because in that case the fact of mandatory attendance was salient, however, the speech was 1) obscene and 2) apolitical, which changes everything.
MrMister on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Actually it means enforcing a productive and smooth learning environment. Blocking offensive speech or actions falls under that provision, particularly when it creates a hostile environment for another group of students, in this case the gay students.
The bolded is just false. I challenge you to find a single piece of case law supporting that claim.
The latter, about a hostile environment, is more tenable. But even there you have to deal with the fact that the shirts are both religious and political, which are two of the very most protected types of speech, and furthermore, that they are being worn as passive symbols, which, again, is very difficult to restrict.
Bethel School District v. Fraser. The implied threat of violence is slightly more disruptive then a bunch of sex jokes.
Thomamelas on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
I don't think it's reasonable for a high school to be made into a hostile environment. I ended up dropping out of school because I feared a hostile school environment.
I don't really care about what the law says, only what should be the case.
i mean, the mance of the threat is still extant but i think this is different from your initial phrasing
That someone else wore the shirt sans the hate speech, doesn't meant hey also weren't still advocating the message.
Not to mention I haven't heard of straight people being singled out and bullied based on the fact they are straight, so why would they need to advocate "pride" other then being dill weeds.
dude
of course they're dill weeds
i'm certainly not defending them
i am only clearing up what seemed like the impression that the kids with the bible passage erased that and went back at it again the next day
(though apparently they did too)
saying there were other kids who went in who didn't have the bible thing at first, apparently on the second day... that's how it reads at least
Organichu on
0
Options
AriviaI Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered Userregular
edited November 2010
So, who wants to join my Third Orgasm movement?
Arivia on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Right, but black armbands are a lot less explicit than shirts saying that gays should be put to death, and thus the latter fulfill that standard where the former as a symbolic protest against the Vietnam Police Action did not.
The standard of immediately leading to violence?
I mean, that just strikes me as untrue. The students were able to wear their shirts without starting any brawls, which seems like strong evidence that they do not, in fact, immediately lead to violence. Or, really, materially disrupt the function of the school in any way.
I could see an argument to the effect that they interfere with gay students ability to learn, which is a real right (as opposed to the right not to be offended). However, I am uncertain of the legal standing of that general strategy.
Bethel School District v. Fraser. The implied threat of violence is slightly more disruptive then a bunch of sex jokes.
Obscene speech isn't protected. Political speech is.
edit: to elaborate, there is plenty of precedent that obscene speech can be suppressed, especially when it has no political, artistic, or other purpose. That's why Fraser lost. Not because offensive speech can be suppressed; nothing of that sort is the case.
i mean, the mance of the threat is still extant but i think this is different from your initial phrasing
That someone else wore the shirt sans the hate speech, doesn't meant hey also weren't still advocating the message.
Not to mention I haven't heard of straight people being singled out and bullied based on the fact they are straight, so why would they need to advocate "pride" other then being dill weeds.
one time i was at a party that was mostly gay dudes and girls who felt comfortable around gay dudes and a guy started verbally attacking me for being straight with my straight girlfriend at a "gay" party
it was really pretty odd and he was pretty drunk and thought i was the guy who bullied him in highschool or something
i ended up punching him and some other dude came up and apoligised for him saying that he always does this whenever someone brings a straight guy to one of their parties
i then had a fabulous watermelon martini thing
weird personal anecdote but i thougt id share because it was so weird
Bethel School District v. Fraser. The implied threat of violence is slightly more disruptive then a bunch of sex jokes.
Obscene speech isn't protected. Political speech is.
And Morse v Frederick put a clear restriction on political speech that may violate the law or advocate for illegal activities. Threatening someone is still a violation of the law.
Thomamelas on
0
Options
YamiNoSenshiA point called ZIn the complex planeRegistered Userregular
Proud to say it triggered my bullshit alarm even at that young age.
My teacher started it out as a "hall monitor" thing, then expanded our duties to police more and more things (while being immune from prosecution ourselves)
She gave us armbands and everything
in the end she did the great reveal and all the students were like "OH EMM GEE"
We just wanted to know when our next meeting was and TEACHER SALLY ISN'T SITTING CORRECTLY PUNISH HER INFRONT OF EVERYONE MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF HER
Posts
I didn't say you were. But wearing the same t-shirt sans bible message doesn't remove the fact that the implied threat had already been made.
This is cause Gooey is too ancient.
His riddles have become lost in the mists of time and now only he knows the context within they exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave
Do they have the Vietnam special/ finale for 12, I made my roommates watch that on some crappy streaming site cause I didn't think of Netflix, it's soo good. After that I might make them watch the off-roading through the amazon special which I think was the end of season 11, it was pretty epic.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
The bolded is just false. I challenge you to find a single piece of case law supporting that claim.
