Controversial Assignment Leads To Teacher's Resignation

Stocks

 

The freedom of speech is a guarantee for every citizen of the US and as such all of the laws must reflect that right. To my knowledged, there has been no test of the Constitution specifically addressing that right to everyone in the country who is not a citizen, but the limitation of the laws has that effect.

The right to free speech is only limited to the point that it may cause harm to others. The favorite example is that you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater because that could cause a panic in which people would be injured.

The history of our free speech is interesting and really short as the states restricted speech for many years. This is a good background reference on the issue should anyone have an interest.


http://www.constitutioncenter.org/c...word=&file=08_amd_01/explain/123_explain.html

What Is Free Speech?The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that freedom of speech consists not only of spoken words but also other types of expression. The Court categorizes free speech activities as either pure speech,such as debates and public meetings that involve spoken words alone, or speech-plus,such as demonstrations and picketing that combine speech with action. Pure speech receives the highest form of First Amendment protection; government may regulate the action components of speech-plus. In Thornhill v. Alabama(1940), the Supreme Court ruled that nonviolent picketing is included in freedom of speech.

Symbolic Speech. Another type of speech is symbolic speech.Also known as “expressive conduct,” symbolic speech consists of actions that are themselves a message, without spoken words. Some examples of symbolic speech are burning a draft card and burning an American flag. The Supreme Court has treated these two examples very differently.

In United States v. O’Brien(1968), the Court ruled that burning a draft card was not protected by the First Amendment, even though intended as a form of protest against the Vietnam War. The Court held that the government had a valid purpose in punishing the destruction of draft cards, which were necessary to raise and support an army. The goal of the government’s action was to maintain the draft, not prevent dissent, said the Court.

But in Texas v. Johnson(1989), the Supreme Court ruled that burning the U.S. flag was protected by the First Amendment. The Court struck down a Texas law that prohibited the desecration of the American flag in a way “the actor knows will seriously offend” other people. Gregory Lee “Joey” Johnson had burned a flag outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas as part of a political demonstration. The Court held that “government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

To counteract the Court’s decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. That law prohibited flag desecration regardless of whether bystanders were offended. Nonetheless, in United States v. Eichman(1990), the Court held that the law violated the First Amendment because it punished any person “who knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles,... or tramples upon any flag.” Such terms, the Court said, outlawed disrespect for the flag, not the physical destruction of it. The Court noted that burning is the proper way to dispose of a tattered flag. Thus, argued the Court, the Flag Protection Act was punishing a person for the reason he burned the flag, which violated freedom of speech. Congress has repeatedly attempted to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag desecration since the Eichmandecision in 1990. As of 2002, all fifty states had passed resolutions saying they would ratify such an amendment if Congress passed it.

 

To be very very clear, I DO NOT agree with the situation either. I would have been there wanting his job right at the front of the crowd if I had been involved whether my children were there or not. I also do not agree with the mindset that anyone who disagrees should be removed as that is how our country was formed ... there was disagreement with the prior status quo.

 

Nice summary, Wayne. Brings back memories of first year Con Law.

 

Line to buy the newest video game system? Line to buy tickets for the Duke/Carolina Bball game? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think that was overkill even for that era, but as the states still had more freedom to abuse rights it may have been possible.

 

How about a Scarlet "T"?

 

Thanks, I picked up the interest in Constitutional Law after getting into some debates with some "rabid" Libertarians a few years back and have kept it up as a hobby.

 

Maybe more of a red ... the shade of NC State's colors maybe? They have that whole history of the atheletes getting parole for the games going on .... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

My son's wife has a cousin who is getting sued for slander.

She supposedly called an ex-co worker "Aunt Jemima" in a supermarket.
This supposedly caused this lady extreme distress, emotional trauma, yada, yada, yada.

Aunt Jemima's lawyer is suing this lady for at least $100,000 in Superior Court.

Where is the "free speech" there Wayne?

Why should this "teacher" be able to give his "free speech" to a class of impressionable kids, but two grown women arguing in a Walmart not have the same rights?

It sounds ludicrous, granted.

But this woman had to retain an attorney, and has spent a lot of time and money on this.

Where is the justice here?

 

Thank you Wayne. Hate to show my blonde roots but, sometimes, my curiousity gets the best of me.

Frogger

 

:roll: :roll: That is BS.

So if someone calls me whitey, honkey, cracker, etc... I can sue? Give me a break!

 

Evidentially if you suffer extreme distress over being called a whitey. :roll:
I have heard of the attorney that is representing Aunt Jemima, and I believe that he just ruined his credibility in the legal arena by taking this claim.

 

One could argue that the lady had a hearing problem. Maybe the chick told her "I ain't your mama!".

Anyway, I always LMAO when somebody calls someone a honkey or cracker. Those terms just don't seem offensive to me. They seem comical!

 

It is still there. There was no criminal charges filed in the case but it is only a civil case, which is not related to any freedom issues. If you back up and hit a neighbor's car parked in their driveway there will not be any charges filed if you remained on private property, but your neighbor can sue you for the damages in civil court. Therein lies the difference between a legally protected right and a civil complaint.

They both have the same rights. Your son's, wife's cousin was not arrested for the speech nor was there talk of deporting them for their views was there? The teacher was removed as should have been the case, but that was not the issue with which I disagreed. The disagreement centered on whether he should be allowed to stay in the US because he had issues with the country. If there had been a similar statement about your son's wife's cousin I would oppose that as well.

That is an issue, but if the case is frivolous in the state of NC the attorney bringing it may be liable for all legal costs due to the defense. If it is not a frivolous suit she had a problem and paid for it.

It is there but you do not see it for what it is worth.

 

Never a problem, in fact I enjoy helping people who wish to learn more about the law and government. The best thing we can have is an informed populus, IMO.

 

It would be interesting to see the pleadings in this case. I don't see anything here that would survive a 12(b)(6) motion.

 

Funny, Stinger says the same thing :lol: :lol:

 

Yes, but I try to help them learn actual facts and stuff ... not the mish-mash Stingy gives us as the "Gospel according to Stinger" :lol: :lol: :lol: