Posted on 06/19/2006 2:02:05 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
Did you read his post to me ? I wasn't the first to make a personal attack.
The audience was trapped. She stole their time. Theft is an act of force.
Theft is force. Theft of someone's time is a forceful act.
It wouldn't pass muster with me. It's off-topic and inappropriate.
Just as is political demagoguery and religious sermonizing.
Don't hijack the microphone. Don't climb on a soapbox. Talk about scholastic achievement, wish everyone good luck in future, sit down.
TYFTI
I think you are a wise Freeper. I will take your prescription and seek immediate treatment from the nearest bartender......LOL!!!!!!!!!
And incorporation doctrine is one of those things that made me go "HUH?" in law school. I always assumed that all the BOR applied to the states. You know what they say about assume.....
Tarbender......tarbender........where is that tarbender....I mean bartender....;-)
Your posts summarize to be "I am a man of God and therefore my speech is in keeping with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution. Someone speaking about Satan, etc. is NOT within the intent of the Framers and therefore is invalid speech."
Have I got that right?
So you are using a community standards criterion?
Who decides?
What people forget, or perhaps never learned, is that the Constitution was specifically an enumeration of federal powers, and any power not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution is considered reserved to the states or to the people.
As stated in the 10th Amendment (not in the Constitution as ratified BTW).
While interesting, your analysis has nothing to do with the case at hand.
Your arguments don't hang together and they certainly don't point out why you get to pick and choose which laws you want to follow and everyone else has to follow the laws that are on the books.
It doesn't. It appears in The Danbury Papers, a series of letters exchanged by Jefferson with some Danbury, CT baptists. Jefferson was an athiest and a rapist (not that he was all bad, mind you. He was a great writer.) What do you expect?
"If this had been someone wanting to thank Satan, you would be the first in line to say "what were those fools thinking? How dare they allow such things?"
FIRST:Dismissing my proper use of the word 'fascist' in the manner that you have is a TACTIC not an ARGUMENT. Use of the tactic betrays a lack of cogent ideas. (Not to mention your failing to enumerate those ideas as you attack me)
SECOND: Attributing TO ME PERSONALLY a purely fanciful, baseless response in the matter of a satanists' public remarks is WEAK and STUPID (And ALSO betrays a lack of argument).
Don't give up the day job, Mr. Intellect.
No, but when you are asked to give your opinion, and you are then told you can't give an opinion that says "x", then it is.
what if she was saying she wanted to thank Satan? Would you be the first in line to ensure her words were not censured?
I have said I would be. It is a validictory speech. She should be given a great deal of freedom.
That's what this country is about.
Shalom.
Who was asking me earlier if I had hyperbole? If you agree to sit through a speech that is not guaranteed to be on a subject, then you haven't had anything taken from you.
The only ones using force in this situation were the school leaders. The only thing they were using force to do was stop a girl from talking about G-d's influence on her life.
This is a violation of her first ammendment rights. She was right not to go along.
Shalom.
You're not worth it.
Your vapidity is too shallow to bother to reason with.
If it makes you happy to prop yourself up with meaningless non -arguments, have at it.
I won't play.
The school by law cannot prohibit or censor speech or press activities by students based on its content, unless what you are saying falls within one of these three exceptions:
1. it is legally "obscene";
2. it is libelous or slanderous (that is, it is untrue and harms someone’s reputation, and you are careless, or you know, or should have known, that it is untrue when you write or say it); or
3. it creates the immediate danger of causing students to commit an act that is unlawful or in violation of school rules, or that would cause a substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school.
The use of the microphone is no different than the high school newspaper. You are comparing apples to oranges because the school is a public institution owned by the public. That microphone was paid for by the taxpayers.
The school will get slammed real good for their stupidity.
"I won't play."
Of course you won't. You can't. You've got nothing to play WITH.
You're the kind of schoolyard polemicist who would place satanisim on a moral plane with Christianity and think he did a bright thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.