this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024

-1 points (42.9% liked)

Conservative

372 readers

76 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-1

Girl, 7, 'Too Young' for First Amendment Rights, Punished for 'Racist' BLM Drawing (pjmedia.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Never too young for free speech

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

The first amendment does not and has never protected absolute free speech, so her first amendment rights were not violated.

The first amendment protects citizens from speaking out against government, stifling free speech of others, or from the government restricting religious practices. It is not license to say anything. This has been affirmed in numerous court cases over the entire history of the US.

Why do conservatives constantly forget this? Its almost like they don’t know basic constitutional law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/schenck-v-united-states-defining-the-limits-of-free-speech

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

While there are established limits to free speech, the Schenck v US rulling was narrow in scope and doesn't apply to a little girl drawling a picture in school. If you're going to cite case law at least find applicable cases and not just pick the 1st one in your search without reading the ruling.

There are many more applicable rulings, mostly to do with how much a school can limit a student's speech, even those do not cover everything, which is what the Supreme Court is for. Why do liberals constantly forget this? It's almost like they don't know constitutional law.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Then you misunderstand, because years of legal precedent disagree lol.

Congress shall make no law means the government can’t restrict your right to free speech, not that you’re free to literally say anything. Example: you can’t lay out your plan for assassinating a politician or threaten someone with a credible threat and be protected under the first amendment.

What you’re confused with is the definition of “free speech”. I suggest you research this further.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah someone is making crap up. “Hate” speech is still protected under the 1st amendment. Now she is a student which has more restrictions but the term all lives matter is a nice gesture since she’s seven.

The parents will win if they go to court.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

While certain words are, obscene and hateful speech (or speech inciting violence) is very much not protected under the 1st amendment:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-federal-law-draws-a-line-between-free-speech-and-hate-crimes

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Even your linked articlevsays it is. You just cant make specific and clear threats that you have the ability to follow through on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Then you weren’t reading clearly. Here’s another source directly from the US Courts:

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

Obscenities are not protected. Specific words are, the way that they’re used are not always.

One again, freedom of speech is not absolute. There are limitations.

If you still can’t figure it out from this, then there’s just no getting through to you at all. That’s nobody’s problem but your own.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This wasnt an obscenity

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Considering what is “obscene” changes in society over time, it could be argued, which is not protected.

I agree that there’s nothing wrong by the image and the child seemed to mean well, but if it is deemed obscene by society (and a court of law agrees), it is very much not protected.

Definition of obscene: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscene

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

Correct.

What the kid said won’t pass the sniff test in court. It’s overly restrictive on political ideology.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How does anyone put up with reading crap like this? Literally every sentence is as shrill and manipulative as they can manage. The author is terrified you might form an opinion of your own.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I probably put more thought into this than I should, but I feel it should be mentioned that this was almost certainly written by a non-american who speaks English as a second language.

Some of the word choices are very telling: "Falangist" and "Mosleyite" are references that, if they were made by an American, would only be made by an American acaademic from one of those "woke" universities, and they certainly wouldn't use these terms incorrectly as this cognitively challenged author does. "Gavage" is an unusual word for most American English speakers. It is originally a French word for force-feeding ducks or geese to make their livers grow enormous and delicious. I believe an American would more likely have said " force feed" or " indoctrinate". Taken together with " tommyrot" -again, not a common americanism- leads me to believe this is someone who learned English in the United Kingdom or from a British teacher/ source materials.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

When woke parents, teachers, and judges join forces to gavage "woke" tommyrot into the minds of young kids, it's time to consider the options you have regarding your kids' education.

Now is a good time to remind you that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) just signed a law stating that schools need not contact parents if their child decides he wants to cut off his p*nis because he thinks he's a girl that day.

Lmao. Is somebody getting paid to write this stuff? They must be getting paid in rubles.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Here is my problem with cases like this. The family will win the case in court but the people who violated her rights will have no punishment.

The people who keep violating rights should be punished

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Which rights were violated? The first amendment does not guarantee absolute freedom to say anything. Racist and hate speech has never been protected.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"B.B.'s mom had no idea the punishment had taken place until another parent told her roughly a year after the woke nonsense took place."

The government should not be keeping secrets from parents.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago

A child shouldn’t be punished without parental knowledge. Shit I grew up the 80’s and they couldn’t punish you without your parents knowing.

This hidden agenda crap needs to stop