MySpace is Free Speech, Case Overturned

eldavojohn writes "The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a judge violated the constitution after placing a juvenile on probation for an expletive laden MySpace entry on the principal. The court decided that the juvenile's free speech rights had been unconstitutionally revoked, and the original judge had suppressed politically motivated free speech since the comments were directly attacking school policy. I think we are starting to see a fine line develop online as it did with print — bullying & slander are punishable while we have to allow criticism of ideas no matter how harsh it is."

Comments

Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[gbulmash]

I think this deals more with the broader issue of whether schools can regulate or impose disciplinary actions related to a studen's off-campus activities. While it's long been shown that when students are on campus, they surrender a number of their constitutional rights (free speech, search and seizure, right to bear arms, etc.), the courts seem to be recognizing that just being a student doesn't make you a second class-citizen 24/7. And that has broader implications than just online activities.

- Greg

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that students should have rights, I have to ask: why shouldn't they be second-class citizens? They're not working and they're not nearly as capable as adults of making good decisions. I think "second-class citizen" is a rather good description of what they should be, as opposed to the "first-class citizens" who work and pay taxes for the upkeep of the city. The question, though, is about how many or how few rights second-class citizens should have.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[SgtPepperKSU]

Who says they don't work and pay taxes? You may have been able to get by without working, but not everybody is so lucky.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Crazy Man on Fire]

As a teenager, you have to work a whole bunch of hours to make enough to actually pay taxes. Sure, the take it out of your check, but you get all/most of it back at the end of the year when you file.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[meabolex]

While I believe the terminology of "second-class" citizen is probably not the best terminology, most people in high school are minors. Minors have their own legal status in most places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Kadin2048]

While I agree that students should have rights, I have to ask: why shouldn't they be second-class citizens? They're not working and they're not nearly as capable as adults of making good decisions. I think "second-class citizen" is a rather good description of what they should be, as opposed to the "first-class citizens" who work and pay taxes for the upkeep of the city. The question, though, is about how many or how few rights second-class citizens should have.

I think the problem is that the U.S. legal system lacks the framework for dealing with anything besides two types of things: individuals, and property. Either you're an individual, and have rights, or you're property, and belong to somebody else.

There have always been questions as to the status of certain things: slaves, for example, were traditionally property, but later became individuals; animals, who arguably have certain independent characteristics, are still just property; and the current abortion debate is mostly an argument as to whether a fetus is an individual, or merely a woman's property.

The track record of the legal system at dealing with the grey areas isn't too great (cf. "3/5ths compromise," or the now-ridiculous limits on exactly how hard you can beat your wife). The solution here seems to be to clarify the status of minors as one or the other.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ajs]

While it's long been shown that when students are on campus, they surrender a number of their constitutional rights (free speech, search and seizure, right to bear arms, etc.) ... uh, no. You don't surrender your right to bear arms in school. You surrender your right to bear arms by being a minor. Most states don't allow minors to get FIDs, and the Supreme Court has never even commented, as far as I know.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[colinrichardday]

Income taxes yes, but what about sales tax?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[DragonWriter]

I think this deals more with the broader issue of whether schools can regulate or impose disciplinary actions related to a studen's off-campus activities.

I think you are wrong, because this case doesn't concern school disciplinary action at all. The only school involvement is that the questionable postings were seen and reported by a principal: the delinquency petition was not filed by the school, but by the state, and the authority for it was the state's general juvenile justice authority, not its authority over the school system. So its pretty hard to read this as dealing with the issue you want it to be about.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[mattatwork]

I don't know if I missed something(all the articles I've seen are from the same AP release), but was the students right to free speech revoked due to the probation? I figure that would be one of the guidelines...something along the lines of the student not being able to use MySpace for a certain period of time. I can see where the violation of free speech might be taken from that.
You can have the right to free speech but that does not mean it's absolute.... The students post could be considered hate speech and slander...probably the grounds to appeal this court's decision....

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[superbus1929]

Because I'm uncomfortable with getting students comfortable with a system that, by default, orders them to assimilate solely based on how many taxes they pay. It's one thing for a student to want to buy a porno at 15, but to put a school's faculty above reasonable critique is too much. Our country allows us to critique our elected officials because they're elected; I do not want young people to get used to a fascist style of government because it's against our principles, and also because it takes away from the rights of parents to truly determine what is right for their kid.

In a perfect world, the kids parents would have blistered their asses, and this would not be necessary. But in a perfect world, parents wouldn't sue the school system because their kid is a fuck-up, either.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

You surrender your right to bear arms by being a minor.

Well damn. I guess we've come a long way since my days shooting rifles and shotguns in Boy Scouts.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[wgaryhas]

What about teachers, principals, and other staff?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[FlatLine84]

Exactly. As I think it is important to instill say respect, or perhaps teach more mature ways of expressing views, what a child does outside of school should have little affect to their school life. Any school (even public) is a private facility that a certain group of individuals belong to. It would be just as ridiculous if students got detention for back-talking to a parent at home. That being said, I'm really appalled at how children are acting these days. It is very bad form for a student to bad mouth their school in any manner, unless there is evidence or cause (like students being beaten by teachers, etc...) It just seems very immature. Then again, they're children, and perhaps they need some guidelines and some lessons taught because of things they do, instead of free reign. Wake up parents, I'm not taking care of YOUR children.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ajs]

You surrender your right to bear arms by being a minor.

Well damn. I guess we've come a long way since my days shooting rifles and shotguns in Boy Scouts. I don't think anyone would argue that being allowed to use a gun under supervised conditions would in any way meet the requirements of the 2nd amendment. The point to the amendment was to specifically allow for individuals to possess weapons for use when a militia was called upon by local or state government (an idea which is a bit obsolete, but none the less, requires that you actually own a gun).

Put another way, the right to "bear arms" does not mean the right to use weapons, but to own them. Most states don't allow minors to own guns as far as I know.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[miquelets]

fascist!

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[BlueTrin]

Here you go, you will start with teens, then you could also consider black and hispanics and start arguing about all the differences there are between them and others, continue on old people (come on we even pay taxes for them !!!) and even finish on women (maternity leave ?) ...

I would not rather live in your "ideal" democracy.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Altus]

while this is true it is also true that firearms are not allowed on school property in any district that I know of and there are highschool students who have a licence to carry, they just have to be over 18 (maybe 17 in some states) and still in highschool. I knew people who fell into this category.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[DAtkins]

I've always wondered how that used to work. My step-father's high school had an indoor firing range; and people brought their guns to school on the bus. I think they had to turn them into the range master prior to going to homeroom. They obviously don't do that now, but I am curious when and how the policy change occurred.

Of course this was in rural Georgia (Athens-Clarke County) sometime in the 50's.

Anyhoo, it's not that you don't have a right to bear arms as a minor, just that those rights are severely restricted. And ownership is usually flat out (not that it kept any of my friends from "owning" a .22 or maybe a .410).

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ThisNukes4u]

I worked 25-35 hours a week when I was 16 and 17, and out of a $400 bi-weekly check I paid at least $50-$100 in Social Security tax. Come tax day, I got $100 back both years. Bullshit you get it back, the government stole my money.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[drinkypoo]

Most states don't allow minors to get FIDs

FID? Flight ID? Free Induction Decay? Financial Institutions Duty? Functional Interface Drawing? Oh wait, there it is, Firearms Identification.

Guess what? FID is generally only required when purchasing a gun. SOME states require that you have a license to own a firearm, but not most.

In California, "A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To buy a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years of age, and either 1) possess an HSC plus successfully complete a safety demonstration with the handgun being purchased or 2) qualify for an HSC exemption."

It's worth mentioning that no minor without their majority can actually be said to own property anyway. Their parents/guardians can take it away at any time, so it's not really theirs. So the law focuses on providing access to minors. California law doesn't make it illegal to provide access to a firearm to a minor, but you can be guilty of a felony if a minor uses your gun to commit a crime.

Everyone surrenders their right to bear arms on a school campus except for active law enforcement, or military during the execution of orders. Even if you have a concealed carry permit it is not lawful to bring a gun to a school. This is interesting because at one time (IIRC, up until the early 1900s) California law explicitly protected your right to carry a gun on public property. That means schools, courthouses, et cetera.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[maxume]

What's a fid? Anyway, plenty of states let people younger than 16 hunt(with varying degrees of supervision) and ask a boy scout about a knife...

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[camperdave]

Either you're an individual, and have rights, or you're property, and belong to somebody else.

In other words, either you're an individual with rights, or you're a nobody with no rights. It's this kind of thinking (plus the current atmosphere of rampant paranoia) that makes me very nervous about crossing the border because, as far as I know, I have no rights as a visitor to the US.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[MutantHamster]

Tinker V. Des Moines, idiot. Stop telling people they don't have a right to free-speach in schools. When associate justice Abe Fortas literally says in the opinion "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," how in the Hell do people keep getting this misconception that THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[cayenne8]

"Most states don't allow minors to get FIDs, and the Supreme Court has never even commented, as far as I know."

I must have missed this one acronym school....what is FID?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Myspace may have just been the middle man between someone getting their clock cleaned, thankfully the teachers found out. I would agree that if the student was writing things to threated classmates or teachers, he should be punished by the school with suspension or a parent conference. Including a judge and courtroom into this situation is just making myspace founder Tom laugh all the way to the bank. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, but a threat is also a threat. My point would be, taking this issue to higher authority than the school system and parents was uncalled for. It is quite common to blame myspace for the ignorant ways of the users, but I think parents should relax. Be informed and learn about what your kids are doing. Be parents and choose what to restrict and what not, same goes for school systems. It is not hard to block websites, and myspace should be one. It is just a time waster anyway, give the kids a decent book or something.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[packeteer]

You are spot on. I am 16 years old working my first job and people would say i don't pay taxes. I pay all the taxes that apply to me. I do not pay income tax in my state but some states might be different. Also I pay into social security, medicare, and labor and industries taxes. Also, I my money to buy things that I pay sales tax on. I have perchased items that had been imported and might have had a tariff imposed. We all know that costs are passed onto the consumers so i was paying that tariff, therefore i was paying the government. By participating in the economy in any way you are paying taxes.

It's rediculous how as a 16 year old you can drive a car and pay taxes but can't vote. It is taxation without representation in my opinion and that is why the founders of this country took up arms and fought back. Ill stick with posting to internet forums myself but the whole thing is kind of rediculous.

Students are absolutly second class citizens. Remember also that many high school students are 18 years old and they still have the same lack of rights.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[cayenne8]

Oops..I posted asking about FID before I saw your post.

Interesting...I've never lived anywhere where I'd heard of a Firearms ID.

Granted, most of my firearms purchases have been from private individuals (some at gun shows), some relatives, etc....so, there is not waiting time, no requirement for ID, etc....and best of all...NO RECORD.

The only time in my life I've ever registered any kind of firearm was when I got my concealed carry years back, and in AR, they did require you to list the weapons on that license.

Other than that...I've never had to show a 'special' ID of any kind to own or purchase a firearm...even at a commercial site. Never registered a gun either, although I've heard some states require that....anyone know which ones do?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[whimmel]

I don't think anyone would argue that being allowed to use a gun under supervised conditions would in any way meet the requirements of the 2nd amendment. The point to the amendment was to specifically allow for individuals to possess weapons for use when a militia was called upon by local or state government (an idea which is a bit obsolete, but none the less, requires that you actually own a gun).

This depends on where you put the comma

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[cayenne8]

"As a teenager, you have to work a whole bunch of hours to make enough to actually pay taxes. Sure, the take it out of your check, but you get all/most of it back at the end of the year when you file."

I guess it depends on the job. I made pretty good money back in my teen days working...'79-'81.

I worked my way up to head bus boy at a middle end restaurant..prime rib and the like. My clock hours were good, plus the tips at the end of the night from the waiters (you couldn't wait tables back then if you were under 21, booze rules).

If you're flipping burgers, yeah, you're gonna make crappy min. wage...but, if you go look, there ARE jobs out there that pay better. I used to only work Fri-Sat, sometimes a Sat lunch...and one week night during school years...and more during the summer and breaks.

Sure was nice to have money...and buy that first car with a little help from the folks my senior year. No clunker either...a '78 280Z...was nice back then.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[drinkypoo]

Granted, most of my firearms purchases have been from private individuals (some at gun shows), some relatives, etc....so, there is not waiting time, no requirement for ID, etc....and best of all...NO RECORD.

In California you must have a handgun safety cert or an exemption thereof to purchase a handgun, regardless of where it is purchased, and all handgun transfers must be reported to the state.

The only time in my life I've ever registered any kind of firearm was when I got my concealed carry years back, and in AR, they did require you to list the weapons on that license.

AFAIK all CCW permits require listing the weapon. I think in some places you even have to pay for a firing and storage of a spent projectile for ballistics matching. But I don't have a CCW (yet - if I move out into the boonies, and I've looked at land in a location which would well be described that way, I will begin to carry.)

Other than that...I've never had to show a 'special' ID of any kind to own or purchase a firearm...even at a commercial site. Never registered a gun either, although I've heard some states require that....anyone know which ones do?

I have a pretty good idea...

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[OldeTimeGeek]

It appears that they have the right to face harassment for doing their jobs.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[brouski]

how in the Hell do people keep getting this misconception that THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE?

Because in practice students' rights to free expression are curtailed all the damn time. It makes the news when a student and/or their parents has the balls to fight it.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[koliebo]

Not working? Well then, as a high school junior who is currently working several part-time jobs, I'll keep that in mind next time I go to the bank to deposit my paychecks. Not to mention the fact that the classes I'm taking right now sure seem like a hell of a lot of "work".

I'm not quite sure how I can argue against the "students are incapable of making good decisions" claim. While the fact that I have a part-time job and work hard at school isn't all that unique, unfortunately it's a bit more rare for people my age to be able to make good decisions. I've certainly never made any mistakes large enough that I think I should be deemed a "second-class citizen", and neither have any of my friends. Or acquaintances, even.

I'm aware of the fact that people my age generally aren't good at making the right decisions. But limiting all of our rights simply because SOME people screw up sure doesn't seem fair to those of us who work hard and do make good decisions.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

You have rights. It's just that we feel more comfortable violating them when you're not a citizen. Or at least when you're not wealthy.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[drinkypoo]

Put another way, the right to "bear arms" does not mean the right to use weapons, but to own them. Most states don't allow minors to own guns as far as I know.

Minors don't really own any property unless they gain their legal majority through a legal procedure in the courts!

If you are a minor, your parents can take away any of your property, legally, at any time! Period, end of story.

This is one reason why we have things like trust funds. Let's say you have a billion dollars and want to give a million of it to your favorite nephew because he's just so darned cool, thus guaranteeing that if he is not amazingly mature he will grow up to be a trustafarian with no respect for anyone's property or person, or for the act of doing work, so that later when he grows up he squanders the family fortune instead of handing it down to his descendants. (I have actually witnessed this very thing, but names have been omitted and even genders have been changed to protect the stupid.)

Maybe their parents are great people, so you feel secure in giving the money to the child. That's nice, it can go in their (fictional and thus able to contain stupid-large sums) bank account which is in their name and that of their parents. But then their parents are hit by a bus and aunt shrew gets custody because she's a closer relative than you are. That money is now hers. She gains custody of the child's bank account at the same time she gains custody of the child, and can now spend the money as she sees fit. In theory it should be spent on the child's behalf, but I think we all know how that will go.

Minors cannot be held to a contract. Minors can not own property. Minors are fucking non-people under the laws of the United States, and AFAIK pretty much all of the states themselves as well.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be interesting to know if there's been a comparison of the same "minors" who exhibited "bad judgement" to see if they make any better decisions when they are mature.

Lohocla

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

It's rediculous how as a 16 year old you can drive a car and pay taxes but can't vote. It is taxation without representation in my opinion and that is why the founders of this country took up arms and fought back. Ill stick with posting to internet forums myself but the whole thing is kind of rediculous.

It's not that 'rediculous' in light of the fact that that right has been traded for special treatment. If you are mature enough to vote you should be mature enough to give up your special legal consideration -- in other words, no more child-labour protection, no more child-abuse laws, no more watered-down juvenile courts, no more watered-down juvenile punishments, no more reduced fair for government services, no more exemption from conscription or jury duty, no more obligation for your parents to take care of you, no more protection from prosecution, &c.

I'd be in favour of giving 16-year-olds the right to vote as long as they're OK with giving up all that stuff.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[fm6]

It will also take an attitude adjustment by teachers and administrators. Too many of them are obsessed with being in control. That's not something you're going to change through litigation.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's because you rediculously perchased items that were imported. It's just as ridiculous to purchase local good that are heavily taxed too.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Prysorra]

I agree. However, you went to opposite direction as I do - end taxes for those unable to vote.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

RIDiculous
RIDiculous
RIDiculous
RIDiculous
RIDiculous
RIDiculous

ridiculous /rdkyls/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-dik-yuh-luhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -adjective : causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable: a ridiculous plan.

you're welcome

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

While I partially agree with you, I agree more with the next response post. I would add to the laundry list the ability to be drafted in to war.

You are given special exemptions from the law because you're a minor. The crazier rule is the drinking age being 21 in the USA. My thought (which is shared by many) is if your government can force you to pick up a gun and shoot at the enemy, you should be able to drink a beer.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[blueskies]

I have no rights as a visitor to the US.

I wish i would have known this. Because that means i can shoot you, beat you, steal from you, arrest you. Now i just need to know which people are visitors to the US so i can take advantage of them having no rights.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[blueskies]

What things would you like included into the legal framework that aren't covered? Are there additional things that need to be included?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Workaphobia]

If, with the exception of slavery, we have failed to (or perhaps chosen not to) make such distinctions, what makes you think that this situation deserves an exception? What makes you think that eliminating gray areas in favor of giving everyone and everything either equal rights or no rights at all is desireable?

Do animals deserve the right to vote? Should elementary school students be allowed to get married? Are children property of their parents and should they be allowed to be beaten at will? If you can't answer yes to any of those then it's obvious that not everything/one should have or lack every right.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Belial6]

It is good to see that you agree whole heartedly with the parent poster, as we all know that complaining about spelling is an admission that all of the points are 100% correct.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Belial6]

The question is, though, do teens make bad decisions because they have not been considered adults, or because of a physical limitation. I would say that the number of stupid decisions I see 18-25 year olds make, indicates that the problem isn't "teens make bad decisions", but instead is "people tend to make bad decision until they have been considered an adult for a few years."

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Lost Engineer]

Are you saying you paid $100 total and got it all back or you paid $100 bi-weekly and only got $100 back. Neither way makes more sense than the other.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[NewsWatcher]

It is taxation without representation in my opinion and that is why the founders of this country took up arms and fought back

. I am not sure if that is why founders of your country ever took up arms and fought back, but if that was the case, I look forward to you joining the war on behalf of the people in American Samoa who have been paying taxes for decades, but don't get a vote on who should be president, despite the POTUS being their head of state and drafting them into the Vietnam war.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are a lot of states that a) do not have FIDs and b) have no age requirement for possession of a rifle or shotgun. (Note: I am not aware of a state where there isn't a requirement to be at least 18 to carry a handgun.) I would venture a guess that most states hold the second provision, because if you forbid minors from possessing a rifle and/or shotgun, you would be limiting their ability to hunt, which is still a past-time of many throughout the US (and not just the south). I personally was in possession of such arms on a few occasions before I was 18 (and at least one time before high school).

To the first point, this is mostly something existent in very liberal states with relatively restrictive gun laws. I can point to at least a half dozen states where there are no requirements to have an FID (assuming you mean a Firearm ID or some such thing). I have lived in three of these states: Kentucky, Ohio, and Virginia. There are no requirements to get a license for a hand gun (and definitely none for a rifle/shotgun). Many southern states follow this same set of laws, with only some major municipalities making laws to the contrary. (On another note, a gun ban in DC is still being challenged in federal court. I think the NoVA, MD and DC region are great for arguing against gun control, since No. VA seems to be a bit safer then DC or MD, particularly Montgomery county, but that is a discussion for another time.)

You see, there are still a few places in this country where they protect the constitutional rights of the children, even if they are minors. (Something I think adults should remember, is that the people who will be in charge later are your children. If you make laws that they perceive as hurting them, it might come back to bite you in 30 or 40 years.)

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

...that is why the founders of this country took up arms and fought back.

Whoa! Slow down there, Cowboy! By the time you're 17, you'll find out that it didn't go down exactly like that. It wasn't all Guns and Roses --Vitae summa beavis sperm...er...it wasn't all Peaches and Cream? Pffft! Maybe not that kind anyway.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ThisNukes4u]

I paid approximately $100 bi-weekly(each paycheck), and I got back about $100 dollars in federal tax refund.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[iphayd]

In ten years, you will think differently.

You are actually represented. And you are guaranteed the ability to vote after you turn 18*. If you are mature enough to vote, which you may or may not be. (I may or may not be, for that matter, but 18 at least guarantees a percentage is mature enough.) Now imagine if all you classmates, with their celebrity loving subculture, had the same right to vote. Imagine what would happen if Madonna (Paris Hilton is too young) got into the White House.

That's why there is an 18 year waiting limit on voting.

*Offer good in the USA. Offer is dependent on registration. Offer is also dependent on not being a felon.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, minors can and do own property. Their parents are limited as to what they can do with it, but as guardians of their children, they can act as custodians of it in the interests of the children, and can of course raise their children pretty freely. For ordinary sorts of personal property (e.g. toys) it doesn't matter much. For important properties (e.g. land, large sums of money, etc.) it often is a big deal. For example, if a child owned some land, their parent couldn't arbitrarily sell it. They could probably rent it during the child's minority, and use some of the proceeds for reasonable upkeep of the land. But once the child becomes an adult, it's theirs.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[StarkRG]

I don't believe they pay federal income taxes in US territories. Local income, sales, and payroll* taxes, yeah, but not federal income. This is the case for all territories, including Puerto Rico and American Samoa.

* Social Security, etc. For which they benefit from.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[cpt kangarooski]

and the current abortion debate is mostly an argument as to whether a fetus is an individual, or merely a woman's property.

No, the debate has absolutely nothing to do with that. It has to do with under what circumstances the state can prevent an individual from making decisions as to what medical procedures they want done. A fetus is always considered to be worth being brought to term if safely possible, but women are never required to be forced to do so. This is why viability is central: if a fetus isn't yet viable, then abortion is the side-effect of the mother choosing not to bring it to term herself. If it is viable, and there's not some other compelling reason involved, then she can't get an abortion, since that would unnecessarily kill the fetus, but she could opt for a premature delivery since she still isn't actually required to keep carrying it.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[briancnorton]

While it's long been shown that when students are on campus, they surrender a number of their constitutional rights (free speech, search and seizure, right to bear arms, etc.)

This is a bogus understanding. Students in ANY school in the US still have ALL their constitutional rights. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to disrupt class, freedom to incite a riot, etc. I even used to take my rifle to school for practice. You can't teach citizenship without retaining the fundamental values of our society in effect.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

If in doubt, check http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[confuciou]

Madonna would probably do a better job than bush.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Sj0]

I recall a major point of contention being that women aren't eligible for conscription in the US. Apparently every man at 18 has to fill out his draft card just in case they bring back the draft, but women need not apply.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what this means within the context of this discussion.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like sales taxes and all? How would this go into effect? Would this mean you would have to end up showing identification to prove that you aren't old enough to vote when payiing for things? This would have interesting results of people making fake IDs, not to appear older but younger!

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Sj0]

Erm...You guys do that. Often enough that it's actually a serious issue in my country, where you can't necessarily trust that you won't get sent to some secret prison in Europe to be tortured when you cross that border. Hell, you sent a bunch of our boys off to some countries run by very mean people who torture people to death because it was Tuesday.

