Seems odd to me that the supervisors got the brunt of the punishment here. They were the ones giving the orders to back off. They were the ones attempting to do the right thing. If their orders are ignored and the patrol cops essentially go rogue, how is that their fault?
> If the comments on the photo really were > racist and derogatory toward the girl, they > would almost certainly qualify as "cyberbullying".
You're assuming that if there were racist comments made, then they were made about the girl. The racist comments could just as easily have been directed toward the principal. We don't know. The quote from the article doesn't provide any clarification. Typical sloppy job by the media.
Actually, I'm gonna go with the principal being the more credible one here. If you read the linked article, it mentions that the girl who was "choked" was lying in a neck brace, supposedly unable to move, when the media showed up to talk to her, but that a school resource officer recorded her moving around freely and without pain when there were no reporters around to play to.
Sounds like a girl who is dishonestly milking the incident for sympathy (after probably being coached to do so by the adults in her life). Not exactly someone who's word I'm going to take over that of the principal.
That said, these school officials need to get it through his heads once and for all that they don't have jurisdiction over the whole world, and that includes social media web sites.
> Oh... I get it. Kind of like how you have to > already be guilty of Murder before you can > claim "Justifiable Homicide" because that is > how it works ... oh, wait...
He's wrong about the guilt aspect, but he's right about the fact that Fair Use, just like self-defense, is an affirmative defense, which shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.
If you kill someone and plead self-defense, you're essentially admitting to the homicide, and then it becomes *your* burden, not the prosecution's, to prove by clear and convincing evidence why that homicide was legally justified.
The same process applies with Fair Use. You admit to the actions the plaintiff claims are infringing, and then you have the burden to prove they are justified based on the statutory elements of Fair Use. The plaintiff does not have the burden of proving you weren't justified.
> Instead of putting lipstick on a pig, why > don't we repeal the patriot act and stop > with all these bullshit USA Nation Freedom > 'Merical Named bills?
If I could, I'd get an amemdnment passed to the Constitution forbidding Congress from naming bills. It would require that they referenced by number only: H.B. 1472, S.B. 1188, etc.
It would end this ridiculous charade of them giving bills names that no politician wants to vote against, even if they think the underlying law will be bad for the country. Who wants to be the guy who voted against "patriotism" or "safe children", even if the damn thing has nothing to do with the name it carries?
It's a thinly-disguised tool of legislative blackmail and it needs to stop.
So you've quoted the statute. That's step 1. Well done. Now research the court cases that have interpreted that statute over the years and see how the power of the government under this section has been limited by them.
I'd say you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to bring charges against someone for lying to a museum tour guide, but you'd never even get to court. No prosecutor who wanted to keep his job would even touch such a case.
> We had discussed this internally. We left
> it as DHS because the court refers to DHS.
Rather than perpetuate a glaring error, I would think the proper think to do in that case would be to note that the court erroneously referred to DHS as committing these deportations during a time when DHS did not exist, and then from that point on refer to the correct agency.
Why do politicians continue to waste time and resources on programs that have zero chance of withstanding judicial scrutiny?
Surely these school districts employ lawyers to advise them on legal issues, and I'm assuming these lawyers are of at least minimal competence, having passed the bar and all, so I assume these lawyers are informing their clients that a program whereby a private company like Facebook gives the government the power to censor anyone it likes can't possibly survive even the most basic constitutional scrutiny. And yet they go right ahead and do it anyway.
> a military logo shows the military units,
> Patriotism, the Country, protection, apple pie,
> hero's.. and so on. NRA shirt promotes GUNS.
> it's also an NRA T-Shirt, not his own speech,
> it's not his speech to be free. the NRA shirt
> expresses the speech of the NRA, if he has of
> made his own shirt with "NRA is great" then
> that is his own free speech or freedom of
This has to be the most uninformed, illogical, insipid, and flat-out wrong analysis of 1st Amendment law I've seen in quite a while.
(Please tell me you're not a product of the public schools, otherwise I'll weep for the future of the nation.)
> "Literal free speech" as an ideology as "your
> right to" requires no consequence
Not under American law. In the context of American law free speech does not mean speech without consequence. It means speech free from government interference and censorship. You still have to deal with the consequences of saying incendiary things (losing your job, social exclusion, etc.)
> Promoting guns to kids is IMPOSING the promoters
> morality of "guns are good" on others.
So should kids be prohibited from wearing clothing that promotes *any* politicial or social issue, or just the issues you don't particularly agree with?
Should pro-gay rights t-shirts be treated the same way you believe NRA t-shirts should be treated? How about global warming (pro or con)? Or illegal immigration? Or abortion? Or even just candidates during an election?
Do we strip kids of the right to express *all* political and social opinions or just the ones you don't like?