Two students at a Los Angeles High School face “severe punishment” after being seen in racist photo.

So what you're saying is that states routinely violate the First Amendment?

 

The Constitution is not always respected.
Laws are not always respected.

And tell me what the First Amendment has to do with states? Doesn't it say "Congress shall pass no law..."?

 

I'm confused. Hasn't all states adopted the Constitution into their own Constitution?

 

No, not really. Many state constitutions recognise the U.S. Constitution though, but that is a somewhat different thing.

 

Are you saying that one or more states in the US could pass an ''offensive speech' bill tomorrow that would outlaw offensive speech? It just cannot surely be the case.

 

Well lots of white people fail to see the problem when black people are harassed by the police over nothing, and than get shot. Bit weird to complain about this stuff now when the table is turned on these racist white people.

 

Nonsense. If the school is public it is bound by the first amendment. Students have as much first amendment rights as you or I. We always seem to forget that pleasant speech doesn't need protection. It is this kind of speech that requires it.

 

It can't. All government entities in the U.S. are bound by the first amendment just like the federal government.

 

In later years the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the states.

Mostly a good thing, in my view, but technically wrong.

 

Only a racist could see a racial slur in that acronym. And even then he'd have to rack his brain.

 

Correct. I never considered the law to be technical.

 

Indeed. Racists got a superior IQ and can spot hints in acronyms where others can not.
/facepalm

 

No. People who think of themselves as social warriors (and believe they see "racial offenses" where they do not exist) spend more time conjuring racist slurs in acronyms than the rest of us who do not think in racists terms to begin with.

All these race-oriented people are doing is listing all of the racial cliches, putting them into alphabetical order, then seeing how many of those letters they can find in an acronym. The letters that do not represent racists slurs are put together as prepositions (with any luck) and used (together with the "racial letters") to form a racial slur. The people who occupy their minds in such a fashion are racists by definition because they are racially oriented.

 

yeah... one person calling the other a racist, but it's all fine if she goes to prom with him.... wouldn't be catching anybodies attention. lol

 

I don't care if she goes to the prom with him as long as she doesn't marry him.

 

This is how obvious it is to spot the N word on a sign about racism.

 

Actually, this is number 1 on the list of NIGEWTTGWP

("Nine Interesting & Great Easy Ways to Troll & Trigger Guilty White People")

 

To the left, this is worse than aborting a baby an hour or two after birth.

 

Did you spot it?

 

@kazenatsu?

 

I'd prefer not to go into that here. It's just a bit of a complicated issue that has a lot of connotations that I'd want to explain if I brought it up, and it would derail this thread.

I will say that I'm a very strong free speech supporter though. And that if things like free speech go, a true functioning democracy will not be far behind.

 

I have to assume that if it was possible, then one or more states would've tried to pass such a law, but to my knowledge, none have. This tells me that it isn't possible to introduce a law that would ban offensive speech.

 

If humans want to play dumb here and give racism a, pass, then no it is not a racial slur.

Thereby if we play pretend that there was no racial animosity, here, guess what happens next that they'll try to get away with?

 

No. Free speech is peaceful with peaceful intent. Whereas inciting hatred and hoping to increase racism toward a targeted group, is not free speech.

And a great democracy will always recognize that, homegrown terrorism, is a big 'no no' toward every one of its citizens.

 

Redefine the terminology to take away rights.
You do realize that's what they did with Dred Scott vs Sandford?

Thank you for exemplifying there are many on the Left out there who would curtail freedom of expression they don't like.