bhull242 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (6618)

• On the post: Oklahoma Gov’t Revokes License Of Teacher Who Dared To Push Back Against State’s Censors

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2024 @ 10:41am

  I’m not saying you’re wrong (far from it!), but I do think it’s worth noting that, sometimes, these people run unopposed, that some people vote based on party regardless of who it is, and some people vote based on name recognition alone. In the latter two cases, they may know nothing at all about the candidate other than the name and party. As such, I don’t think we can be entirely certain that all or even most of the people who voted him into office did so because of his promise to censor, or even that they all knew that he campaigned on that promise. Many likely did, but we can’t know for sure how much of his electoral success was his campaign promises and how much was just because of his being listed as a Republican.

• On the post: First Amendment Doesn’t Quite Cover Students’ ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ Shirts, Says Federal Court

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2024 @ 03:03pm

  See the other examples raised in this thread.

  None of which help your case. Also, strictly speaking, yours is only the second comment in this thread, so there aren’t any other examples raised in this thread. There are other examples raised in other threads on this page, but not in this thread.

  When you permit euphemism to be censored, you open the door to all kinds of language crimes.

  Yeah, to other euphemisms. I don’t have a problem with that given that the censorship is limited only to students and only while at school or a school-run activity under school supervision.

  Your shirt saying “Goodbye, Felicia” may be just fine today but banned tomorrow because popular culture decides to give your words a different meaning than when they were printed.

  That’s missing the fact that we’re discussing a situation where it was known and intended to be a euphemism by the students, not a situation where the problematic meaning was unintended and unknown. It also ignores that this only applies to speech made by the students and only in school settings, nowhere else and from nobody else. In a perfectly parallel situation, I do not have a problem with that. At least it’s better than a straight-up mandatory uniform, where you can’t have any speech or even any real diversity on your clothes at all, and that is absolutely fine under the Constitution.

• On the post: First Amendment Doesn’t Quite Cover Students’ ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ Shirts, Says Federal Court

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2024 @ 02:51pm

  Except there is no real difference here. It’s not about the word but the intended and reasonably perceived meaning.

• On the post: First Amendment Doesn’t Quite Cover Students’ ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ Shirts, Says Federal Court

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2024 @ 02:46pm

  You idiots really aren’t thinking of the repercussions of holding that the appropriateness of speech ranks higher than the purpose.

  Because this is specific to students’ speech in a school setting. It doesn’t apply to children’s speech outside of school, nor to adults’ speech at all. Students at school have fewer protections for free speech. This principle does not apply outside of these specific circumstances.

  Unpopular opinions? Just make them 18+ and you can censor them from 20% of the population!

  This isn’t about age-appropriateness. This is about maintaining order in a school setting. And it’s very specifically the students’ speech being censored here, not just anyone’s, and only at school. This isn’t about books kept in school libraries or speech being accessed by children or any speech outside of schools.

  Between the internet age laws, book bans and other nonsense there is no way censoring political speech based on age appropriateness is a good path to go down.

  Except that internet age restrictions and book bans don’t fall under the exceptions relevant here. Those other situations don’t involve students’ speech in a school setting but minors’ access to speech, the former on the internet (anywhere) and the latter in libraries. This exception to the 1A only applies to the speech of students, not merely accessible for students, and only at school or under school supervision.

• On the post: First Amendment Doesn’t Quite Cover Students’ ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ Shirts, Says Federal Court

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2024 @ 02:34pm

  Even if “people plainly understood what [a T-shirt without decoration] stood for”, you are advocating banning undecorated clothing based on expectations.

  The expectations of both the person wearing the shirt and the school.

  Sometimes, a blank T-shirt is just a blank T-shirt. And sometimes a pipe is not a pipe.

  This isn’t one of those scenarios. We’re specifically talking about a scenario where that isn’t the case.

• On the post: First Amendment Doesn’t Quite Cover Students’ ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ Shirts, Says Federal Court

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2024 @ 02:31pm

  So, any statement, any slogan that can be turned into a vulgarity (or otherwise “disruptive” speech) can be barred?

  In a school setting, specifically? Yes, so long as the interpretation is reasonable. Like it or not, that has been the law for quite some time. Though, really, it’s more that any statement or slogan that has been transformed from a vulgarity to something not quite as blatantly vulgar can be barred, so long as the connection is still reasonable to make. It’s saying that you can’t get around the rule quite that easily. Important to this case is that the students knew and intended it to be interpreted as the school did.

  I guess I’d better not wear my shirt that has Winnie the Poo on one half, Gollum on the other half, and the legend “success in foreign diplomacy” across the bottom?

  Not in a school, maybe. Outside of a school? Go nuts. Though, honestly, I have no idea what that’s even referring to, so if it’s not perceived as such, it wouldn’t be banned.

• On the post: First Amendment Doesn’t Quite Cover Students’ ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ Shirts, Says Federal Court

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2024 @ 02:23pm

  You’re splitting hairs. It was specifically intended as a reference, and it was perceived as a reference. I don’t actually care (since it just makes them look dumb, anyways), but pretending it isn’t in some way a reference to a phrase that contains profanity is being deliberately obtuse.

• On the post: Georgia’s Secretary Of State Slapped With Frivolous Lawsuits: The Case For A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2024 @ 12:18pm

  How would it be unconstitutional? Congress is specifically empowered by the Constitution to set rules for judicial procedure and such, so where’s the issue?

• On the post: Georgia’s Secretary Of State Slapped With Frivolous Lawsuits: The Case For A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2024 @ 12:14pm

  Amazing that there’s been no reporting (or even commentary) by the principle here on how Elon Musk’s noble defense of freedom of speech led him to close ex-Twitter’s physical office in Brasil rather than comply with the demented censorship orders of an evil and corrupt member of the judiciary.