Americans need to wake up to just how mean and nasty they actually are to foreigners.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[NewsWatcher]

I am not sure whether you are correct or not. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything official that says whether American Samoans pay US income tax. Even if they are paying all the other taxes you mention, surely they should be able to get a vote.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Sj0]

I'd say that a state ought to limit the activities of school officials to activities which actually take place on school grounds. It's really not kosher letting school officials be these Judge Dredd style judge, jury, and executioners.

The US is in a crisis right now exactly because of stuff like this. Sure, it's not important when some kids gets expelled for a blog a principal doesn't like(Really, Galileo had it coming too), but stuff like zero tolerance laws which force school officials to destroy anyone who even comes close to breaking a rule, or kids being put through dehumanizing Desexualisation programs based on discredited procedures designed to 'cure' homosexuals in the 1930s, we're starting to talk about some heavy shit. Kids need to start getting some rights, because right now, they're being pissed on.

Of course, this is coming from the generation that has run the debt so high that officials are saying that the country will have to go bankrupt in our children's lifetimes, so shitting on kids in the name of protecting them is par for the course.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Sj0]

Second link failed (oops?), it was to This site, which details the desexualization process.

Very orwellian. You love big brother, right?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Red Flayer]

and out of a $400 bi-weekly check I paid at least $50-$100 in Social Security tax

Hogwash. Social security taxes have never been over 6.2%. Throw in medicare of 1.45%, and there is still no way you paid 12.5 - 25% social security tax.

Either your memory is shot or you're making up numbers.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[mark3748]

now this is two different things... as a visitor to the US, you have the same basic rights as any other individual, as long as you don't want to buy a gun or something (although we're slowly losing that right as citizens ourselves).

If you're in your own country or any country other than the US, that's a different story altogether...

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[camperdave]

...that means i can shoot you, beat you, steal from you, arrest you.

Kinda lends a new meaning to the phrases "tourist season", and "tourist trap" :-)

However, just because I may or may not have any rights, that does not grant you the right to shoot, beat, or steal from me. As far as arresting, your rights in that regard are no doubt covered by your local "citizen's arrest" legislation.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Miseph]

What? You're kidding, right? No way are we gonna let the terrorists think we're "soft" or "weak" or "educated" by not running out any foreigner stupid enough to show their dirty little face on our turf.

Realize we're being mean and nasty to people from other countries for no good reason... hah, what a crock.

Oh, wait, you have money? And industry? And a culture we can steal in order to fill our own void in that area? Why hello there friendly neighbor, what a lovely day to be a part of this kindly international community. What's that? Invasion forces? Oh no, they're just... um... on a training mission. Yes, that's it, a training mission; don't mind them one bit, they're completely harmless...

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[bwd234]

"While I agree that students should have rights, I have to ask: why shouldn't they be second-class citizens? They're not working and they're not nearly as capable as adults of making good decisions. I think "second-class citizen" is a rather good description of what they should be, as opposed to the "first-class citizens" who work and pay taxes for the upkeep of the city. The question, though, is about how many or how few rights second-class citizens should have."

Wrong, asshole. I started working when I was 14 years old, and no it wasn't at a lemonade stand. I worked full time during the summer and part time while attending school. Oh, and even though I didn't have the right to vote, I PAID TAXES!

You sound like the kind of person who probably thinks women and blacks should be considered second-class citizens as well.

Douche bag!

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[camperdave]

as a visitor to the US, you have the same basic rights as any other individual,

What I want to know is: is this spelled out anywhere, or is this just an unwritten assumption.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[StarkRG]

The local taxes have nothing to do with the federal government. The sales taxes exist for everyone, even people visiting from other countries. The social security stuff is something they pay in to in order to receive it back (or, at least, that's what's supposed to happen).

I believe Puerto Rico has had votes on whether they want to gain statehood, and they've always said no.

From the Puerto Rico Wikipedia article:

Three locally-authorized plebiscites have been held in recent decades to decide whether Puerto Rico should pursue independence, enhanced commonwealth status, or statehood. Narrow victories by commonwealth supporters over statehood advocates in the first two plebiscites and an unacceptable definition of Commonwealth by the pro statehood leadership on the ballots in the third has allowed the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States government to remain unchanged. In the latest status referendum of 1998, the "none of the above" option won over Statehood, a rejection by Commonwealthers of the definition of their status on the ballots, with 50.2% of the votes. Support for the pro-statehood party (Partido Nuevo Progresista or PNP) and the pro-commonwealth party (Partido Popular Democrático or PPD) remains about equal. The only registered independence party on the island, the Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño or PIP, usually receives 3-5% of the electoral votes, though there are several smaller independence groups like the Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico (Puerto Rican Nationalist Party), el Movimiento Independentista Nacional Hostosiano (National Hostosian Independence Movement), and the Macheteros - Ejercito Popular Boricua (or Boricua Popular Army).

There doesn't seem to be much info on the taxation or citizenship of American Samoans on Wikipedia or the CIA World Factbook, I can only assume it's similar to Puerto Rico without the citizenship status...

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ThisNukes4u]

You sir are correct, my numbers were wrong. However, I have just looked at one of my paycheck stubs and I paid $50.23 in total taxes on a $412(before tax) paycheck, and this was one of the larger ones. Note that this is also in California, so state taxes are included as well. A look at my final paycheck in December of that year shows I paid $450 in taxes total from June 13 of the same year(my first year there). A far cry from my original posted number, but still far less than my $100 refund. So I officially apologize for using numbers from my head that were inflated from my poor memory and not checking them with reality.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[proxima]

I worked 25-35 hours a week when I was 16 and 17, and out of a $400 bi-weekly check I paid at least $50-$100 in Social Security tax. Come tax day, I got $100 back both years. Bullshit you get it back, the government stole my money.

I find that highly implausible. Both Medicare and Social Security tax combined are about 8% of your income (it's called FICA. Thus you paid perhaps $35-40 per paycheck in SS + Medicare, but not more. If you were self-employed, you pay both the employer contribution and the employee contribution to pay about 15%, which is $60 of a $400 paycheck. You don't sound like you were self-employed.

What's interesting is that full-time university students are exempt from FICA, while high school students are not. So in undergrad I paid FICA during the summer but not when I was enrolled with full-time status.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Red Flayer]

So after refund, about 9% total approximately... not too bad at all, considering 2/3 of that is medicare/social security, that (assuming they remain solvent, which I'm not too sure of) you'll get back after retirement.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[pedrop357]

Now imagine if all you classmates, with their celebrity loving subculture, had the same right to vote. Imagine what would happen if Madonna (Paris Hilton is too young) got into the White House.

Yeah, because we know that ALL teens would vote for a superstar and would have enough votes to override all adult voters.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[pedrop357]

Not all CCWs, in fact very few states do that. Off the top of my head, only CA,NV,NY,MA, and NJ do that

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Hyperspite]

Definitions:
p = Full citizen
q = full responsibilities
M = can be drafted
D = must fulfill all duties other than draft
m = male
f = female

Given:
p (1, given)
q (2, given)
p -> q (3, given)
(M /\ D) q (4, given)
m -> (M /\ D) (5, given)
f -> (D /\ ~M) (6, given)
m -> ~f (7, given [law of the excluded middle (see note)])

Part 1:
m -> q (8, by 2 and 3 and the chain rule (law of syllogism))
m -> p (9, by 3 and 8, chain rule) [therefore men are full citizens]
Part 2:
f -> (D /\ ~M) (10, restatement of given)
f -> q = F (11, wasn't sure what the exact logic rule was so I used a truth table :D, it's probably something obvious I overlooked)
f -> p = F (12, by 11)

Therefore, men are full citizens, and women are not full citizens in the eyes of the government.

Here is the answer professor. I think I may have made a mistake or two, but intuition tells me this is correct.

NOTE: simplifying assumption, I guess f can also mean gays, transsexuals etc too in retrospect. Although in the case of gays, you'd have to use fuzzy logic because some obviously are in the military, or the guberment doesn't know they are gay etc.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Education and schooling has no age limits.

My "wife" a "mother" of one (maybe two next year) still goes to school.
She works, pays her taxes and is well over the age limit for drinking and driving in any state.

How is she a second class citizen again?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you notice s/he mentioned in their post that s/he is 16??

Yes, s/he misspelled a couple of words but you don't have to be an _ass_ about it. I should forward you some of my Realtor's emails (who happens to be well over 50), you will probably do a drive-by if I gave you her address as well.

For a 16 year old, I think s/he has a very good command of the language and has done a very good job posting. Different prospective than mine, but nonetheless well said.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[nospam007]

>... If it is viable, and there's not some other compelling reason involved, then she can't get an abortion, ...
--
Only if she's too poor to travel to some country where they don't give a shit. This works only for the lower classes.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Lost Engineer]

Some other people have been calling you on your numbers. I won't. The government stole our money. That we can can agree on. Join us libs and oppose taxation.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ksheer]

very nice signature!!!

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ksheer]

HAHA!
you guys talk about students being second grade citizens and adults not... somehow relating it to the taxes. Living in the US, you can atleast talk about stuff like this: you paying the Govt & Govt sometimes treating you like something insignificant.
Try living here in India, this is what i would call being treated as a second grade citizen. Minor or not so minor.
After living all my life out of India, i've just moved back in 2005... nothing works here. Walk in to any govt office n the chances are that you can get *nothing* done at one go! even if you have your papers in order. We pay taxes for everything... there is a professional tax, entertainment tax, they tax you on your medical allowance if you dont spend it, tax on travell allowance if you dont spend it (spend it only on bus or train, airplane fare is not deductable) etc etc... i can go on and on about it. And still, when u walk into a police station (cuz you lose ur wallet and you need to get a complaint logged) they wont do it (unless you pay them). and thats not it, they even talk to you with _any_ respect. And if you even dare to mention the words "my rights" there, good luck getting anything done!!!
this was for adults who are not students... just imagine if you were a student here, not even a part of (the significant) society. ofcourse, students dont pay any taxes in india... so maybe thats why :)

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[dzfoo]

Minors cannot be held to a contract. Minors can not own property. Minors are fucking non-people under the laws of the United States, and AFAIK pretty much all of the states themselves as well.

Those are some freaky minors, going around fucking non-people? Ewww!

And by the way, do they really have a law for allowing them to fuck non-people?

      -dZ.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[daem0n1x]

Of course they are working. They are educating themselves to become valid citizens in the future. Being educated is hard work, often a lot harder than many of the jobs I know of.

Considering students a burden is a huge mistake that many of our rulers commit often, with harsh consequences.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Sj0]

So being shipped off to a secret prison to be tortured without a trial is a fundamental right of any American?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[James McP]

Minors cannot be held to a contract. Minors can not own property.

Someone should tell the RIAA this. They are suing children who were 9 & 11 at the time of their "contract violation."

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[mrogers]

If it's just about taxes, should everyone below the income tax threshold be treated as a second-class citizen? Maybe people's votes should be weighted in proportion to their tax contribution? I'm sure that would lead to a utopian society of hard-working taxpayers and wouldn't quickly devolve into a corrupt oligarchy.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[abaddononion]

Here in America, do we all really get that much more reasonable when we turn 18, though? I mean... Madonna could probably make a pretty good run at the White House anyway. Or maybe some less disenfranchised celebrity bimbo. She could certainly fund one heck of a campaign, at any rate.

Fortunately, the apathy of us youngsters keeps us (mildly) safe. They could probably set the voting age limit at 42, and wouldnt knock out too large of a percentage of voters.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[mdwh2]

Now imagine if all you classmates, with their celebrity loving subculture, had the same right to vote. Imagine what would happen if Madonna (Paris Hilton is too young) got into the White House.

And the general adult population isn't a celebrity loving culture? Yes, just image if a celebrity ever got elected!

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ajs]

Minors don't really own any property ... your parents can take away any of your property, legally, at any time!

