Bigoted students run Brooklyn High School

Post Reply New Topic

It's more than that. Making politically undesirable speech a felony would require ignoring established precedent when it comes to the constitution. Not to mention if you make it legally acceptable to ban disagreeable speech it'll end up with right-wingers coming after your speech rather than the other way around.

Even right now, look at how some people attempt to define antisemitism. Do you really want calling for Palestinian freedom to be a crime? Because that's what you'll get, meanwhile queer people and other racial minorities remain unprotected because the political will to protect them doesn't exist.

When you're advocating to make things less free you need to consider how those laws will be used against the causes you support because odds are they will be. That's how it works when your views aren't the majority and your typical proposed solution of making America a dictatorship isn't going to make more left leaning views become the majority.

At best your solution would lead to a civil war. At best.

say what you want to me but if the jejune and brain-dead bile is accompanied by fists, i have the right to fkkk somebody up with whatever weapons are at my disposal. i hope none of those teachers were physically assaulted.

In some countries, it's criminalized, as with all other forms of hate speech. Holocaust denial is a *felony* in Germany.[/quote]

However none of those countries have jurisdiction so the laws that exist outside of New York state aren't even slightly relevant to a discussion around an incident that occurred in the Bronx.[/quote]

The US seriously needs anti-hate speech laws, but a certain political party is keeping that from happening because, you know, religious freedom.[/quote]

It's more than that. Making politically undesirable speech a felony would require ignoring established precedent when it comes to the constitution. Not to mention if you make it legally acceptable to ban disagreeable speech it'll end up with right-wingers coming after your speech rather than the other way around.

Even right now, look at how some people attempt to define antisemitism. Do you really want calling for Palestinian freedom to be a crime? Because that's what you'll get, meanwhile queer people and other racial minorities remain unprotected because the political will to protect them doesn't exist.

When you're advocating to make things less free you need to consider how those laws will be used against the causes you support because odds are they will be. That's how it works when your views aren't the majority and your typical proposed solution of making America a dictatorship isn't going to make more left leaning views become the majority.

At best your solution would lead to a civil war. At best.[/quote]
=============================================================================^what I am responding to========================================

Utter nonsense.

Adults are not going to fight "a civil war" because their underage kids get their wrists slapped for saying naughty things in school.

Indeed gun toting MAGA types would rejoice if all the Ay-rab kids in their childrens' school were deported.

Second: if I come up to you and call you an "SOB" legally thats "assault". If I call you and sonofabitch AND touch you with the tip of my index finger than thats "assault and battery".

On one hand: A high school kid writing a letter to the editor of the student run school newspaper (and it gets published in said paper) stating that "Hitler was the G.O.A.T., and that HAMAS did great things that October day and should do more of the same" is practicing "freedom of speech". But if the same kid comes up to a teacher, who happens to be Jewish, as says that sorta thing to the teacher's face, then the student is making a veiled threat, and its no longer a "freedom of speech" issue. The kid could be charged with assault, and with making threats.

Also this "tradition of freedom of speech" is not really much of a consistent "tradition" when applied to underage students in schools. Private schools and parochial schools are allowed to censor their students any and all ways that they want.

Its only in public schools that students are allowed some freedom of speech in things like the school newspaper because the constitution says "Congress can make no laws abridging the freedom of speech"...the word "Congress" came to be interpreted to mean "the whole government". And since public schools are government run then they have constraints on how much they can constrain the freedom of speech of their students, but private and parochial schools do not have that constraint.

Threatening the teacher's life certainly is a crime, as is harassment. And even if criminal charges aren't brought against these students, the administration is not only within their rights to discipline the students, it's an absolute necessity to uphold order in the school that they do.

Look up Tinker v. Des Moines and the other relevant cases before you weigh in.

Last edited by funeralxempire on 30 May 2024, 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If they've got enough evidence they should attempt to charge the student who's alleged to have made death threats.

If not, they can't.

If the teacher is unable to use their authority effectively they should probably get looking for a job they're capable of.