Never too young for free speech
The first amendment does not and has never protected absolute free speech, so her first amendment rights were not violated.
The first amendment protects citizens from speaking out against government, stifling free speech of others, or from the government restricting religious practices. It is not license to say anything. This has been affirmed in numerous court cases over the entire history of the US.
Why do conservatives constantly forget this? Its almost like they don’t know basic constitutional law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/schenck-v-united-states-defining-the-limits-of-free-speech
While there are established limits to free speech, the Schenck v US rulling was narrow in scope and doesn’t apply to a little girl drawling a picture in school. If you’re going to cite case law at least find applicable cases and not just pick the 1st one in your search without reading the ruling.
There are many more applicable rulings, mostly to do with how much a school can limit a student’s speech, even those do not cover everything, which is what the Supreme Court is for. Why do liberals constantly forget this? It’s almost like they don’t know constitutional law.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Then you misunderstand, because years of legal precedent disagree lol.
Congress shall make no law means the government can’t restrict your right to free speech, not that you’re free to literally say anything. Example: you can’t lay out your plan for assassinating a politician or threaten someone with a credible threat and be protected under the first amendment.
What you’re confused with is the definition of “free speech”. I suggest you research this further.
Yeah someone is making crap up. “Hate” speech is still protected under the 1st amendment. Now she is a student which has more restrictions but the term all lives matter is a nice gesture since she’s seven.
The parents will win if they go to court.
While certain words are, obscene and hateful speech (or speech inciting violence) is very much not protected under the 1st amendment:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-federal-law-draws-a-line-between-free-speech-and-hate-crimes
Even your linked articlevsays it is. You just cant make specific and clear threats that you have the ability to follow through on.
Correct.
What the kid said won’t pass the sniff test in court. It’s overly restrictive on political ideology.
Then you weren’t reading clearly. Here’s another source directly from the US Courts:
Obscenities are not protected. Specific words are, the way that they’re used are not always.
One again, freedom of speech is not absolute. There are limitations.
If you still can’t figure it out from this, then there’s just no getting through to you at all. That’s nobody’s problem but your own.
This wasnt an obscenity
Considering what is “obscene” changes in society over time, it could be argued, which is not protected.
I agree that there’s nothing wrong by the image and the child seemed to mean well, but if it is deemed obscene by society (and a court of law agrees), it is very much not protected.
Definition of obscene: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscene
How does anyone put up with reading crap like this? Literally every sentence is as shrill and manipulative as they can manage. The author is terrified you might form an opinion of your own.
I probably put more thought into this than I should, but I feel it should be mentioned that this was almost certainly written by a non-american who speaks English as a second language.
Some of the word choices are very telling: “Falangist” and “Mosleyite” are references that, if they were made by an American, would only be made by an American acaademic from one of those “woke” universities, and they certainly wouldn’t use these terms incorrectly as this cognitively challenged author does. “Gavage” is an unusual word for most American English speakers. It is originally a French word for force-feeding ducks or geese to make their livers grow enormous and delicious. I believe an American would more likely have said " force feed" or " indoctrinate". Taken together with " tommyrot" -again, not a common americanism- leads me to believe this is someone who learned English in the United Kingdom or from a British teacher/ source materials.
When woke parents, teachers, and judges join forces to gavage “woke” tommyrot into the minds of young kids, it’s time to consider the options you have regarding your kids’ education.
Now is a good time to remind you that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) just signed a law stating that schools need not contact parents if their child decides he wants to cut off his p*nis because he thinks he’s a girl that day.
Lmao. Is somebody getting paid to write this stuff? They must be getting paid in rubles.
That kind of anti-trans bigotry has to be against Lemm.ee instance rules.
Here is my problem with cases like this. The family will win the case in court but the people who violated her rights will have no punishment.
The people who keep violating rights should be punished
Which rights were violated? The first amendment does not guarantee absolute freedom to say anything. Racist and hate speech has never been protected.
“B.B.'s mom had no idea the punishment had taken place until another parent told her roughly a year after the woke nonsense took place.”
The government should not be keeping secrets from parents.
A child shouldn’t be punished without parental knowledge. Shit I grew up the 80’s and they couldn’t punish you without your parents knowing.
This hidden agenda crap needs to stop