You understand the the second statement contradicts the first, right? There can be no seizure without property ownership. What you wanted to say is that minors do not have the same rights over their property as adults. This is true, but does not contradict what I said.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[SatanicPuppy]

I used to compete in rifle while I was still in High School, and this was in South Carolina, where it's really not a good idea to leave bullets in your car during the daytime. Eventually I badgered the principal into allowing me to drop off my ammo in the school office where they would lock it up in the damn safe, of all things, but they complained if I ever brought more than one box (two boxes took up about the same amount of space as a big paperback book), and it just got to be such a hassle, that I just started swinging by Wal-Mart on the way out of town and buying ammo there.

The first time I attempted to suggest that I might want to bring a gun case onto school property I thought everyone would completely lose their minds...This is in the late 80's and early 90's, years before Colombine, and the very idea of a gun on school property, even a single-shot target rifle in a locked case with no ammo, freaked their tiny minds.

These days, I can only imagine. They'd probably expel you for even competing in the first place...Surely shooting a gun, even in competition, is a sign of a deranged and dangerous personality.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[blueskies]

Wow. You really enjoy trolling.

Obviously there is a difference between having no rights and having less rights. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[blueskies]

However, just because I may or may not have any rights, that does not grant you the right to shoot, beat, or steal from me.

What? What protects you if you don't have any rights? If you don't have the right to own property, then why can't i take it?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked 40 hours a week every summer starting when I was 12, and I paid taxes. Sure, I couldn't vote, but I also couldn't be drafted and if I committed a crime, odds are it would've been sealed after I turned 18. It's a tradeoff.

You were quite a dick in this post. Maturity is one of those things that (hopefully) comes with age.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ajs]

Everyone surrenders their right to bear arms on a school campus except for active law enforcement, or military during the execution of orders

This I did not know. Thanks.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[dmihalko]

didn't your parents/legal guardian get that? I got in a bit of trouble back when i was in college over this because i wanted all my tax money back from school costs... so i claimed independant. my dad not listening to me claimed me as a dependent. combination of the two = audit.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ThisNukes4u]

Yeah, I can't claim independent because my dad claims me as a dependent. If I did, then I could deduct myself and get most/all the taxes back, but as it is, my dad gets a bigger break on his taxes with me as a dependent that I would as an independent, plus he gives me a place to crash during the summer and winter breaks, so I don't have much choice.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[camperdave]

Well, I would still have the inalienable rights that I have been endowed with by my creator.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[gbulmash]

If you're in the military and in a war zone, you can buy beer at the PX, even if you're under 21, AFAIK.

The legal drinking age is controlled by state laws. In many states, it *used* to be 18, which is one of the reasons my father went out of state for college in the '60s. For my 18th birthday, he took me to New York, instructing me to bring my fake ID (he'd never seen it nor had I told him about it, but he assumed that as a freshman in college I had one), and he took me to the bars he went to in college (those that still survived 25+ years later). His thinking was: "If I was drinking when I was 18, why should I have a problem with you doing it when you're 18?"

And I don't think the laws actually stop 18 year olds from drinking. When I was 18, I was social chair of my fraternity (one of the few things I have in common with Dubya) and had a well stocked bar in my room at the fraternity house. By 19, I was a pretty fair mixologist and had created a few "can't taste the alcohol" punches for serving to sorority girls. My favorite was my "Shirley Temple On Drugs" (a Kamikaze dilluted with 7-Up and grenadine).

IIRC, the Federal Government strongarmed many states into raising it to 21 back in the 1970s by threatening to withhold federal highway funds for states that didn't comply.

- Greg

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[cloak42]

Yeah, I think the GP is overstating things a bit. The fact of the matter is that most children who would bother to go register to vote would take it seriously. There are a lot of issues that involve children without allowing them a say, such as cutting arts funding in schools or other educational requirements. If you made high school staff accountable to their students in addition to their teachers, you might see schools improving quite a bit.

Yes, there are always children who don't take things seriously. But they usually turn into adults that don't take things seriously, either. Most children, when given the opportunity to step up and do something important, take that opportunity and make the best out of it.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[gonzo67]

The drinking age for the US military is whatever the local legal age is to purchase alcohol....unless you are close to a border with a lower age (see Canada/Mexico), then the commander can lower the age on base/post/station to the lower legal limit. (example is/was Ft Bliss, El Paso, Tx....TX legal age is 21, Juarez, Mexico is 18...or less even. Drinking age on Ft Bliss is 18 for military members assigned to that installation).

The drinking age in England for US military members stationed there is 18.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Sj0]

as a visitor to the US, you have the same basic rights as any other individual ...becomes...

Obviously there is a difference

Trolling. Yes. I'm the one that's trolling.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[welshsocialist]

You could move to the Isle of Man. Their voting age was lowered to 16 last year (link here). I have been opposed to lowing the voting age to 16 for the reason that most 16 year olds I've met aren't that mature for decisions like voting. As for being 18 and in school with the same lack of rights, I agree with you on that. It was one of the things that surprised me in school.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[welshsocialist]

The GP is right. None of the territories pay US Federal Income Tax to the IRS. The tax they would pay to the IRS goes to the local government. As for Social Security, minimum wage, etc. that all generally applies, with some exceptions. For example, the Northern Mariana Islands has a special agreement with the US Gov't. that covers most economic matters and American Samoa has special minimum wage rates.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[Iron Condor]

Now imagine if all you classmates, with their celebrity loving subculture, had the same right to vote. Imagine what would happen if Madonna (Paris Hilton is too young) got into the White House.

And how exactly would that be different from Ronald Reagan becoming president? Why is a bad singer any less qualified than a bad actor?

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[iphayd]

I'll agree with you there. However, my original point stands. At least with 18, there will be more people more mature than 16, 15, 14, or younger. It's all about numbers, and the government has to draw the line somewhere. That somewhere happens to be where human males are at their prime fitness and agility, allowing us to march further and carry more ammo than a similar 16 or 24 year old.

Glad it was overturned, but...

[AaxelB]

It's too bad there's no fair way to clearly define that thin grey line, and it has to be taken on a case-by-case basis (Unless there's some method I'm missing).

The inefficiency of real justice is aggravating.

Re:Glad it was overturned, but...

[businessnerd]

Fortunately, there is a clear way of defining that line. We have the right to free speech with only two exceptions: Libel and Slander. They are both the same idea, but just pertain to how the statement was disseminated. If you say or write anything that is false about another person, it qualifies as libel/slander. If you say something really really mean, as long as it's the truth, you're in the clear. Calling someone a bitch is not libel/slander as long as you can show that they have at some point or another acted in a manner fitting of the term "bitch". Now I'm not a lawyer, and if there are any lawyers reading feel free to clarify. But the line is whether the statement is true or false. Sometimes that can't be clearly defined. In which case, it's opinion. But even still, this opinion has to be based on something.

But how much?

[Mercedes308]

I think that distinction of criticism is often abused in order to circumvent censorship or prosecution. If the video was a mix of slander and criticism would the court still rule in his favour? If so, what ratio would they allow untill it was unacceptable?

Re:But how much?

[ScrewMaster]

I think it's the difference between "kernel of truth" and "total horseshit." Something along those lines.

Good!

[mstahl]

I still remember what it was like to be a teenager, and one of the most frustrating things about it is the feeling of being disenfranchised. I don't think personal attacks and bullying are okay, and I recognize that the Internet is being used more and more frequently for this type of activity, but teenagers still need to feel like they have a voice.

Re:Good!

[jofny]

I dont like that phrasing...I think teenagers need to HAVE a voice. So much in our society right now is geared to making people FEEL LIKE they have a voice/choice while all the awhile guiding them down a preset path along which theyve unknowingly given away their choices and their say.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to disagree. I think that teenagers should know quite clearly that they don't have a voice, that they have no (or precious few) rights, and those can change at the pleasure of authorities over which they have no hold.

The idea is that this way, they can understand in depth the consequences of being powerless. It should be shoved in their faces daily. Rub their noses in it. Make them weep bitter tears for their voice, and mock their tears.

Result: a citizenry which knows, and cares, about rights, privileges and the relationship between government and people.

captcha: protests

Re:Good!

[mstahl]

Another result could be another Columbine.

Re:Good!

[dgatwood]

Result: a citizenry who is used to having no rights, and therefore puts up no real fight when they are taken away as adults.

Re:Good!

[ProteusQ]

> teenagers still need to feel like they have a voice.

But if what you say isn't worth listening to, no one listens. And that condition is almost indistinguishable from truly not having a voice.

And there's no escape from this in adulthood.

Re:Good!

[Atlantis-Rising]

Or a citizenry which has been indoctrinated to believe exactly the opposite.

Moreover, I can't see your system working at all. If you truely believe in those ideals, enforcing the opposite on others is morally reprehensible.

Re:Good!

[Oblio]

It's the "all problems are perception problems" way of thinking. I think that is an awefully convenient answer to those who hold authority and make mistakes, and thus gets overly applied.

Certainly I see it again and again in governance, and in my workplace.

A small dose of optimism.

[PixieDust]

It's refreshing to see this occasionally happen. My teens aren't that far behind me, and I've gone rounds with various entities about similar things. It's nice to see things like this happen where it's recognized that damnit, in this country, we're SUPPOSED to be able to speak our minds.

The original case accused the girl in question of identity theft, because the page she posted on was supposed to be the Principal's page (it was created by someone else entirely). When all that was said and done, they had to save face somehow, and so prosecuted the person and declared her delinquent for being "obscene". Counter damages perhaps? I would sooooooooo go after them for that.

The rant was also not about the principal, but rather about school policy regarding body piercings. Oh how many times I was suspended for criticizing school policy, and faculty for stupidity. Although in some cases, motivating the student body to protest can be helpful. My high school once told us we couldn't bring our purses to school. 2 days of every girl in the school using tampons for hair rollers fixed that one. On the other hand, those of us who organized that, were suspended for a week for insubordination.

I love seeing cases like this stick it to the man. It's sad that the Constitution so often (aside from being trampled daily) doesn't seem to apply to anyone under the age of 18. With the advent of the internet, however, and online social societies of their own, teens seem to be able to fight for a few more rights, and correct a few more injustices than they were able to even just 10 years ago. That's a great thought. Bolstered by victories now, perhaps the next generation will be less inclined to just roll over while their rights are trampled on than the current generation.

Time will tell.

Re:A small dose of optimism.

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Couldn't bring purses -> tampon hair curlers.
What did you do with the other 100 or so misc. knickknacks women carry in their purses? Brushes, makeup, paperbacks, etc?

Re:A small dose of optimism.

[PixieDust]

Safetey pins, medical tape, belt loops, basically we wore the entire contents of our purses attached to our clothes, in our hair, anywhere we could get them to latch on. A friend of mine made what, i can only describe as a duct tape belt, with keyrings going through it that she could hang things on.

After 2 days the faculty caved, and let us carry our purses again (though they had to stay in our lockers, because then we wouldn't be able to shoot up the school with the guns we were all carrying in them). Then they started finding out who organized it, and suspended us for insubordination. About 3 weeks later, there was a sit-out at the school, which didn't end well (not for those of us organizing it).

Yea, I used to be a big pusher for people's rights not getting trampled. But after becoming so disillusioned in those years, then my stint in the Army, and current political happenings, it's enough that I'm willing to make /. posts.

It's sad really.

Re:A small dose of optimism.

[wuice]

I'm glad to see smoeone who still cares about the Constitution.. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to apply much to people over 18 anymore either. As George Bush Jr. said, "The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper."

Re:A small dose of optimism.

[b0s0z0ku]

Safetey pins, medical tape, belt loops, basically we wore the entire contents of our purses attached to our clothes, in our hair, anywhere we could get them to latch on. A friend of mine made what, i can only describe as a duct tape belt, with keyrings going through it that she could hang things on.

All I can say is "beautiful, kudos to you all, and a large stinking rotten egg for the administration." Sometimes bureaucrats need to be taught their place.

-b.

Re:A small dose of optimism.

[Anonymous Coward]

I salute you and your tampon-as-hair-roller-wearing sisters!

