Perhaps we are nitpicking ourselves to death. However title ix and title VI have been used legally against speech.
But before we can look at that clarification, we need to examine the Gebser decision a year earlier upon which Davis was based. Gebser argues that Title IX “was modeled after Title VI” and that the two statutes are “parallel,” with Title IX covering gender discrimination and Title VI covering racial discrimination in federally funded education programs.
Seconded.
I’m also put off by the “oh come on, they’re just kids!” apologists. As if kids who do such injurious things shouldn’t be disciplined, including being pushed, strongly, toward awareness of the effects or potential effects of what they’ve done. Which IS, or should be, the issue at hand – not so much who the perpetrators are as much as what they did.
It’s so frustratingly familiar, this common white concern with who is or isn’t a racist, instead of with the effects of racism.
It very well could be a threat, but unless there is something specific and imminent about the threat of violence then it isn’t something that the state can punish. I happen to agree with the supreme court on this one. Even ranting about “I hate X” or “X is bad” or “God punishes X’s” doesn’t come close to the kind of threat that would be prohibited by the constitution.
But if I said yes, that school administrators should be able to punish this speech, then I would also be giving that same punishment ability to the Houston principal that suspended the student wearing the Black Lives Matter t-shirt. That’s not something I would want to do.
Yeah, I feel ya.
Yes! That’s why I keep bringing up the mission of the school. Shouldn’t their education include this kind of corrective action when they do something which they should learn not to?
Not to say it isn’t fascinating. As I keep saying IANAL and keep trying to fit my moral philosophy within legal parameters only to have some of it spill out through an unshored legal abutment I hadn’t been precise with.
It does seem that within the context of the US, primacy is always given to the idea of free speech, even when conditions are applied to it. The language is always constructed in such a way as to make it appear that free speech has no conditions, even when those conditions are being specified.
As a US citizen, a number of things get pounded into you with a simplistic hammer. This is an intersection of… Three big ones.
But really, the golden rule solves all the debates here. (Or Wheaton’s Law)
“Shut up Wesley!” ?
Wheaton’s Law is
Don’t be a dick
Learn not to? Hell no and lands sake, can’t you see that all they were doing was free-speechifyin? Why do you hate our freedoms!
#14
#d_d
came to post Tim Minchin’s video about this…you beat me to it! Good Work, hard to believe that it got 100 comments in before someone mentioned this gem.
There are some folks in this thread working awfully hard to defend these girls actions which blows my mind.
One day suspension isn’t really even a punishment, it is a long weekend, but it does let them know that this behavior isn’t acceptable and if they continue to repeat offend there will likely be more serious consequences. The one day suspension was likely accompanied by a talking to and was intended for them to think over their actions and whom they might have hurt.
This isn’t a free speech issue, if they cussed at a teacher they’d get a bigger punishment then this. Because not all speech is acceptable in a school setting obviously.
To not reflexively defend the racism would blow their minds.
Racism upsetting you fits in nicely with their upsetting people habit.
Okay this is just as misplaced as the initial racism. Don’t fight hate with hate.
Mocking isn’t hate. It can even come from the opposite of hate.
What is it in you that sees that mocking gif as a manifestation of hate?
hahahahah… aghahahahahahahahaha.
no no… hahahahahahaaaahahahaaah
The cart, it goes behind the horse.