  1. This is the first I’m hearing of this. Do you have a citation?
  2. Just because it hasn’t been covered here yet doesn’t mean there is no intent to cover it.
  3. “Noble defense of freedom of speech”? No. Elon is very inconsistent on the matter, really only caring about it when he thinks it benefits him to do so, like when the speech at issue is something he likes. Sometimes he fights these laws, while other times he supports them.
  4. This has no relevance to the article. This is the wrong place to bring up that topic.

• On the post: Texas School Thinks It Can Solve Student Mental Health Issues By Banning Black Clothing

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2024 @ 08:01am

  According to the El Paso Times, the policy is officially on hold. Supposedly, this is at least partly due to a miscommunication between the middle school and the district, as the policy had yet to get district approval, so it was not yet official, but the school began implementing it anyway. Per the district’s official statement:

  Unfortunately, the campus prematurely communicated the dress code change as a final decision rather than a recommendation.

  Now, frankly, it’s still stupid either way. Not only would it be dumb for the policy to get that far in the first place, but there’s also the fact that parents were already complaining about not getting more time, so if they are still working on making these sorts of decisions, that means parents would have even less time to get proper clothes in time for the new school year than they thought.

• On the post: Governor To Students: ‘Look The Other Way’ If You’re Bothered By Mandated Posting Of Ten Commandments In Public Schools

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2024 @ 04:35pm

  As AC implied, Wiktionary’s definitions are crowd-sourced internationally, removing much of their subjectivity.

  That doesn’t actually follow. It’s just changing whose subjectivity is involved. More importantly, it doesn’t change the non-exhaustive, non-technical, and descriptive nature of it, which was the main point. Wiktionary can only say how the crowd describes how a word is used. It is not prescriptive, and it doesn’t necessarily include every single nuance or definition for every word.

• On the post: Looks Like The Judge Who OK’ed A Raid On A Small Town Paper Didn’t Read The Warrants Until AFTER She’d Signed Them

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2024 @ 04:05pm

  I don’t see what the problem is.

  That says a lot more about you than it does about the issue.

  Warrants are a damn waste of time anyway, […]

  They’re supposed to be a check on government power to prevent abuse. That you see it as a waste of time say a lot more about you than it does about warrants.

  […] and you idiots keep trying to hold cops accountable.

  And why is that a bad thing? Why shouldn’t cops—or anyone else—be held accountable for their own actions? That you think that’s idiotic says a lot more about you than it does about us.

• On the post: Ad Execs Speak Out: Musk’s Lawsuit Makes ExTwitter Even Less Appealing

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2024 @ 03:46pm

  Other advertisers: Well, that’s not very nice! We’re leaving too! Musk: *Surprised Pikachu face*

• On the post: Governor To Students: ‘Look The Other Way’ If You’re Bothered By Mandated Posting Of Ten Commandments In Public Schools

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2024 @ 12:14am

  Yeah, I think it’s because there’s some repetition in there. Like, the first few verses are pretty much identical to the next couple in terms of what they command. It’s worth noting that Genesis and Exodus were both compiled from different accounts by different authors, and it wasn’t always done all that neatly. I have a hunch that what happened here was they were transitioning from one version to another and ended up including the first two commandments twice. The authors of the Torah weren’t particularly interested in consistency, to be honest.

• On the post: Governor To Students: ‘Look The Other Way’ If You’re Bothered By Mandated Posting Of Ten Commandments In Public Schools

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2024 @ 12:06am

  No, vulgar is correct. The dialect is called “Vulgar Latin”.

• On the post: EU Officials Seem Pretty Pissed Off At Thierry Breton For His Censorial Letter To Elon

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2024 @ 11:55pm

  What would be wrong with that?

• On the post: 8th Circuit Says Iowa Can Keep Its LGBTQ-Targeting Book Ban

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2024 @ 03:13pm

  Reminder that this is a myth, and it actually bans books that would try to prevent sexual exploitation of minors as well as books that aren’t actually sexual to most people.

• On the post: Governor To Students: ‘Look The Other Way’ If You’re Bothered By Mandated Posting Of Ten Commandments In Public Schools

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2024 @ 03:06pm

  Some unfortunate news. The law specifies exactly which words to use:

  The Ten Commandments I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

  This drastically reduces the options for malicious compliance. It also says:

  At a minimum, the Ten Commandments shall be displayed on a poster or framed document that is at least eleven inches by fourteen inches. The text of the Ten Commandments shall be the central focus of the poster or framed document and shall be printed in a large, easily readable font.

  So, it does specify it has to be large and the central focus.

• On the post: Governor To Students: ‘Look The Other Way’ If You’re Bothered By Mandated Posting Of Ten Commandments In Public Schools

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2024 @ 02:58pm

  So, I was trying to find the statute to see whether it specifies what it means by “The Ten Commandments”, and I happened to find this:

  The law also “authorizes” — but does not require — the display of the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance in K-12 public schools.

  Seems interesting to me that they’d make these secular documents that are actually directly related to American history optional, but a religious document with no real relation to our history is mandatory. And I also have no idea why they thought they’d need to authorize it; I can’t think of a single reason why such authorization would be needed.

• On the post: Governor To Students: ‘Look The Other Way’ If You’re Bothered By Mandated Posting Of Ten Commandments In Public Schools

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2024 @ 02:52pm

  The Supreme Court has since held that, under the 14th Amendment, several rights guaranteed by the Constitution—including all those in the 1st Amendment—are also ones that the states can’t infringe on, either.

Next >>