That is the funniest thing I've seen all day. If you couldn't carry purses, where did they think you were going to keep stuff like tampons? Carrying tampons in a pocket doesn't work too well, since they always get bent or crushed when you sit. I just bet the person who thought of the no-purse policy was a man. Okay, so maybe you could have bought tampons out of a machine in the restroom. On the other hand, the tampon machines in the girls' restrooms in my school didn't work most of the time, and they only dispensed these primitive cardboard applicator things and maxi pads the size of Huggies diapers. It was always better to bring your own products. Heh heh heh. I bet the guys reading this on /. are lying passed out on the floor in shock from discovering that there are actually females present here and from the horror of seeing the word "tampon" mentioned in two posts!

I can't help but be curious about the reason why the school banned girls from carrying purses. I mean, what did they think you were all carrying in your purses? Did they ban book bags from the school as well? If not, the policy seems a little inconsistent to me. If the reason for banning purses was because they were afraid of someone smuggling in drugs or a concealed weapon, then they should have banned all backpacks and bags. Of course, if a school bans purses or other bags because they are afraid students are using them to smuggle illegal items into school, the students will just find another way to conceal the items. Searching all students might help, but then again, getting searched everywhere you go starts to feel like harassment. Getting to know the kids and their parents seems like a much better way to protect students than harassing them about whether or not they carry a purse.

Re:A small dose of optimism.

[Slashdot Parent]

Yea, I used to be a big pusher for people's rights not getting trampled. But after becoming so disillusioned in those years, then my stint in the Army, and current political happenings, it's enough that I'm willing to make /. posts.

Well, I have to say that if my daughter ever decides to pull a stunt like that, we're going to have to have a long talk about how proud I am of her for standing up for something she believes in like that.

But I do have to ask, would your tampons not fit into your backpacks?

Re:A small dose of optimism.

[PixieDust]

Backpacks were already banned, as were trenchcoats, and they tried like hell to make me stop wearing my leather biker style riding jacket. I said I would stop wearing it when I stopped breathing. But yea, school went pretty hardcore after columbine happened (and i lived in rural arkansas 900 miles away from columbine).

Piercings, Chains, anything that was considered "dark imagery", backpacks, purses, hand bags, cargo pants (or anything else with excessively large pockets).

THe school even ignored the angered cry of parents when kids started having serious back problems because of having to carry all of their books with them without the aid of a backpack. Then they had the nerve (8 months later) to say the back problems had actually been caused by the backpacks, and that's why they were banned (nevermind not a single problem aside from the occasional scoliosis sufferer had come up).

The police were called on my mother when she got in a vice principal's face because he wouldn't leave me alone. Police got there and my mom was ranting about harassment and we were both ejected from the school grounds by the police. That was after the sit-out protest. They tried to expel me, then i went to the local news station. They sent a reporter to the school, and suddenly they had NO idea what the reporter was talking about, some kid just played a prank on them trying to get attention. And suddenly I wasn't expelled anymore.

People say I'm paranoid. Well, there's a reason for that.

So yes, when I see a court case like this stick it to the man, it brings me just a bit more hope, that one day, enough people will be outraged to make a BIG difference, and win a BIG battle. THese smaller ones are setting up future battles that will ultimately decide whether we keep and regain our rights, or give all of them up.

Safe Schools Act

[Eyezen]

They tend to get away with it because rightly are wrongly the schools invoke the Safe Schools Act when suppressing speech/activities outside the physical school environment.

The Safe Schools Act is to school age children what the Patriot Act is to the common citizenry.

Good

[kungfujesus]

It's time that they stopped treating us High School students like we're animals, and started respecting our rights. I'm sick of the feeling that I'm a second class citizen, without the rights of adults. The school should have no say on what we do outside of school grounds. "The land of the free [unless you're a kid]"

Re:Good

[pintpusher]

I think part of what you are experiencing is the natural progression from the apparent total freedom a child experiences to the much more restrictive life of an adult. All teens go through this. Its part of what drives teens to break away from the home and live an independent adult life.

You may respond "what restrictive adult life" but its true. We adults may appear more free than you (and in many respects we are), but we are burdened with self-imposed restrictions, societally imposed restrictions, burdens of responsibility etc that can strongly curtail that apparent freedom we have.

I recall that I was frustrated by visions of adults having the "Freedom" to drink, drive (not necessarily together), and all sorts of other fun stuff that I couldn't do. But, you know what, now that I'm an adult, I realise that those are largely the only freedoms we have that are worth anything. Free speech be damned, give me a beer and a woman!

Re:Good

[MacsSuck]

You will do as you're told till you're 18. Now get off the interweb!

Re:Good

[k_187]

Umm, unless you're 18 (which I have no way of telling), you don't have the rights of adults to begin with.

Re:Good

[lilomar]

Free speech be damned, give me a beer and a woman! Rarely has the current American public sentiment been so concisely put.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>It's time that they stopped treating us High School students like we're animals, and started respecting our rights. I'm sick of the feeling that I'm a second class citizen, without the rights of adults. The school should have no say on what we do outside of school grounds. "The land of the free [unless you're a kid]"

Ignore my next statement if you happen to be 18 or older...

By definition "without the rights of adults" makes sense when you are not an adult.
I applaud the ruling, and agree with the concept of maintaining essential rights for kids in school. But to the point, and to one of a previous post.... I do not think the constitution ever intendeded to grant the same rights to minors as adults. Minors can also not vote, drink, or run for public office. These rights are conferred upon adulthood, as defined by 18 years of age. Other rights - freedom of press/expression/religion/bear arms are granted on a limited basis outside of school by the authority of parents/guardians.

soapbox

So PARENTS - get involved in your kids' schools! The administration will continue to implement stupid things and introduce curriculum you disagree with unless you are involved! If you are already involved GREAT - otherwise, either get off your duff or stop whining about how your kids are being treated. AND get involved in your kids lives/activities! Not to be invasive, or uber-chaperone, and not to be their best friend, but to help them get through one of the most confusing periods of life with some sense that somebody cares what they do, who they are, and how they turn out!

/soapbox

Re:Good

[geekoid]

While I agree with the decsion, you don't have the same rights as adults.
There are many reasons for this, but I will leave that up to you to look up.

You think your restricted now? Wait until you relize that in the corporate world, you would be fired for expressing your negative opinion aboput your work place outside of work.
They would call it that, but you would still be put out of work.

Why do people tolerate it? Because they have people like you to raise.

Here are the 2 most important lesson you can learn about life:
1) Do what you love, never settle.
2) Always live as far below your means as possible. This will always give you power in your chosen profession.

Only following those principles will you ever be free.
oh, and pay attention to this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette

Re:Good

[kebes]

While I agree that "being an adult" has many self-imposed restrictions (paying bills, holding down a job, taking care of dependents, being reliable, etc.), I have to disagree that an adult has less freedom than a teenager in high-school.

Frankly, alot of high-school was learning to fit into a mold (both for your peers and teachers), and following rules. Yes, to a certain extent you have to deal with those kinds of rules in "real life," but frankly I feel much more free and empowered now as an adult than I ever did as a teenager.

Part of it is financial independence, of course. But there's also much less fear of "not fitting in" or whatever. I mean, in high-school I would never mention to people that I played tabletop RPGs in my free time. Now, as an adult, I really don't care who knows (even though it is even less "normal" for an adult to play RPGs...). The restrictions of jobs and rent are nothing compared to the restrictions of high-school (and, for some people, their parents). Moreover, the very fact that these restrictions are self-imposed makes a huge difference.

All I can say to readers who are still stuck in High-School is: "Don't worry... Life gets better!"

Re:Good

[Altus]

Im not sure I agree that minors shouldn't get "adult rights." sure there are some things that they do not get. The right to vote, to drink, to drive ect... but should they lack freedom of speech? what about religion? assembly?

I dont know... I don't see anything in the constitution that implies that these rights should be restricted to adults. One could make the argument that the right to bear arms does not apply to minors due to the militia clause but I'm not so sure about the others.

What was the age of majority back when the constitution was framed anyway? if it was younger than 18 I think you have to take that into account when you consider the founding fathers intent.

Re:Good

[pintpusher]

I suppose it looks like it, but I wasn't intending to imply that being an adult is less free than being a teen. But it certainly appears to be more lopsided than it is. The transition from the apparent freedom of childhood to a decidedly not-free-adulthood is difficult and to a teen probably seems worse than it is. A teen looks at an adult's freedom and thinks its all wine and roses, but its not. It's merely a perception. That was the point I was after.

Oh, and your comments are spot on IMO.

Re:Good

[MacsSuck]

i dont recall any rule not granting minors the right to speech, religion or assembly. But when you're a minor you have to obey your parents/school. Meaning, if you're parents want you to be christians, then really you dont have much of a choice. If your teacher tells you to shut the F-up so she can teach, then you need to shut the F-up. As for assembly...dont you have stuff like Proms and all that bs?

Re:Good

[Dragonslicer]

Minors can also not vote, drink, or run for public office.

In the United States, most of those aren't even 18. The legal drinking age (I believe in all states) is 21. You have to be 25 to run for the House of Representatives, 30 to run for the Senate, and 35 to run for President. 18 isn't the only somewhat-arbitrary age limit.

Re:Good

[Altus]

you are required to obey your teachers at school thats for sure. You have to be there by law (unless you go to a private school) and you are not allowed to be disruptive. I agree with all of this and I have no problem with it... but I really dont think that applies to off campus activites. posting stuff on myspace about how your schools administration sucks or holding a "bong-hits-for-jesus" poster off school ground should probably not apply.

Im not so sure about the parents thing... I mean, they can punish you (with limits) but can they really make you be a Christian or not be a pagan (these are beliefs, not really controllable) can they honestly make you go to church under force of law? they could take away your privileges to use their TV or internet or send you to bed without supper but I don't know that they have the legal right to force you to go to church (or anywhere for that matter)... I'm kind of curious now.

Functionally of course they really do have this power because they can legally make a kids life most miserable if the kid doesn't listen to them... but if a kid was truly determined, what powers would the parents have.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Not meaning to troll, just disagree, and flip the thought process on the other end:

"Think of the children!" is all you ever hear.

It's funny how children demand the rights of an adult. Yet at the same time, demand that if an adults rights go too far, then take the rights away from the adult for the sake of the child.

I do agree that a child should have freedoms like adults, but at the same time, people keep pushing this "Think of the children" nonsense. Therefor children have no rights, to protect themselves ironically.

Either children and adults take the same rights and freedoms, otherwise deal with it. In my opinion, its all about equality though, but for those people pushing the nonsense, actually "Think of " HOW " the children" FEEL.

Re:Good

[chuckymonkey]

Having been a highschool student not that long ago I can agree with you for the most part. However, too many teenagers abuse their rights and have no sense of common decency or respect. Let me put it like this in the real world you may not like your boss all that much but you give him respect because he can fire you and most times he did earn his position, so you have repurcussions for your actions. However in the school system you can't truly be "fired" for being an idiot so they have other forms of punishment that your "boss" can give you. I agree wholeheartedly with you that outside of school you should have all the constitutional rights of a citizen (by the way drinking, smoking, and several other activities are not rights) but that being true students should also have to pay the price if they abuse said freedoms. Basically what it boils down to is don't be an asshole and you have nothing to worry about. Oh and if you want the freedoms of an adult, be an adult and stand up and fight for them. Write to congress, the courts and be an active participant or focal point for what you believe in.

Re:Good

[Dread_ed]

Many people (myself for example) who partied and played with hedonistic drive during their adolescent/young adult years, and who subsequently grew up sometimes want to try to go back and recapture the feeling of that time in life.

and, if you are anything like me and some of my close friends, no matter how hard you try, no matter what you do, in whatever quantities (!) you cannot reclaim that feeling you had.

There is this certain feeling you are missing and it has nothing to do with the clothes you wore, the way you did your hair, the music you listened to, the sex you had, the alcohol you drank, or the drugs you did. I will tell you now why that is. The missing ingredient that you will never have again: Complete and total lack of responsibility.

