I would love someone to defend this

[TripletDaddy]

Jay Leno can f**k all day long and be protected by the 1st amendment.

Like Harrison Ford, he's getting Frantic
Like Sting, he's tantric
Like Snickers, guaranteed to satisfy!

[wuapinmon]

Because it connotes slothfulness and a lack of self-awareness and self-discipline and in a way she's trying to force that attitude on the district. I'm not the only person that thought "worry about your two asses first, lay off the twinkies, then talk to us." Although this isn't always the case with obese people, it's the case probably 90% of the time.

Rather than have her kid make a sacrifice and cut off the stupid rattail, she wants everyone else to cater to her wants. An overwhelming number of people in my community moved there BECAUSE of the structure and quality of education the schools provided and most believed that the dress code played at least a small part in it. So, you obviously have a person who, so to speak, is glutonnous in terms of having the world revolve around her, it doesn't help that she was obviously glutonnous in other ways. It leads one to the opinion that this is a person that simply wants more, more, more all the time.

I've been quite open about my "weightism" and I'm fairly unapologetic about it. I grew up with a dad who would say after getting cut off on the road by a fat person "I find that these people disproportionately hog the road like they hog all the food." I thought it was funny then and I think it's funny now.

I think you're confusing signifier and signified, and I invite you to read the words of Fr. Uriah Carter Knolls, Yeoman of Umberton about this matter.

[marsupial]

Can he? Can he approach strangers on the street and drop the f-bomb on them and suffer no consequences?

OK, poor example. Mostly, I was trying to illustrate the difference between saying something to someone and broadcasting it to everyone.

[JohnnyLingo]

OK, poor example. Mostly, I was trying to illustrate the difference between saying something to someone and broadcasting it to everyone.

Right, they are different, but legally, are they?

[Solon]

Billboards and t-shirts broadcast it to everyone in eyeshot.

Jay Leno can f**k all day long and be protected by the 1st amendment. But what happens if he says it on air? The network gets fined.

I'm pretty sure he can't do it all day long (Mormon Red Death said it caused an irreparable rift in their relationship).

[FMCoug]

I wonder what possesses people to do stuff like this? Is there a jackass gene that is usually recessive but is dominant in some people?

I don't get it.

[marsupial]

I'm pretty sure he can't do it all day long (Mormon Red Death said it caused an irreparable rift in their relationship).

lol, I just realized I missed typing a critical word in the sentence.

[marsupial]

Right, they are different, but legally, are they?

I am not a lawyer. I think it is different. Any lawyers care to weigh in on this?

[Mormon Red Death]

I'm pretty sure he can't do it all day long (Mormon Red Death said it caused an irreparable rift in their relationship).

So there you are checking out the message board and one of your friends post something on a thread and you think "wonder what his insight into this topic is". Turns out its a lot different than you thought.

[KillerDog]

To answer some questions in this thread:

I don't recall much Con law but I believe wearing a particular article of clothing falls under freedom of expression, not freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression is not as protected as freedom of speech.

Students rights are severely curtailed when they enter the hallowed halls of education because of the importance of creating a learning environment.

Political speech and religious speech are particularly protected, profane speech is given much less protection. (I could be misremembering this)

Now for my opinion...I don't get why they send these kids home. What are they afraid of? In the marketplace of ideas, this isn't a particularly impressive statement and will be given its just desserts. I think we are overly sensitive to "hate" and overly worried about it. I don't think hatred of one group by another, without more, is particularly problematic in any environment. If Christians want to hate Muslims but confine their hate to legal expressions, I don't see a problem with that. When the Christians start to attack the Muslims there is a problem. I just don't get it I guess. It's probably because I'm one of those damnable masters of the universe that go around coercing everyone and not being coerced.

[FMCoug]

Now for my opinion...I don't get why they send these kids home. What are they afraid of? In the marketplace of ideas, this isn't a particularly impressive statement and will be given its just desserts. I think we are overly sensitive to "hate" and overly worried about it. I don't think hatred of one group by another, without more, is particularly problematic in any environment. If Christians want to hate Muslims but confine their hate to legal expressions, I don't see a problem with that. When the Christians start to attack the Muslims there is a problem. I just don't get it I guess. It's probably because I'm one of those damnable masters of the universe that go around coercing everyone and not being coerced.

Maybe they should have just waited until a bunch of Muslim kids beat the tar out of them. Let the kids sort it out on their own.

[KillerDog]

Maybe they should have just waited until a bunch of Muslim kids beat the tar out of them. Let the kids sort it out on their own.

I know the old saw that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I also know that a fundamental component of our government is the belief that we don't punish thoughts without action. Teaching our students differently has raised up a couple of generations of people who want to control thoughts. I find this problematic. This is a difficult line to draw and generally the Supreme Court has found that the line is best drawn by preventing students from having unfettered speech and expression. I just wonder if that is the best thing to do. My observation says it isn't.

[cougjunkie]

can't argue. It was dumb, but the comment of:

"I bet their parents think they are Great Americans" was uncalled for and was you trying to bait people...

Dont threaten to bloody his lip.

[dabrockster]

Dont threaten to bloody his lip.

Ahhhh.. After all this time you still remember me.. Almost like a stalker...

[I.J. Reilly]

Students have very, very limited rights. There have been a couple of cases in the recent past that have addressed this before the Supreme Court. If I am remembering correctly, a couple of years back a student held up a sign that said, "Bong Hits for Jesus". No one was sure what it meant, and the student did so off school grounds. The student was suspended from school for said action. The Supreme Court upheld the suspension. There are probably more facts that I am forgetting, but that was the general gist of it. Schools have a lot of say in what kids can and can't do. Children are not little adults and are not afforded all of the same rights.

Another case, even more recent, involved a girl that was ordered to strip down and shake out her underwear to prove that there were no drugs (aspirin in this case) there. The ruled for the girl and found that the school lacked sufficient cause to make the girl be so searched, but I don't think that they specifically ruled out all such searches. So there are limits, but schools have great leeway.