The latter, about a hostile environment, is more tenable. But even there you have to deal with the fact that the shirts are both religious and political, which are two of the very most protected types of speech, and furthermore, that they are being worn as passive symbols, which, again, is very difficult to restrict.
I like what they've done so far with the show, and it looked like it tied into the main story while still kind of being monster of the week.
pleasepaypreacher.net
School says clothing may not promote hatred as it fosters an unsafe learning environment, bam, done. There's no way in hell these students are going to win the suit.
It is a film about a youth movement that is basically fascism. It's a giant gotcha of a film that teachers delight in showing to classes of kids that are not yet fully politically aware.
by someone else
i mean, the mance of the threat is still extant but i think this is different from your initial phrasing
Yeah I've seen the Vietnam and Bolivia specials. I've also seen part of the Arctic special. They're all hilarious.
They're adding episodes. I noticed last night that the two missing ones from I think season 9 were added in.
I think you'd have to show that the environment was literally unsafe, i.e. that there was a real possibility of violence.
The case linked a page or so ago pretty clearly shows that the elimination of a hostile environment is prioritized over speech rights in schools. A literal threat of violence is not nessecary, only the creation of a hostile environment.
As I recall the reasoning behind this is has something to do with how school attendance is required, the students are minors, and that the school maintains some level of custody over the child while they're attending.
That someone else wore the shirt sans the hate speech, doesn't meant hey also weren't still advocating the message.
Not to mention I haven't heard of straight people being singled out and bullied based on the fact they are straight, so why would they need to advocate "pride" other then being dill weeds.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Right, but black armbands are a lot less explicit than shirts saying that gays should be put to death, and thus the latter fulfill that standard where the former as a symbolic protest against the Vietnam Police Action did not.
You are clearly not talking about Tinker, since it concludes the opposite. Are you talking about Frasier? Because in that case the fact of mandatory attendance was salient, however, the speech was 1) obscene and 2) apolitical, which changes everything.
Bethel School District v. Fraser. The implied threat of violence is slightly more disruptive then a bunch of sex jokes.
I don't really care about what the law says, only what should be the case.
dude
of course they're dill weeds
i'm certainly not defending them
i am only clearing up what seemed like the impression that the kids with the bible passage erased that and went back at it again the next day
(though apparently they did too)
saying there were other kids who went in who didn't have the bible thing at first, apparently on the second day... that's how it reads at least
What's the initiation entail.
The standard of immediately leading to violence?
I mean, that just strikes me as untrue. The students were able to wear their shirts without starting any brawls, which seems like strong evidence that they do not, in fact, immediately lead to violence. Or, really, materially disrupt the function of the school in any way.
I could see an argument to the effect that they interfere with gay students ability to learn, which is a real right (as opposed to the right not to be offended). However, I am uncertain of the legal standing of that general strategy.
well
a hammer is involved
I've got a bit of catching up to do today
Obscene speech isn't protected. Political speech is.
edit: to elaborate, there is plenty of precedent that obscene speech can be suppressed, especially when it has no political, artistic, or other purpose. That's why Fraser lost. Not because offensive speech can be suppressed; nothing of that sort is the case.
Harassment is not protected, and what qualifies as harassment in schools more loose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxQW8BWaEz0
one time i was at a party that was mostly gay dudes and girls who felt comfortable around gay dudes and a guy started verbally attacking me for being straight with my straight girlfriend at a "gay" party
it was really pretty odd and he was pretty drunk and thought i was the guy who bullied him in highschool or something
i ended up punching him and some other dude came up and apoligised for him saying that he always does this whenever someone brings a straight guy to one of their parties
i then had a fabulous watermelon martini thing
weird personal anecdote but i thougt id share because it was so weird
The closest thing we had to that was DARE.
Proud to say it triggered my bullshit alarm even at that young age.
you seem like prime-meat, candidate
It does indeed. Anybody want to start it?
And Morse v Frederick put a clear restriction on political speech that may violate the law or advocate for illegal activities. Threatening someone is still a violation of the law.
autofellatio
My teacher started it out as a "hall monitor" thing, then expanded our duties to police more and more things (while being immune from prosecution ourselves)
She gave us armbands and everything
in the end she did the great reveal and all the students were like "OH EMM GEE"
We just wanted to know when our next meeting was and TEACHER SALLY ISN'T SITTING CORRECTLY PUNISH HER INFRONT OF EVERYONE MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF HER