Enjoy it while you can kids, cuz its never coming back.

Re:Good

[grassy_knoll]

Free speech be damned, give me a beer and a woman!

Rarely has the current American public sentiment been so concisely put.

Moderated: +1 / Sad but True.

Re:Good

[MorePower]

Adult life restrictive? I don't get how anyone can possibly be nostalgic about teenage life. It is all obligations and no rewards. You have far more responsibilies and obligations as a teen than as an adult. Basically as an adult I have to go to work and pay my bills (and this time of year, my taxes). And my bills actually get paid automatically, I just need to insure that my bank account stays topped off, so really doing my job is my only responsibility.

That would be the job that I can leave anytime I want if I find a job that's more to my liking. The one that I choose because I liked to technical and work/lifestyle aspects of. The one that pays me huge gobs of money because I once threatened to leave and work for the competition.

As a teenager, you have to go to school (under threat of criminal prosecution), do all your homework, do whatever chores your parents randomly assign, go to whatever lame weddings/reunions/family trips/etc. your parents randomly force on you. And for this you get no pay, own no property (except what your parents charitably give you, which they take away randomly) and you have to live with uncofortable relationships with your family that you can't leave or renegotiate in a house of their choosing in a city chosen for thier work/lifestyle ideals.

Screw all that! In the 16+ years since I turned 18, life just gets better and better. I live in a house that I chose, in a location that I chose, maintain what relationships I feel are worthwhile (which includes my parents, its much easier to live with them when I don't have to literally live with them), clean my home when I feel the mess bothers me more than the effort to clean it, own whatever property is valuable enough to me; all paid for by the job I chose under the conditions that I negotiated (and re-negotiated) from a position of strength.

I just don't see anything good about life as a teenager, which was living under constant threat of random punishment for not doing meaningless things you should never have to do in the first place. And getting nothing for it.

Re:Good

[orcrist]

Wow. You nailed it completely. And made me feel nostalgic in the bargain :-/

Re:who gives a shit

[voice_of_all_reason]

Civics. You fail it.

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights. If you do not agree to one of the founding ideas of our country, you are welcome to the door.

No different from many other scenarios

[EmbeddedJanitor]

This is no different from nay other situations. You need to give up all these rights to get on a plane. Try walk into a bank carrying a shotgun. Shout "This is a stick up" and then claim freedom of speach.

The difference with myspace etc is that these are clearly soap-boxing sites where people are encouraged and expected to express opinions.

Re:No different from many other scenarios

[Deagol]

Yeah, but people are not forced by the State into compulsory plane trips until they turn 18. Slight difference.

On a similar note, I've always wondered if it could be possible to avoid a court appearance due to the fact that you must check all firearms (er, weapons -- they took my Swiss Army Knife once) with the courthouse guards. Can the State compel you to surrender your arms if you have not been convicted of anything yet? A nice legal chicken/egg problem.

Re:No different from many other scenarios

[maxume]

I'm just some jackass on the internet(and not a lawyer), but I bet that the case law surrounding your scenario is at least similar to the case law that allows officers to compel suspects to wear hand cuffs and sit in cells for a while(generally, if they can show good reason, they can make you do stuff for a while). I don't think the court house is really considered a 'public area' either, the judge can toss people out for talking more than he likes and what not, and that's probably a decent name for the standard that would apply to your entry as a spectator.

Re:No different from many other scenarios

[why-is-it]

On a similar note, I've always wondered if it could be possible to avoid a court appearance due to the fact that you must check all firearms (er, weapons -- they took my Swiss Army Knife once) with the courthouse guards.

Does the phrase contempt of court mean anything to you?

Re:No different from many other scenarios

[jrockway]

Does the phrase overthrow the government mean anything to you?

The court belongs to the people, not the government.

Re:No different from many other scenarios

[brouski]

I agree. Enjoy your night in jail.

Re:No different from many other scenarios

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like playing chicken with 18-wheelers on the highway with your bicycle. You MIGHT have the right of way, but your carcass is going to get pulped. Same with being an asshole to a judge or court system.

The jails and prisons are full of "lawyers" with stuff like that. Please take some advice (and not theirs) and don't join them.

Re:No different from many other scenarios

[FLEB]

Unfortunately, they still have more guns.

Re:No different from many other scenarios

[Arthur B.]

It doesn't solely rely on gun, the government couldn't possibly fight against even 20% of the population. There's a tipping point for revolutions which is fairly low. It relies on democracy, and the ability for the government to create the proper incentives so that people stay in line and keep voting.

1. Create economic distress
2. Argue for a welfare state
3. Tax
4. ???
5. Profit

very few guns needed

Re:No different from many other scenarios

[why-is-it]

Does the phrase overthrow the government mean anything to you?

Contempt of court lands you in jail for a period of time. Sedition is a capital crime...

The court belongs to the people, not the government.

Absolutely. So why would one want or need to be armed in court?

Re:No different from many other scenarios

[Iron Condor]

This is no different from nay other situations. You need to give up all these rights to get on a plane. Try walk into a bank carrying a shotgun. Shout "This is a stick up" and then claim freedom of speach.

The difference with myspace etc is that these are clearly soap-boxing sites where people are encouraged and expected to express opinions.

All three examples of yours have in common that your rights end where they start infringing upon other people's right.

Abridgements of free-speech right in schools have generally been upheld where the student's speech in question was considered disruptive to the operation of the class or the school.

The operative question here is: was the myspace page in question intended or had the effect of disrupting the functioning of the school or any one particular class.

I have not seen the page in question - did the author ask students to refrain from doing classwork? Did he incite disobedience or unrest of some form? Or did he merely cuss out the principal (it sounds like the latter)?

Disenfranchisement

[Anonymous Coward]

Disenfranchisement is horrible, especially when you can't speak out against silly school rules. Anyone have any of those rules like "no hats in class", "no chewing gum", "no whistling", "no Pogs", "no trading cards", "no fizzy drinks", the list goes on (good "ask slashdot" topic IMO).

Re:Disenfranchisement

[Anonymous Coward]

As time goes on, you will probably realize that there is a time and a place for everything.

Guess what, for us "adults" we can't bring half of that "fun" stuff to work either. Depending on the job, you can't even have something as simple as a glass of water at your desk. Besides, why the hell are you bringing half of that to school anyway. Leave it at home, and deal with it then. When at school try concentrating on school, it will be better for you in the long run.

Now get off my lawn you damn kids.

Insightful? Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's too bad there's no fair way to clearly define that thin grey line"

It's called context. That's the whole point of a case-by-case basis.
Jeez, the last thing we need is an un-thinking judicial system on top of an already fairly broken one.

Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star.

No, I don't remember th...wait. Did you say HD209458 b ?

Nevermind.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

[wsanders]

The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case is currently before the Supreme Court this term and covers much of this ground.

If nothing else, it's enormously entertaining just to hear the Supremes uttering the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus".

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/i s_20060830/ai_n16693097

Famous Scumbag Lawyer Ken Starr doesn't have any more of a chance here than he did on his other big case a few years ago, since there are plenty of prior rulings protecting students' free speech rights off-campus:

http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?countr y=&start=450&lang=&entry=Tinker+v.+Des+Moines&site s=any

Decided on the Indiana Constitution

[radarjd]

It's important to note that the Court of Appeals based the polical speech portion of its opinion on the Indiana Constitution and not the Federal Constitution. State Constitutions can allow greater freedom to the people that the Federal Constitution, but not less. In other words, it's possible this would have come out differently in another state. Of course, I'm from Indiana, so it applies around here.

Re:Decided on the Indiana Constitution

[Comatose51]

Uh... not sure about that but California law legalized marijuana but Federal courts said Federal law trumps it.

Re:Decided on the Indiana Constitution

[IthnkImParanoid]

IANAL, so this may not be technically accurate.

IIRC that was because the regulation of certain substances was seen as falling under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Interstate Commerce Clause trumps pretty much every question of states' rights, and is the driving force behind a lot of the growth of federal power. If the actions of this kid were in violation of a federal law, and that federal law was related, however tangentially, to interstate commerce, the outcome may have been very different.

Re:Decided on the Indiana Constitution

[Pfhorrest]

The internet runs between states.

You can do commerce over the internet.

This kid's comments were made on the internet.

Sounds like the government has about as much right to regulate this as they have to regulate somehow growing and consuming something in his own basement. More, in fact. (Which is still to say, none at all).

But shh, I won't tell if you won't.

Re:Decided on the Indiana Constitution

[dzfoo]

It's important to note that the Court of Appeals based the polical speech portion of its opinion on the Indiana Constitution and not the Federal Constitution. State Constitutions can allow greater freedom to the people that the Federal Constitution, but not less. In other words, it's possible this would have come out differently in another state. Of course, I'm from Indiana, so it applies around here.

You have a point. However, on this particular subject, any State could potentially limit (or expand) the freedom as they see fit, as the only Federal Constitutional protection is "Congress shall make no law...". And as long as the State's mandate does not imply an act of Congress (how could it?!), its within its bounds.

        -dZ.

No, MySpace is not Free Speech.

[ScentCone]

MySpeech is a communciations method. You can use it in keeping with the First Amendment, or you can use it outside of those very real bounds. Saying "MySpace is Free Speech" is like saying "the sounds coming out of your mouth are Free Speech." Well, yeah, unless they're not. As in slander, fraud, incitement, conspiracy, threats, etc.

Re:No, MySpace is not Free Speech.

[radarjd]

You can use it in keeping with the First Amendment, or you can use it outside of those very real bounds. Saying "MySpace is Free Speech" is like saying "the sounds coming out of your mouth are Free Speech." Well, yeah, unless they're not. As in slander, fraud, incitement, conspiracy, threats, etc.

I think that's exactly what the case said. The Court considered at least one of the girl's postings:
Hey you piece of greencastle shit.
What the fuck do you think of me [now] that you can['t] control me? Huh?
Ha ha ha guess what I'll wear my fucking piercings all day long and to
school and you can['t] do shit about it! Ha ha fucking ha! Stupid bastard!
Oh and kudos to whomever made this ([I'm] pretty sure I know who).
Get a background.
formatting left as in the opinion.

The Court found that somewhere in there is a protected expression of displeasure towards the actions of a government actor -- that is, she was mad he banned wearing of jewelry in decorative piercings and expressed her thoughts on the matter.

It's not Shakespeare, but freedom can't only apply to those who speak eloquently.

Re:No, MySpace is not Free Speech.

[ScentCone]

I think that's exactly what the case said.

Right! But it's not what the slashdot headline says! That's my point. There was no finding that MySpace is free speech, and that wasn't even really being discussed, per se. What the court is talking about is whether free speech is free speech... and the MySpace piece of the puzzle is really something of a red herring, and was just there to stoke flames here.

Re:No, MySpace is not Free Speech.

[UnknowingFool]

MySpeech is a communciations method.

I am thinking that you are relying too much on the title of an article to imply it's meaning. Slashdot titles are limited in characters so submitters have to be as brief as possible. Sometimes being brief changes the meaning but there isn't much choice. You should RTFA. All it is saying is that anything posted or said on MySpace has as much protection as anything said in real life. Of course it includes the same limitations like libel and treason and harassment. The student was arguing her comments on MySpace were protected under the First Amendment guidelines of free speech as they relayed a criticism of her school's public policy on body piercings. She should not be punished criminally for expressing a political view point. The court of appeals agreed with her.

While we have little regard for A.B.'s use of vulgar epithets, we conclude that her overall message constitutes political speech.

This follows many court decisions that although some speech may be distasteful, they are protected. The US Supreme Court ruled in Hustler v. Falwell:

But in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment.

Re:No, MySpace is not Free Speech.

[ScentCone]

I am thinking that you are relying too much on the title of an article to imply it's meaning. Slashdot titles are limited in characters so submitters have to be as brief as possible.

OK then, how about:

Student's MySpace Rant Ruled Free Speech ... or,
Probation Voided - Student's Blog Ruled OK ... or,
Court: Student's Blog Rant Ugly But Legal ... or,
Court Finds For Student In Fight Over Speech

etc.

