The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: formerlurker on March 03, 2011, 03:37:51 PM
-
Students entitled to permanent injunction protecting free speech rights to wear “Be Happy, Not Gay†t-shirts
Zamechik v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. #204, Nos. 10-2485/10-3635 (7th Cir. Mar. 1, 2011)
Abstract: A three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has ruled that students are entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting a school district from banning them from wearing clothing at school displaying the message “Be Happy, Not Gay,†plus nominal damages. The panel concluded that the evidence presented by the school district was insufficient to satisfy the Tinker substantial disruption standard. It found the evidence of past disruption, prior to the wearing of the “Be Happy, Not Gay,†negligible. It also found that some of the evidence was barred by the doctrine of “heckler’s veto,†because it used speech that contained no fighting words, which would not have moved a reasonable person to a violent response, to justify banning the speech. Lastly, it concluded that the expert’s report failed to meet the requirements of the federal rules of evidence for such reports.
http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=5090&utm_source=NSBA+e-Newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=376910e8f6-Legal+Clips+Newsletter&utm_medium=email
-
Gay at one time did mean happy, merry or lively. At some point gay started meaning homosexuality, not sure when or even why. I know of a person once upon a forum who would be highly offended by this tshirt. ::). It is definitely a contradiction. Would it cause violence, is another story....
-
Gay at one time did mean happy, merry or lively. At some point gay started meaning homosexuality, not sure when or even why. I know of a person once upon a forum who would be highly offended by this tshirt. ::). It is definitely a contradiction. Would it cause violence, is another story....
Talk about contradictions Sea. Scous says that "groups of people" in particular the WBC, have the right to make assumptions based on faith that gives them the right to harass anyone at the most dreadful time of their life. They can verbably infere and with signs call for the pleasure over the death of the deceased. If that ain't fighting words, I will be darn if I even know anymore what is.
We had a funny as in strange case here in town not to long ago when two men got into an argument, one called the other a SISSY and punched the other in the nose. The antagonist who received a well deserved punch, tried to get charges placed against the nose puncher for using HATE speech by using the word Sissy before the blow.
Sea, I cannot help but get confused and watch in disbelief as the laws change day to day on what is considered harassment , What are we coming to when MEN full grown MEN take a word like Sissy and make that a Hate Crime with bigger penalty's then a physical assult.
-
http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=5090&utm_source=NSBA+e-Newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=376910e8f6-Legal+Clips+Newsletter&utm_medium=email
Has this hit the DUmp yet? :-)