There are people who are generally interested, myself being one of them without fail. For the record, I am also interested to read Hentor’s arguments. I do sometimes skip posts if a poster seems to be engaging in ad hominem or partisan attacks. I rarely agree with your political stances, and I do agree that sometimes you can be overly partisan. Hell, I even pitted you for it once many years ago. Regardless, if it means anything to you, I will say that I pretty much always read what you have to say on a topic and I have many times been swayed by your arguments. There have also been many times where I thought you were full of shit. But just because people attack you doesn’t make your posts any less valuable to the semi-professional lurkers on this board. Most people, whether they agree with you or not, can tell the difference. Again, IMHO, YMMV, etc…
So, I for one would would appreciate your input and read whatever you write on this topic. But I’m not going to suck your dick for it or anything…
I have the feeling that in your view, nothing Bricker will ever say will be a worthwhile contribution to any thread, ever, and that the only response he will ever merit from you is a shouting-down. Fittingly enough, when I actually see behavior such as that, I regard it as “bullying”. I’d be grateful if you would just put the man on ignore, and spare us all the experience of watching you making an ass of yourself any time the two of you post in the same thread.
Bricker, I’d like to take the opportunity to tell you that even if you don’t always persuade me, you do always provoke me into thought, and I value that about your participation in the SDMB. Having said that, I will also say that I have found your participation in this thread to be slightly annoying. Tell you what: go ahead and have your inimitably Bricker-esque say on the topic of this thread, and I will undertake to defend your doing so if people rag on you for it.
It’s OK, Bricker. i still like you. I understand where you’re coming from. And since I’m as reviled as you are around these parts, I’ll just take the bullet and say what we’re both thinking (I think).
Putting in a restriction about the law not being meant to trump the First Amendment, while perhaps unnecessary, is still clearly correct. There is nothing legally wrong with someone saying “All fags are doomed to hell,” regardless of if it’s coming from a student or the principal.
It’s important to note, however, that the law doesn’t restrict punishing a person administratively for voicing such opinions. It merely says they can’t be charged with bullying or hate crimes. A student can still be suspended and a principal can still be fired. As another poster said, “But it’s not illegal!” isn’t a defense against dismissal.
The quoted part of the law does the right thing by defending the right to free, even abhorrent, speech. Republicans were morally and legally correct to insert such a clause.
OK, time to get your hatin’ on. Bring it, bitches.
Oh, wait, what I really meant to say was thanks for pointing that out. Sincerely. The only real problem I have with this is that Bricker could have pointed this out a page ago and I would have stopped reading the thread as that clearly makes sense. I agree.
So here is the text of the bill as it was passed by the state senate.
The clause in contention appears to be this one:
Schools can, consistent with the First Amendment, limit to some degree the rights of students and of their employees. The school must take into account the extent to which the student speech in question creates a substantial and credible risk of disruption, whether the speech is offensive to community standards, and whether the speech is contrary to the basic educational mission of the school. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, Bethel School District v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and Morse v. Frederick. Citations on request.
Is there anyone in this thread that believes the section could otherwise abridge rights under the First Amendment or under any similar state constitution? I hope the answer is ‘no.’
So the bone of contention must be that second sentence: This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian. And, indeed, as long as such such statement of sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction doesn’t transgress the lines I mentioned above, not only is it consistent with our general ideas of free speech to permit it, but the First Amendment and current Supreme Court caselaw requires that we permit it.
Let’s look at some of the examples in this thread:
From the OP: "Well, I’ll just say that we didn’t forgive Osama Bin Laden after 9/11 because “his religious convictions told him so”. True, but I think that flying planes full of jet fuel into buildings would create a substantial and credible risk of disruption. So that speech, or speech urging such an action, can be prohibited.
From Kobal2: “That’s not so much a problem as the fact that on paper, this law allows teachers to scream “God hates fags!” in the face of some wimpy kid in their class. It basically enshrines to right of every teacher, principal, administration clerk, etc… to use their duties as a platform to proselytize.” I don’t think this is true. Once again, screaming “God hates fags!” would create a substantial and credible risk of disruption and be contrary to the educational mission of the school.
From Condescending Robot: "Teachers, acting as agents of the state, have been bound to respect the Establishment Clause and act like adults. Their own “freedom of religion” does not extend to abusing the children who are bound by law to attend school. This law reverses that and allows a teacher to spend her entire class ranting that a child is going to hell and needs to convert, with immunity from any consequence. " Really? How is it even possible for a state law to revoke the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? You’d think, if the state had this power, they’d stop fucking aroound with abortion and just eliminate the portions of the federal constitution that purportedly safeguard it.
Should I go on?
Does anyone have an actual example, using the actual legal framework in play here, where this law will produce an unwanted result?
Here’s the question. If a statement meets the definition of bullying in your link, AND can also be described as a “sincerely held religious or moral conviction”, what happens?
It is not at all clear to me what will happen, and the fear is that the text you quoted will be used as the trump card, and the “sincerely held religious bullying” will go unpunished.
The point being that sincerely held religious “verbal bullying” is protected speech. What is not protected is physical bullying, not matter what the intent.
Well, that’s embarrassing. I think Bricker pretty much just destroyed the premise of the thread. My apologies for spreading misinformation, I was pretty stung by this as well, mostly because I supposed it meant something very different… Yeah, this was not a well-thought-out thread by me.
Wouldn’t the teacher, or her lawyer, be able to argue that insisting every class that Kevin is gay, and should be ashamed, and is going to Hell, neener neener, is in fact in the spirit of education, viz. elucidating Kevin (along with the rest of the class) on finer points of theology ?
Why should it be? Just because somebody believes something (religious or moral) doesn’t mean they have an inalienable right to use those beliefs to hurt someone else. I’ll attach the definition of bullying here,
It’s ok to substantially interfere with someone education, or interfere with their ability to participate in school, or cause an actual and substantial detrimental effect on their mental health, or disrupt the orderly operation of school, just because the speech is rooted in religious or moral belief?
The issue is that “a sincerely held religious belief” is not that Kevin is gay, or that Kevin is an abomination and going to hell for being gay, but that gay people go to Hell unless they repent, or something oif the sort.
I.e., such a statement of belief would be an assertion regarding theology or morals, not a judgment of an indivvidual based on them.
Well, since it’s now unclear whether the thread is about the Michigan Republicans deserving a “fuck you,” or whether it’s about Bricker having a legitimate need to be gun-shy about using his knowledge of law to throw water on people’s recreational outrage, it’s equally unclear as to whether he is derailing the thread.
Still I did promise, so just in case: Shut it, you!