I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about the slashdot editor's obvious flame provocation.

Re:No, MySpace is not Free Speech.

[arbitraryaardvark]

This was the first opinion, as far as I know and I follow this stuff,
to apply the Indiana constitution's free speech clause to the internet.
It might or might not be the first case dealing with whether any speech on myspace.com is constitutionally protected. Answer:yes.
Kudos to grandparent poster radarjd - he posted the opinion,
and the text of the speech in question. Mod upwards.

Childrens rights...

[bbambrey]

I have long been an advocate of children's/teens rights. They have thoughts, ideas and opinions like adults and have as much, if not more, to gain or lose from the decisions made. In regards to the US:

-We have and do prosecute children/teens as adults.
-Spend social security.
-Go to war.
-Enact laws on education. (including college funding and rules).
-Many states allow driving at 16.
-Some states consider 17 to be a legal adult.

The decisions we make can have very big impacts and yet we give no voice to children/teens? Why??? What could we do??

-Lower the voting age.
-Create children/teen lobbyist or activist groups.

I have yet to hear a good argument why we can't make these things happen. Why young adults/children/teens can't have more of a say.

If we can prosecute a teen as an adult then they should have a voice on how the laws impact their lives.

I welcome ideas...

/random thoughts.... and probably unorganized
//should probably get back to work
///did not proofread :)

Re:Childrens rights...

[BlueTrin]

/random thoughts.... and probably unorganized
//should probably get back to work
///did not proofread :)

Don't try to fool us, you teen scum ! Get back to school ! :)

Re:Childrens rights...

[astonishedelf]

Children rarely get prosecuted as adults unless the crime is particularly serious - this is England. Its certainly the common view among those in the Criminal Justice System that children and young people need protecting from themselves more than anything else. Juveniles lack the maturity and experience to make considered decisions about themselves and the societies they live in. Their lack of real world experience leads to them often substitute wishful thinking for serious decision making. I was a kid myself once and I certainly wouldn't have trusted myself with the vote, etc. I would agree that there are some adults that I wouldn't trust with the vote, etc. but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you haven't heard a good argument as to why young adults / children / teens can't have more of a say, then all I can say is that you have't been listening hard enough. Young adults have enough on their hands coping with the physical, emotional, and hormonal changes they are experiencing. What you're suggesting is irresponsible and damaging. Kids need to learn that rights are earned by those prepared to live up to their responsibilities.

Re:Childrens rights...

[bbambrey]

Interesting response. Many of the same reasons were used against females and blacks well into the 20th century to keep them from having a voice. Adults also have physical, emotional, and hormonal changes that they endure in addition to work, bills, stress etc...

We entrust teens with the right to work and the right to drive along with ability to spend money and act as part of society. We encourage them to take part in activities and do things with their lives and we make massive decisions for them that could have impact down the road... Kids are smarter these days, they have information readily available and can be informed on how to vote and the impacts they can create by doing so.

Maybe if we allowed them to have a voice and participate at a younger age then as adults we would have more informed voters and higher turnout.

Lowering the voting age isn't the only solution but activist groups or lobbyists working in favor of children to help give them a voice about things that affect them.

I am not saying this is the right solution but rather something worthy of strong discussion. The world is an increasingly different place from even 50 years ago and that includes the way children/teens think and act.

Re:Childrens rights...

[MacsSuck]

the majority of minors lack the competence level and full knowledge of whats going on, and what is good for the country to vote. I think most of the country would feel safer at night if we keep it the way it is right now. In fact, we should even increase the voting age to something like 21 if you ask me.

Re:Childrens rights...

[imemyself]

the majority of minors lack the competence level and full knowledge of whats going on, and what is good for the country to vote.

While I don't necessarily disagree with that (I do strongly disagree with raising the voting age though), do you actually think that most adults have a clue? Yeah, I'm sure some are competent (as some minors are competent), but a lot of them (the think-of-the-children, bible-belt, "I have the right to be a lazy American" people) are just as clueless as they were when they were minors. People do not automatically gain wisdom when they turn eighteen.

I'm an 18 year old American in Kansas.

Re:Childrens rights...

[MacsSuck]

wisdom does come with age. And by raising the voting age, you increase your chances of having an increased amount of wiser people voting. This gives those 18-20 year olds a few more years to fully mature; live life away from under their parent's safe net and have a full (or semi-full) appreciation for all things that make our country unique.

Re:Childrens rights...

[astonishedelf]

There is one big difference between children on the one hand and women and blacks on the other. Being black or female (or possibly both) is a permanent state. Being a child is a transitional stage and is acknowledged as such. I would suggest that eighteen be the across the board age of majority. I suspect that there are good historical reasons why in some states the age for driving might well be seventeen. If you live in farm country, the ability to drive legally is probably much more vital than in New York city. There will always be regional variations that take account of local conditions. Chlldren lack the perspective that age and distance bring.

Re:Childrens rights...

[vonhammer]

The most important quality that is missing in a young adult is - good judgment. There is an old saw that goes:

Good Judgment comes from wisdom,
Wisdom comes from experience,
Experience comes from making mistakes,
Making mistakes comes from bad judgment.

I remember when I was a minor. While you might have more of a clue than I did, I simply hadn't enough experience in the work force or in making decisions for myself to be a reasonable voter. I had plenty of bad judgment, however...

I'm ok with the voting age at 18, but I agree with a previous poster that we would be better served by raising it to 21.

Re:Childrens rights...

[Adambomb]

s/minors/americans in general/

Re:Childrens rights...

[justinlee37]

I'm a 19 year old college student living by myself in a studio apartment, working part time. I voted in the midterms and I intend on voting in the Presidential election. I'd vote for a party candidate in the primaries but I'm a registered independent.

Increasing the voting age to 21 is hogwash when at 18 you can legally have a job and your own place of residence, anywhere. Not to mention sign yourself up for a war without your parent's consent.

It isn't as if adult voters are particularly informed, either. They're so simple minded that those stupid swiftboat commercials could actually sway their opinions.

Lowering the voting age below 18 would be ill-advised, considering that when you are under 18 your parents practically own you and it would be far too easy for someone's parents to coerce them into voting a certain way. However, I would vote against increasing the voting age to 21 and I'll fight you to the death if you try to take my vote away from me.

Re:Childrens rights...

[sfjoe]

I have yet to hear a good argument why we can't make these things happen. Why young adults/children/teens can't have more of a say.


Why should we waste time and energy passing laws to give the franchise to 16 year-olds? They won't use it. The under-24 crowd is the least likely of any age group to vote.

Re:Childrens rights...

[detritus.]

Lowering the voting age would definitely be a start.
One thing that pissed me off when I was a minor and had a job, I had to pay an income tax.
It's flat-out taxation without representation. Either abolish taxes for minors, or let them vote.

Re:Childrens rights...

[Hyperspite]

Well, they are still people. Why not give them a fraction of a vote? That way if politicians piss enough of them off, then they WILL be some accountability.

Re:Childrens rights...

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

Why not an IQ test then? Since it is obvious that not all people are equal in wisdom, but that some people gain wisdom faster and more completely than others, why not allow the qualified amongst us to have the say?

Re:Childrens rights...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with arbitrary age distinctions is that they are not universally reflective of each individual. There are PLENTY of people well into their effective lifespans who are dumb as rocks and participate in democracy. The Gaussian distribution of IQ effectively shows that there are going to be a rather significant number of legally unqualified individuals who are far more intellectually qualified than the people you say have wisdom and experience.

Re:who gives a shit

[geekoid]

Internet use: You fail it.

You were clearly flamebaited.

From your link:
BTW, if someone disagrees to the principle our diest founding fathers stated, they are welcome to do so. Expressing ones opinion is no reason to show them the door. In fact, it is directly against what you think you are fighting for.

Truly ironic.

doG oN!

Not a radical decision

[MikeRT]

The speech occurred off campus and wasn't illegal. Punishing the student for it was a violation of the US Constitution, and the judge ruled accordingly. Too bad the original district judge was too stupid to realize that.

Re:Not a radical decision

[mindshaper155]

Even though the speech occurred off campus, that still doesn't make it right to defame a teacher, or any other individual for that matter. Any speech or action that "substantially disrupts school operations," whether the action occurred on or off campus is grounds for punishment, and rightly so. No one wants false information being spread about them. Teachers work in a profession where image is everything, and a fake MySpace profile can get a teacher fired in the blink of an eye.

Re:Not a radical decision

[Karthikkito]

Considering the amount of respect Myspace postings actually get, I'd be surprised if the girl's rant on her page actually "substantially disrupt[ed] school operations" -- beyond what the principal initiated, of course.

Re:Not a radical decision

[mindshaper155]

Well, when a teacher is getting slandered on MySpace, and then has to face the music at school the next day, I would say that "substantially disrupts" the educational environment.

Re:Not a radical decision

[Karthikkito]

Oh of course, and if the student was claiming that the "teacher followed [her] in to the bathroom" etc., then obviously that falls into the slander category. There are other more subtle - but clearly slanderous - such phrases that would fall in the same way. However, this posting was against a principal's policies, with some offensive but not slanderous (calling someone stupid doesn't really cross that line) phrases about the principal himself.

Re:Not a radical decision

[DragonWriter]

The speech occurred off campus and wasn't illegal. Punishing the student for it was a violation of the US Constitution, and the judge ruled accordingly.

Actually, no. The appeals court ruled it was a violation of the Indiana Constitution, not the federal Constitution, a matter on which the court expressly did not rule.

Re:Not a radical decision

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

Sorry, speech is allowed regardless of how people react or how it allegedly disrupts* school operations.

(* The exception being usual time, place, and manner restrictions - but one always has the right to express anything they like about their school or teachers within this context)

Re:Not a radical decision

[welshsocialist]

Your facts are garbled. The opinion states the appeal originated from a juvenile court decision.

Who cares?

[dbitch]

So your speech is free on MySpace. Who cares? Does anyone care what you say if you're on MySpace?

Re:Who cares?

[DeathFromSomewhere]

So you don't mind if I make a myspace.com page that says: For hot gay sex, call . Only available from 12 to 6 am.

After all, who cares about what gets posted on myspace?

Re:who gives a shit

[Anonymous Coward]

In what cases would it be acceptable to show them the door?

On another note

[BlueTrin]

While I am quite happy to see freedom of speech win, I found this article, and was shocked by this part:

From MTV News:
One of the students named in the suit, Justin Layshock, 19, allegedly created an account in Trosch's name, in which he's described as "a big steroid freak" and "too drunk to remember" his birthday. The profile also suggested that Trosch smoked marijuana and kept a keg of beer behind his desk.

A different profile, created by student Thomas Cooper, also claimed Trosch was a fan of pornography, while a third, the work of brothers Brendan and Christopher Gebhart, depicted more graphic activities.

The fake profiles "went far and beyond what you would see on a bathroom wall in a school," Trosch's lawyer, John E. Quinn, told the AP. He added that the person behind a fourth MySpace profile, which he called "the most graphic and lurid of them all," has not yet been identified, but would be a party to the action if and when the person is.

Although I am for freedom of speech, this looks more like diffamation, I am sure that the myspace page about this girl has nothing to do with this case.

Although it is not related, I was wondering if you would agree that creating such a fake page could be categorized as diffamation and should be condemned, which is what Zonk is saying at the top of this page.

Re:On another note

[Dragonslicer]

I would guess that those people could be accused of libel and/or defamation, since they claim specific facts that reasonably could damage the person's standing in his job and career. Unless the claims are actually true, of course.

Re:On another note

[b0s0z0ku]

Although I am for freedom of speech, this looks more like diffamation, I am sure that the myspace page about this girl has nothing to do with this case.

Well, if it was obviously and patently fake, it could be considered a satire, and thus protected as free speech. Even if it was defamation, defamation is a _civil_ offense, not one that an adult would draw probation for. A lawsuit verdict or an injunction, sure; but not a criminal's sentence.

