lawrocket 3 #26 April 22, 2006 QuoteYour assumption here is that civil judgements can be fully enforced. Last I looked, O.J. Simpson wasn't living in a van down by the river. You've got a point - a valid one. Do you think Metzger had 12 million to pony up? Actually, I think the SPLC got about 50 million in donations while doing the case. But, O.J.'s house was gone. They took everything but his retirement, which is protected by the federal ERISA statute. He's living of three or four hundred thousand per year, which ain't bad. But OJ has been pretty badly damaged. No more color commentary for him. No more ads for Hertz Rent-A-Car. OJ is a societal outcast - even on the golf course. Most judgments against individual plaintiffs cannot be fully enforced. If I had a judgment against me or $50k, it'd hurt PLENTY! But a $500k judgment might as well be $500 million, they won't get either number from me - I don't have it. But taking a good chunk will make me think differently before acting the same way. And isn't that hat this is actually about? Not just making a person whole, but punishing the doer of the harmful act? They should say to themselves, "Hmmm. I better make sure I'm a bit more clear in stating my hatred, but ensuring that people that listen to me keep their hands to themselves." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #27 April 22, 2006 QuoteAmericans love collective action and hate individual action. American culture is categorically more individualistic than most. You want collective thinkers, head for Asia. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #28 April 22, 2006 QuoteAmerican culture is categorically more individualistic than most. You want collective thinkers, head for Asia. What a weak defense! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #29 April 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteAmerican culture is categorically more individualistic than most. You want collective thinkers, head for Asia. What a weak defense! Defense to what? I am just informing you of a fact you seemed to miss. America is an individualistic society. We rate ourselves and others on self-achievement and contribuiton. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #30 April 23, 2006 Here's my whole issue and question. Are people under 18 entitled to all the same rights as anyone else? My understanding is that the answer to that question is "No." And, that would include rights guaranteed under the Constitution.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #31 April 24, 2006 Quote...His hate speech was not banned, not should it have been because of its content. BUT - his speech caused grave harm, and he deserved to face th consequences of that which he helped bring about. The problem lies in the fact that you can only obtain this judgement after someone is killed/hurt. Money can't make up for the fact that your son is dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #32 April 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteAmericans love collective action and hate individual action. American culture is categorically more individualistic than most. You want collective thinkers, head for Asia. I'm not sure why you guys are making this a cultural thing. Narci's comment is true of all people all over the world. When trying to enforce a viewpoint, 'individuals' have much easier time when it's done anonomously. It's the mob mentality just formalized in the legal system. It's certainly not 'American' any more than it's chinese, or canadian, or andorran. Throwing out a negative human trait as an opportunity to slam any specific culture (american or asian) just dilutes a very good observation on human nature about why courts get away with stifling free speech in very selctive and PC ways. I think on this specific topic, the kid making 'speech' in the school is much different than him making the same statement off of school property. Another shame, is his message was angry and confrontative instead of productive in his delivery. Anyway, if his family thought the day of silence was offensive, they should have protested on the sidewalk, not in the building. Same problem exists on the PC side of the protest debate too. But I doubt the 9th would have given an equal opinion in that scenario. Heck, next thing you know, wierdos will be protesting a funerals just to get in the newspapers. Or visitors to Congress will be wearing stupid t-shirts too. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 April 24, 2006 QuoteThe problem lies in the fact that you can only obtain this judgement after someone is killed/hurt. Money can't make up for the fact that your son is dead. The problem with that statement lies in the fact that it is highly probable - and almost certain - that nobody will be harmed by the speech. However, on the basis of a possibility of some harm, the speech will be banned based upon the content. Yours is the same thought process as the banning of guns. Both firearms and speech are protected by amendments in the Constitution. There is a lot of harm caused by firearms and speech. If there were no firearms, people could not be harmed by them, much like if there were no hate speech people could not be harmed by it. So people want to ban guns, despite the fact that the vast majority of people who own firearms use them for lawful and proper purposes and used without causing harm to others. People also want to ban speech, despite the fact that the vats majority of even inflammatory speech is used properly and without causing harm. We are seeing a world where words, phrases and ideas can be banned before they are spoken. It's a "prior restraint" on speech. Let the thing be. If harm is caused, make that harm compensable. But do not prevent possible harm from occurring by banning speech. Doing so causes a whole new brand of harm to an entire populace. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 April 24, 2006 this conversation is pointless if you ignore the distinction between school and off campus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #35 April 24, 2006 Quotethis conversation is pointless if you ignore the distinction between school and off campus. Not if you take his point as not ignoring your position but that he has a position that there shouldn't be that distinction in the first place. Better to followup on whether the position is consistent, e.g., does he agree that people can do or say anything "freefly" on personal private property or at funerals, etc...... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 April 24, 2006 Quote Not if you take his point as not ignoring your position but that he has a position that there shouldn't be that distinction in the first place. he does, but most of his arguments don't concern that. IE- his defense against prior restraint. He'd be totally right if we weren't talking about inside the campus. It's not about the 9th Circuit 'censoring speech,' but rather about the fact that the rules are different there. Fair enough to debate it. Minors don't enjoy full rights and priviledges in our country. Neither do servicemen - their first amendment rights are seriously contrained. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #37 April 24, 2006 The school in this case is a public school and therefore governmental. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #38 April 24, 2006 QuoteMinors don't enjoy full rights and priviledges in our country. This is true. But, what is it that is being constrained here? Thoughts in general? Thoughts on a specific topic? Or particular thoughts on a particular topic? It's the latter. it deals with the banning of offensive speech, or, more specifically, the banning of stating absolutely anything that may possibly offend absolutely anybody. The dicta suggests that only certain classes of students have the right to live free of offense - people in majority or plurality groups do not have these same rights. This ruling has implications far higher than, "time, place and manner" restrictions. It is a court making value-based sociological decisions. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 April 24, 2006 Quote It's the latter. it deals with the banning of offensive speech, or, more specifically, the banning of stating absolutely anything that may possibly offend absolutely anybody. In this case, it wasn't that remote a stretch. It was pretty straightforward in being offensive, and intentionally so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
