Perhaps I could have been less sarcastic in an attempt to be more clear. First it was a 5-4 ruling. Not sure how much weight you would give to that fact, I’m assuming none. Second, it’s fairly clear that the reason it was upheld was because of the specific notion of ‘promoting drug use on school time’ or something to that effect. Third, and to my point, no one was injured by this speech act.
It’s not just unpopular speech which is being (barely) punished here, it’s potentially threatening, damaging and inciting hate speech which injures people in a protected space.
If I said that your currently applied argument hinges on you continuing to be obtuse on this point, would you address your argument in more general terms so as to defeat my point, or would you rather double down on your current brand of nonsense? And I don’t mean to insult your argument. It is nonsensical.
Remember the movement to “Recall Ev” (Evan Mecham)? The Arizona governor who once said that [Dr. Martin Luther] “King doesn’t deserve a holiday” in the late 1980s? Were you there for that?
Yes, there are. Brad Lancaster in Tucson, doing incredible decades-long work with water justice and water security. People working and living in Arcosanti. A bunch of my friends live there, still, building and teaching others to build strawbale houses. Countless others, surely. Here’s hoping that sane and intelligent Arizonans can raise the bar. The fact that there’s public outrage (instead of no one raising even an eyebrow) is already good news.
I believe the golden years for white bigotry in the US are numbered. The countdown toward 2042 (or maybe 2043) is ticking. Hari Kondabolu said it so it has to be true.
And that makes more sense, and I believe there is a core overlap in values that we share. I suspect the reason they pulled this stunt, though, was due to Normalization of racism in AZ. Yes, I lived there for years. I saw casual racism as a daily matter.
I believe it is in the best interest of the country to degrade racists and racist actions. So did the executive, legislative, and legal branches of our government. We created institutional protections for groups that were getting kneecapped.
So if these students, by the time they are ready to graduate, can’t grasp these concepts then we have failed them and they have failed us.
An extra curricular essay on the faults of both sides sounds appropriate.
The fact that it’s hate speech doesn’t mean that it is any less protected than other unpopular speech. You seem to be drawing a line between unpopular speech that is tolerable, and unpopular speech that is not tolerable. That line doesn’t really exist (from a constitutional POV). Just look at the supreme court case involving the Nazi party vs the town of Skokie Illinois from the 1970’s. You probably couldn’t find a more despicable case of hate speech, with a bunch of Nazi’s wanting to march through a town with a large Jewish population. But the court found that the Nazi’s couldn’t be prevented from marching, despite their abhorrent message.
Public schools must provide a safe place for all students. Legally. I can likely find case law in a few minutes that asserts harassing and derogatory language makes an environment unsafe.
Thus, using a (figurative) stick to whack hate speech in a public school space is virtually mandated.
Yeah… yeah, I agree. Racism should be actively discouraged in principle - ideally according to clearly defined and predictable rules. In practice however, I doubt punishment has ever made anyone less racist or convinced anyone that their opinions are wrong. It tends to do the opposite. Not that I have any particularly more efficient solution…
It’ll really be sad to see you go, brave Truthiness Warrior. I’m not sure that your brave display of ignorance will really help persuade others the way you think it will, though.
Sorry but the poll so far says 5 - 1 that you don’t get an answer. I’m sure if you look at our reply history though, you can attempt to figure out for yourself where you went… uh… wrong.
