> 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?
Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
> Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater
> "The most stringent protection of free speech
> would not protect a man in falsely shouting
> fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The
> question in every case is whether the words
> used are used in such circumstances and are
> of such a nature as to create a clear and
> present danger."
> 1919 U.S. Supreme Court written by Justice Oliver
> Wendell Holmes Jr.
That case was overruled by Brandeburg vs. Ohio, genius.
Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
> Free speech *HAS* been used in court on
> threats of killing somebody... that's why we
> have to find if the threats are creditable.
> People have made death threats to both Bush
> and Obama... they still walk free because
> those threats aren't creditable.
The threats were certainly creditable. They may not have been credible, however.
It's interesting to note that the school's own logo is a Comanche Indian carrying a rifle, so their claim that the image of a gun is prohibited in school is bullshit. They just don't like the NRA's politics and are trying to suppress a political point of view, which is a bright-line 1st Amendment no-no for a government entity.
Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
> There are some thing that people shouldn't
> be allowed to freely say
And let me guess who gets to decide what those things are... you?
Thankfully we don't have to live based on your dictatorial whims. Nor is our childrens' right to speak dependent on the whims and political preferences of whomever happens to be running their school at any given moment.
Officer Anoymous also seems to be blisfully unaware that the internet extends past the boundaries of the U.S., so that even if the fascist police state he envisions were to
actually come to pass, it would do nothing to stop the trolls, the scammers, the phishers, or any other malcontent on the internet from doing what they do.
On the other hand, since he's cool with massively violating the 1st Amendment by abolishing the freedom to speak anonymously, perhaps he'd also solve that problem by just blocking Americans from the rest of the internet.
> Because once they leave their house to go to school
Irrelevant, because the kids in this case didn't leave their house to go to school. They left their house to play with their guns. They hadn't started the home-to-school process yet. Therefore it's none of the school's fucking business.
Even so, citizens don't give up their private property rights and freedom to raise their kids the way they like merely because a school bureaucrat says so. For example, if a rural family wants to give their kids chores to do on the way out the door as they go to school, the school can't forbid that because some of those chores might be 'dangerous' -- using machinery, sharp tools, etc.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt exception to "get offa my lawn" for juveniles, eh?
> In other words, "carrying a gun" is not only a statement
> of personal cowardice, it's an indicator that the hold is
> ready, willing, and able to supply free guns to criminals.
My sister is alive today because she was a "coward" and carried her gun with her in her purse. She was attacked one evening as she was entering her apartment by a man who was later determined to have raped and murdered two other women. My sister was to have been his third. Instead, she shot him, severed his spine, and now he's sitting in prison confined to a wheelchair and pissing through a bag for the rest of his life.
I sure am glad my sister was such a "coward". Beats being raped and dumped in a ditch any day, you insufferable prick.
Re: Re: Re: And, by omission: Google, Facebook, and other corporate employees are above suspicion?
> Laws aren't going to fix this. Education is.
> People need to learn the risks of sharing
> private data with corporations.
This isn't a case of private corporations abusing data. This is government employees abusing government databases, and it's only going to get worse when that Obamacare monstrosity gets fully implemented.
You think it's bad now when some shifty government worker gets hold of your DMV data? At least all he has there is your name and address. What happens when the database includes every personal, private medical issue you've ever had, your sexual orientation, your genetic information... It's gonna be brave new world out there.
> The privilege against self-incrimination is
> an important check on the government's ability
> to collect evidence directly from a witness.
This is a fundamental misstatement of the law.
The 5th Amendment checks the government's ability to collect evidence from the *defendant*. Witnesses have no 5th Amendment protection or right to remain silent. They can and often are compelled to provide all manner of testimony against their will.