Posted on 12/12/2001 10:01:21 AM PST by truth4all
The first Amendment wasn't written to protect popular speech. It was written to protect unpopular speech. No matter how obnoxious or how sickening this speech is, this dim whitt has a right to express her opinion.
This school is just as wrong as the school that suspended the kid for his pro-war signs. There is no right to go through life never being offended or never being faced with opinions we find repugnent. Free speech never enslaves anyone or takes anyones rights.
Your high school sounds a little like pre-liberation Kabul.
Theres no reason for the club to have control. each individual could decide to do whatever they wanted, and they could decide to organize to perform some activity, making the whole excercise an example of how an anarchist club would work. Those who didn't want to perform the activity wouldn't. After enough such non-participation they would, despite their name being on some "membership list" really not be considered part of this "club" by anyone with even a remote familiarity to it. specially if the activities are the things we normally associate anarchy with -- such as anti-authoritarianism/anti-capitalism etc... and the people who aren't participating are known to be bunch of shmucky smartasses trying to make the point that they too are "members" of the club. no-one will mistake them for anarchists, and pretty much everyone involved will know whats going on.
I'm all for increased freedoms within the context, protection and laws of the US Constitution. I don't think that that is anarchy, though.
I don't believe that anarchy is the opposite of tyranny. Anarchy is the law of the jungle and only exists until the biggest meanest ape beats his opponents, then you have tyranny.
Freedom is the opposite of tyranny. Freedoms codified and protected by the US Constitution sure seems like the best solution on this mortal plane. At least we can throw our government out regularly without civil war...
Do you think beating up little girls for unpopular opinions is the right thing to do?
They're discussed and reasoned through untill something is developed which has the consent of those governed by these concentrations of power.
Try "this website." Move on over to the Rule of Law vs. Rule of Ashcroft thread for more of the same "freedom of speech for me but not for thee" theme -- i.e., anything a conservative does is OK, even if if we'd go bananas over a liberal doing the exact same thing.
I happen to think this girl has a healthy skepticism of government authority -- something I thought was a central trait of conservatism.
LOL! By then, that unjustified concentration of power has impaled its enemies and dissedents are being rounded up and clapped in irons.
People blame teachers and they don't look at the system.
It's crazy, you have kids that don't flunk because it hurts their self-esteem or that can't speak English, or that deserve to be paddled but can't be, or that couldn't tell you what the various Ammendments to the Constitution are, but if given a test on it could guess enough to pass.
It's sad actually. In another generation or two, we are going to have a lot of apathetic, drugged up, idiots that can't be fired from work because it would hurt their feelings, can do whatever they please and not have to take personal responsibility because they don't speak English or had a bad childhood, that can't read a newspaper or balance their bank account, etc. Yeah, we have some now, but just wait.
So its a contradiction if in order to make it so that no-one governs me, I govern myself?
But your doubts and questions are bringing you to the cusp of some important reveleations -- that anarchy is best understood as a tendency, not a program or platform. and that regarding things as absolutes will lead us ultimately into useless loops such as "total freedom = tyranny" and "no government == dictatorship", so we should rather be interested in the incremental changes that can be made in society. Like are we better in a society that can chase a 15 year old girl out of school for her opinions or not?
They might just make some. you would win. and they would have their meeting, and would be happy. see how wonderfull an anarchistic world would be?
How can a society deal with an individual who actively and openly hates that society?--except to exclude that individual from the benefits of that society that they hate.
It's only fair.
Just like your anarchy society--we have come up with general rules of behavior that are acceptable within that society. Openly hating that society and supporting its destruction is definitely not acceptable behavior in any society in the world.
Like are we better in a society that harbors those who hate and would destroy that society?
She hates this society, why should she share in its benefits, such as a free education?
I would hardly call myself liberal. I support people's right to have their own thoughts and express them, even if they are stupid. I'm sorry, I love the Constitution, you may not, that's your thing, but I support your right to speak out against free thought/free speech, kinda ironic eh?
You don't applaud errant thought - you try to educate it. Failing that - you treat it with derision.
That is true Comrade, we must send her to the re-education camps immediately! We cannot allow these "thoughts" to spread among the population, otherwise our iron-grip over this country will dissolve.
Seriously, are you really that afraid of some 15 year old girl that your willing to brainwash her?
If they want to pull a little Johnny Taliban and go off the path to the point where they are fighting us, then I'll get some rope, you find a tree. But some little 15 year old girl speaking out for what she believes in, right or wrong, is not a threat to you or I.
This thread makes me feel a whole lot better about Freepers, many of whom have defended the right to freedom of speech of this little girl with whom they disagree. Congrats! BBL.
Yes, this is what happened when the colonies decided to rebel against the king, and castro's "barbudos" against batista. You seem to forget that history will have its Tiananmen squares just like it has its stormings of the bastille -- to use two extreme examples.
You've just got an (ahem) unconventional definition of 'anarchy' is all....
Dakmar: Self-governing is still governing.
gfactor: So its a contradiction if in order to make it so that no-one governs me, I govern myself?
I was referring to your remarks about consensus and voting, self-governing in that context meaning a group, not an individual. If a group imposes rules on an individual, it's no longer anarchy, is it?
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.