Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Prosecutor Now Targeting Free Speech
Virchull tells us about a case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, in which former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr will take the side of an Alaska school board against a student who displayed a rude banner off school property. The banner read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and it got the student suspended. He and his parents sued the school board for violating his First Amendment rights. The case is nuanced: while the student did not display the banner on school property, he did do so during a school function. Starr is said to be arguing the case for free.
Someone needs to check with all the schools and Boy Scout organisations around Washington to find the underage boy Starr has been having sex with. There's no way one man can be such a complete arse unless he's got something to hide. And hey, he's a Republican, so you know he's not into vanilla sex; the GOP makes Britain's Tory party look like Tellytubbies.
I have discovered a truly remarkable
How can you say that people are free if they must sue each other because there is no natural and widely accepted consensus what is the "free speech" in something trivial as this case.
;-)
To me (and I believe to all people in my country) at this times it is hard to believe that someone could be suspended for something like: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". Does it mean that we are more free then the people in the "most free country in the world"?
Last thing that I can compare to it is when somebody said "I'll not join the communistic party and I hate communists". It had the same results. But it is many years ago. And now it's stunning to hear something like that is happening in your country that was always accepted as a measure for the word "freedom".
You helped us by being our "freedom idols", maybe the sides flipped and there is coming time when we will pay back what you gave us...
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
At least I don't think so.
The constitution may protect the speech, but that doesn't mean the student can say or do whatever he pleases. The school has every right to impose additional rules. And if the student doesn't follow those rules, the school does not have to accept that student.
The school is saying: "you can say whatever you want, but not if you want to be a student here."
Similarly, your job can impose such restrictions. Sure, you have the right to say what you want, but you can also be fired for whatever reason. You and your employer have a deal, part of the deal is that you conduct yourself in appropriate manner.
Laws against "uttering threats" and such are also very stupid and should be struck down.
If I, in a mad fit, say I'm going to kill you, does that mean I am going to follow through with it? Likely not.
Such things should b valid grounds to get a warrant to pursue and investigation to see *IF* I plan to go through with it, in which case, a charge of conspiracy to commit murder is higher anyway.
The whole reason charges like "uttering threats" exist is because law enforcement is under-staffed, lazy, or both. It's just shortcuts they should not be allowed to take. The same is true of "hate speech" laws in some countries.
Libel is a different matter because it causes direct harm - but you have to remember, libel is a civil offense - you can easily argue against damage claims if they're baseless. It's a big difference from stupid laws like "uttering threats".
The court case where Clinton committed perjury was not regarding Monica Lewinsky.
Also, one can hardly call sex between a White House Intern and the POTUS 'consensual.' There are way WAY too many power dynamics for that to possibly be the case. Clinton is a sexual predator. He lied in his testimony in a sexual harassment case.
Why reopen these wounds? Clinton isn't in power any longer, and people should just acknowledge what he is, now that there's no political reason not to.