Arizona high school student's racism even offends Arizona

I kinda like this one. But yeah most of the trolls have been awful in the snooozefest sense.

5 Likes

see? I’m worth keeping around

BEST IVE EVER SEEN CLASS OF 2016

do stay at least tangentially on topic?

5 Likes

13 Likes

I can’t promise anything. My internet mores have grown organically out of having lived most of my natural life on it. But I thought those girls were funny as hell.

Title IX, which I referenced above. Again, you don’t have to agree with it, but as they say in the movie amadeus, “there it is”.

5 Likes

And @Israel_B and @Jerry_Vandesic may realize that argument about hate speech ordinances is not relevant. There is no hate speech ordinance or rule at Desert Vista High School that’s at issue here.

The question is whether the school will intervene effectively to prevent future harm.

4 Likes

On the internet it might be funny in a light.

But public school.

3 Likes

I don’t think anyone is injured by IaL or BH4J, but that doesn’t mean some school administrator disagrees and is happy to suspend a student for a message they don’t like.

Having more than one person involved doesn’t really matter, and shouldn’t. I don’t think a principal suspending the entire student newspaper staff because they published something the administration didn’t like is any different than suspending a single student for a blog posting the administration didn’t like.

As to causing injury, that’s going to be a hard argument to make. The courts have set a very high bar regarding inciting violence, requiring that the threat be imminent, specific, and likely. There’s nothing in the examples that we are discussing that even comes close. So, what school administrators try to do is ban speech that could cause a disturbance. It’s a much lower bar, and almost completely arbitrary. And with this lower bar, school administrators are given the ability to punish speech they don’t like, from the racist speech in AZ to IaL in NC.

When you get out of High School you might eventually learn to see things differently.

3 Likes

I don’t think either constitute religious oppression or bullying (though I think he means the Lesbian shirt, not the bong hits shirt?). Both are political statements, and should be afforded more protection than some jerks spouting the n-word, I’d argue.

9 Likes

3 Likes

Perhaps a few days? Maybe expel the ringleader? I’m kind of sick of this racist (etc) shit just being ignored or glossed over, or being chalked up to “kids being kids”… well, no, it’s a bit bigger deal than that, given the history of race in America. It’s deeply unacceptable and it needs to go. A public school is not a place where kids should encounter hostility, but should be a place to get an education. I really don’t understand why it’s out of line to suggest that students who make the environment intolerable for others fall under the guise of protected speech.

And the kids who put up a swastika should be on the hook for that. It’s unacceptable.

You know what? it’s an online forum, posting animated gifs is fine. Stop acting like I don’t contribute to the conversation otherwise. I see no reason to engage with asshole who are coming over from stormfront in the same way I engage with regulars around here. If you literally don’t like how I interact here, then don’t interact with me. Otherwise, please attempt to disagree in a way that doesn’t illustrate how your so much smarter than stupid old me. [ETA] and by the you said that to me in the same post you, youself posted a (non-animate) gif… :wink:

And no, the use of the n-word by a black person, depending on the context such as in a rap song, is not the same thing as some lily white girls throwing the word around as a joke. People have written books about this very topic, actually:

15 Likes

There’s no mention of hate speech in Title IX, and it doesn’t supersede the First Amendment. There’s certainly a lot of activity around Title IX at the university level right now, but no cases have been decided by a court that would label speech as hateful and therefore not protected by the constitution.

1 Like

You are leaving out a key issue, which is agreeing on what is hate speech and what is not. Coming to an agreement on the precise legal location of the line separating good and bad speech is impossible. Someone somewhere is is going to say X is hateful, while someone else somewhere else is going to say that the opposite of X is hateful. Any ability to punish someone for saying X is going to be used to punish someone else for saying the opposite of X.

As a concrete example of this point, consider Fatimah Bouderdaben, a Houston high school student suspended for wearing a “Black Lives Matter” t-shirt. Apparently at that school the BLM message is something for which a student can be punished.

1 Like

While I take your point, is there anyone under the impression that a white person deploying that word in that context is anything but? Wouldn’t we all have to be incredibly ignorant of basic American history NOT to understand that? But other speech might not be so clearcut, it’s true. Is bullying hate speech or is that protected? What about political statements like the aforementioned “I am a Lesbian”… the former has a clear impact on the lives of others in a negative fashion that seems to stem from a place of hate. The latter is an affirmative statement of one’s identity. What about a shirt that stated “I am a Muslim” or “I am a black man” or “I am a Jew” or “I am a Buddhist” or “I am a Catholic”?

That is a good example, then. This is obviously something making an affirmative political statement, which, I argue should be protected speech. What about a shirt that praised the KKK? Or for that matter DAESH? Or a white power organization?

3 Likes

Perhaps this is an argument to authority, but our current supreme Court disagrees. Thomas, who I rarely agree with, was quite vocal about this. (If you Google title IX hate speech you will find the cases. I’d link them here, but it would make my response too verbose).

Eta

Here ya go, second paragraph. This is an unsettled issue.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1255%26context%3Dbjell&ved=0ahUKEwje9MKb4sLKAhUBSGMKHfwSB5gQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNF2lIwmhiH18UHxY7uMPp6bgsQFQQ&sig2=zYy3yyn84CJYUA3CkigNrA

Eta

The daily caller defends your position, but they aren’t the kinds of friends I think you are looking for.

Title IX has become a catch-all bludgeon for imposing feminist ideology on American universities.

Yet circuit courts have affirmed that certain language isn’t protected. Us lay people can call it hate speech.

This is not a matter of opinion. Federal courts have ruled on this–some have agreed with the argument I put forth, some have not.

Given that fact, you cannot realistically say that hate speech cannot be prosecuted.

2 Likes

That’s an understatement.

In this context, I was asking for whatshisface to apologise for his (now deleted) anti-Semitism before I would explain to him, for his benefit, where he had gone wrong.

Dick face had taken the opportunity to attempt to construct a statement which would injure Christians within very narrow parameters (Jesus taking bong hits) and instead just vomited anti-Semitism.

Because this was obvious to everyone following the thread from its inception and through the bad lands of the asshole’s injurious speech toward Jews, I instead demanded an apology from the fuck face, rather than perpetuate what I saw as being his attempt to draw me into conversation as an excuse to continue his vile hate speech. (I mention this in the poll a few comments above the one you’ve replied to, and the fact that I’ve flagged his hate speech, so I imagine you scrolled past those)

You’ll also notice that I’ve taken the time to respond quite carefully to another user in this thread who, even though we disagree, has taken the time to attempt to formulate a cogent argument and reply politely to my rebuttals.

In summation, yes, I’m a bit of a dick, and so are you. It takes one to know one, I guess. :wink:

5 Likes

You are conflating a strawman public student newspaper with a strawman private blog. No thank you.

Not in the context the rest of us stayed over here with.

But in the sense that, with you, it will be difficult to argue at all. I’d bet you are correct there. But not because you are correct overall. Who am I to argue with a stick in the mud about it’s mud-stuckeness

2 Likes