-b.

It's not that way in my state.

[AciesD]

At my high school a friend of mine was expelled his sophomore year for posting "hurtful" comments about a teacher on his blog. They expelled him based on precedent, or so said the school board. So apparently it has happened before. I hope this ruling will lead to some changes in other places.

Re:It's not that way in my state.

[OldeTimeGeek]

Yes, maybe your friend and people like him will understand that there are responsibilities that go along with freedom of speech and that words and actions have ramifications.

Re:It's not that way in my state.

[pandrijeczko]

They were right expelling him. Sorry.

If you have a problem with a teacher, then it's a matter for you to discuss with your parents and the headmaster ("principal" in US speech) - it has nothing to do with the rest of the world.

How would you feel if you and I knew each other, we had a grievance over something and I went walking around the streets with a megaphone shouting out how much of a jerk you are? It's the same principle...

At the grand old age of 45, I'm now going to give you the best piece of advice you are ever going to hear, as it was told to me by one of my teachers:

"In life, you can do anything you like - but before you do anything, make sure you understand and are prepared to accept the consequences of doing it."

Re:It's not that way in my state.

[Anonymous Coward]

Teachers are not exempt from the 1st Amendment. They cannot be protected from public criticism just as much as I can't do anything about my neighbors posting a blog about how bad of a neighbor I am.

That isn't to say that there are not more constructive ways to deal with people you don't like, but this is the legal facts of life here.

If they lie, I can sue. Thats about it.

Re:It's not that way in my state.

[pandrijeczko]

Teachers are not exempt from the 1st Amendment. They cannot be protected from public criticism just as much as I can't do anything about my neighbors posting a blog about how bad of a neighbor I am.

At least here in the UK, we have slander and libel laws to protect respectively against spoken and written defamation of someone's character.

So, yes, you can say or write just about anything you like here but if someone takes offence at what you've said or written and can prove it to be incorrect (or indeed racist), then you can be prosecuted for it.

Re:It's not that way in my state.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

How would you feel if you and I knew each other, we had a grievance over something and I went walking around the streets with a megaphone shouting out how much of a jerk you are? It's the same principle...

It'd suck, but you have that right, and me exacting revenge would be out of line.

Delinquency charges == bullshit

[b0s0z0ku]

Translation: "we can't find an actual crime that would stick in a court of law in front of a competent judge or jury, so we'll charge her for not knowing her place in society (under the stomping feet of her elders)"

Catch-all laws like that annoy me, even if they were originally well meant.

-b.

Re:Delinquency charges == bullshit

[DragonWriter]

It appears that Indiana's juvenile justice system uses "delinquency petitions" stating the equivalent adult crimes in place of criminal charges where someone is charged with a juvenile offense, rather than charged as an adult with a crime. This does not appear to be a way around specific criminal laws, as the specific criminal laws that allegedly would have been violated if the wrongdoer was an adult are cited and the application of those laws to the facts appears to be the legal basis for a finding of "delinquency"; here, delinquency appears to be simply a procedural designation that indicates that the rules and consequences are those of the juvenile, rather than adult, justice system.

Your complaints, whatever general merits they might have, appear misplaced in this case.

Re:who gives a shit

[StikyPad]

Warning: Irony behind!

Re:who gives a shit

[cHiphead]

The REAL irony is you yourself got superflamebaited! fantastical.

Cheers.

Re:who gives a shit

[libkarl2]

At the rate were going, there won't be any rights left to earn. They'll be gone. Then were all teenagers.

Except when we get in trouble. Then we will be tried as adults, and receive the maximum sentence for our heinous crimes against the ruling elite.

Seriously though, I have seen teenagers arrested, tried, (and punished) as adults for ticky tack offences you couldn't sucessfuly charge an adult for. Underage drinking (and voting) are punishable by law, but killing and dying is okay if you are in a combat zone.

But you are right; teenagers are a drain on society, along with the poor and disenfranchised.

Re:who gives a shit

[ubuwalker31]

If you don't believe that man has certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what the fuck are you doing in my country?

PS - I am a flaming liberal and I understand that we can disagree on the extent and range of what free speech (and other rights) should be protected from government inference. But if you don't believe that people should have a right to a trial and a grand jury, or should be justly compensated for a governmental taking, or should be treated equally under the law, then you should leave this country and go to Burma. 'Nuff said.

Girl Smarter Than Principal

[nexuspal]

"Hey you piece of greencastle shit. What the fuck do you think of me [now] that you can['t] control me? Huh? Ha ha ha guess what I'll wear my fucking piercings all day long and to school and you can['t] do shit about it! Ha ha fucking ha! Stupid bastard! Oh and kudos to whomever made this ([I'm] pretty sure I know who). Get a background." Wow, to think that the principal became so enraged at this girls posting as to send her off to court! What a wimp! And guess what... She was right and WON!! NEENER NEENER!

Story sounds familiar...

[Descalzo]

It's almost like something from Lemony Snicket.

Re:who gives a shit

[jstomel]

Wait a minute, are you saying that people who speak out against free speech should be punished? Would you give such a person a trial and just compensation? And who the fuck gave you the country? There's about 300 million of us who might kindly object to your claim of sole ownership rights to our country. As a believer in the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it's nice to know that there's someone else out there who believes that the jails should be destroyed and who supports my inalienable right to fuck your sister.

"Diculous" more than once

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's rediculous how as a 16 year old you can drive a car and pay taxes but can't vote..."

You're right! (Takes driver's license and tears it up.)

Age

[sacrilicious]

packeteer (566398) wrote:

I am 16 years old...

Quick back of envelope calculation: I joined slashdot in late 1999 and got #316896. I think membership is now up to 1.1 million. Assuming (perhaps wrongly) a linear rate of member accrual, I think that puts your number of 566938 at about five years ago... which would mean you started reading slashdot when you were 11. That rocks! :)

Re:Age

[Dan Hayes]

Are you sure you joined then? My first account is around 90,000 and that was joining in 2000.

Re:Age

[Oblio]

Ya, I don't think it was linear either. My id is pretty low and I'm pretty sure I signed up in 99 or 00.

Re:Age

[Dan Hayes]

I first came to the site just before the advent of threaded comments, and signed up around then.

Re:who gives a shit

[iminplaya]

If you do not agree to one of the founding ideas of our country, you are welcome to the door.

Where did everybody go? Helllo...I wonder if I should turn off the lights.

Re:who gives a shit

[cultrhetor]

Grand juries hand down indictments. I think you're looking for juries of your peers?

Re:who gives a shit

[renegadesx]

Americans, you are sure an entertaining bunch

Re:who gives a shit

[StikyPad]

I don't go looking for them, they just seem to find me. :(

Actually

[KKlaus]

Owning rifles is frequently legal for minors. I don't know the exact number of states that this is the case for, but I know it's a fair number. Anyhow, it's owning handguns and _purchasing_ guns of any sort that is generally flat out. But if your dad wants to buy a hunting rifle and give it to you, that's in very many places OK.

Re:who gives a shit

[boyko.at.netqos]

Zeitgeist: You fail it.

There really are people this dumb these days. They're called "Regular Fox Viewers."

Re:who gives a shit

[Hyperspite]

Wait a minute, are you saying that people who speak out against free speech should be punished?

I believe what he was trying to say was that there are other places where they'd be more comfortable and it really puzzles him why they are here. After all, if a better solution already exists, why not just move there?

Of course the counter argument goes:
1) They don't have the money or the gumption to actually go there (pussies, they could stow away in a plane somehow).
2) They are radical and wish to convert the unwashed (or in some cases the washed) to their philosophy.
3) They only believe enough in what they say to rant about it on the internets.

Of course, that's what I'm doing....for the moment.....

Short answer: Treaties.

[Kadin2048]

Long answer: Although the Supreme Court has at times broadened the definition of an individual ("man") as used in the Constitution to include foreigners, traditionally the rights of foreign citizens while in the U.S. (or the rights of U.S. citizens abroad) is defined by relationships agreed to between the nations themselves, via treaties. Most nations agree to essentially afford the same rights to foreign visitors as they do to their own citizens, in exchange for the same protection for theirs. This sort of quid pro quo, written or unwritten, dates back hundreds if not thousands of years.

If you read the text inside the front cover of a U.S. Passport [1], that's what it's all about; a Passport is essentially a request to a foreign nation, to extend -- voluntarily -- certain rights and privileges to the bearer (who, the Passport signifies, is a citizen in basically good standing of the U.S.). I'm not sure if they do it anymore, but it used to be pretty standard to confiscate the Passport of a felon. [2]

The idea that the same Constitutional rights held by U.S. citizens apply to everyone, worldwide, including non-citizens, is a fairly modern construction. (And to be honest I'm not really sure if it holds water, since the Constitution is basically an agreement between the government and the governed, and I think it's dangerous to apply it to other nations' citizens; but that's a whole different issue.)

In times past, traveling without a Passport or similar diplomatic papers, or traveling to a country that didn't have a treaty with your own, was a dangerous business. (And in fact it still is; wander around in the wrong part of the world without a Passport and you'll find yourself detained at the very least.)

[1] "The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection."
[2] Neat page on the origins of modern Passports here ( http://www.passport.gov.uk/general_history_early.a sp ); basically they originated as requests from one sovereign to another, asking that the bearer be given safe conduct through their territory. In fact English ones were actually signed by the King or Queen, up until the mid 1600s.

Are you really paying taxes?

[Shivetya]

Too many people who claim to pay taxes get it all back at the end of year.

If paying income taxes were a requirement for voting we might actually have a Federal Government concerned with spending! There is no Constitutional right to vote in Presidental elections so it would not be a "poll tax" per se.

I do have friends that make under 30k a year and pay no income tax, a few actually get more money back than they supposedly paid in. What a crock that is. So they not only get paid by the Federal government they can vote back in people who will give them even more money, mine actually.

Don't claim that your not represented. For the most part the people paying the bulk of the taxes are underrepresented because its their money being used to buy votes

Re:who gives a shit

[Tim C]

Underage drinking... are punishable by law

That (potentially) causes trouble locally...

killing and dying is okay if you are in a combat zone ...while that causes trouble far away.

Besides, you're comparing apples to oranges - just try "killing and dying" for your country if you're too young to serve. Now if you want to argue that the legal age for serving in the armed forces should be more in line with that for drinking, voting, etc, then I'd be inclined to agree. Here in the UK legal drinking age is 18; I never did understand the whole 21 thing you seem to have in (parts of?) the States. Over here, at 21, you can run a pub...

Re:who gives a shit

[libkarl2]

My military adventure ended in 1993. Back then I met 2 pilots that had graduated Navy fight school at the age of 17. They had been granted waivers, due to academic performance and prior ROTC. Both, however, had turned 18 by the time they graduated RAG and transfered to the fleet. Its been a while since then I guess.... but with Iraq going so bady, who knows what they're apt to do?

Pilots have a lower incidence of Post Traumatic Stress than grunts, and PSTD is the issue I should have mentioned explicitly. Many bring the combat zone home with them, and (physical wounds not withstanding) it changes the outcome of their lives.

Back in 1991 if you had told me that someday, State National Guardsmen would be pulling three and four combat tours back to back, I would have assumed it was because China had invaded. Now its happening, except its some unjustified foreign expedition started for the sole puprose of granting wartime powers (extra-constituitional authority) to the worst (most constituitionaly invasive) president in U.S. history.

Over here Drinking ages vary from state to state. Oregon has some of the more annoying drinking laws;

• Drinking age is 21. Kids still get drunk, still cause trouble, still get busted.
• Pubs must close (all patrons out) by 2:30AM. Exacerbates drunk driving problem.
• Serving a minor: $500 fine minimum. Possible revocation of license. Selectively enforced.
• OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commision) is a powerful, capricious, and expensive bureucratic feifdom.

You're right though, under reasonable or normal circumstances, my original comparison is way off. However, the political state of affairs in the U.S. right now are abyssmal, and it's hard to maintain perspective.