ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Post Reply
CFB Apologist
Posts: 3192
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm

ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by CFB Apologist »

a congressional staffer and getting suspended from school for it is a violation of his first amendment rights. Gotta love it... LOL

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pro-g ... spartandhp
BG Hokie
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:34 pm

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by BG Hokie »

It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by awesome guy »

BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
Nah. Just douchebags like yourself support children being out if control. You're not a conservative and so don't get it.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
CFB Apologist
Posts: 3192
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by CFB Apologist »

BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by cwtcr hokie »

BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
what adult supports a minor calling another adult and cussing them out for anything? common decency ya know
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
what adult supports a minor calling another adult and cussing them out for anything? common decency ya know

The British would have characterized our founders as lacking common decency.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by USN_Hokie »

BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
Psst. He's a minor. Minors are supposed to be under the supervision of custodians("big brother"), and part of the school/custodians' job is to make sure they don't grow up to be little shirts who call up adults and swear at them.

Do you want people to call you up and swear at you? No. So you shouldn't support children being taught it's OK to do.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by USN_Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote: The British would have characterized our founders as lacking common decency.
Actually they characterized them as British, hence the conflict.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by HokieFanDC »

CFB Apologist wrote:
BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.
That's one of your better ones! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by ip_law-hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.
That's one of your better ones! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It’s good to see USN acknowledge that there are limits to the bill of rights.

I agree with him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.
That's one of your better ones! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
1. That's not an argument.
2. This isn't a 1A issue.

But, good luck defending the student swearing at adults during school hours, Matlock.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.

Kid calls government official, uses bad language.

Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.

Government officials suspend kid from government led education.

That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.
That's one of your better ones! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
1. That's not an argument.
2. This isn't a 1A issue.

But, good luck defending the student swearing at adults during school hours, Matlock.
Correct. I wasn't arguing, I was laughing at the comparison of murder (an illegal act) to cursing (not an illegal act). That's what the :lol: :lol: are for, Matlock.

As for the 2nd point, I already addressed the school grounds issue and the possibility of that being a valid reason for suspension, in the context of an activity that is clearly a display of free speech.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:[

He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.
That's one of your better ones! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
1. That's not an argument.
2. This isn't a 1A issue.

But, good luck defending the student swearing at adults during school hours, Matlock.
Correct. I wasn't arguing, I was laughing at the comparison of murder (an illegal act) to cursing (not an illegal act). That's what the :lol: :lol: are for, Matlock.

As for the 2nd point, I already addressed the school grounds issue and the possibility of that being a valid reason for suspension, in the context of an activity that is clearly a display of free speech.
The only one to laugh at is yourself for making such an absurd argument that I can use murder as an analogy to show everyone how stupid it is.

The best part is you don't even realize it and showed your arse again. :lol:

As for #2, gold star for you creating and defeating your argument in one post!
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.
That's one of your better ones! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
1. That's not an argument.
2. This isn't a 1A issue.

But, good luck defending the student swearing at adults during school hours, Matlock.
Correct. I wasn't arguing, I was laughing at the comparison of murder (an illegal act) to cursing (not an illegal act). That's what the :lol: :lol: are for, Matlock.

As for the 2nd point, I already addressed the school grounds issue and the possibility of that being a valid reason for suspension, in the context of an activity that is clearly a display of free speech.
The only one to laugh at is yourself for making such an absurd argument that I can use murder as an analogy to show everyone how stupid it is.

The best part is you don't even realize it and showed your arse again. :lol:

As for #2, gold star for you creating and defeating your argument in one post!
You realize that what I posted was agreeing with your argument that the school has authority over their kids, as long as they punished him for violating an actual school policy, and that they apply that punishment evenly, right?
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.
That's one of your better ones! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
1. That's not an argument.
2. This isn't a 1A issue.

But, good luck defending the student swearing at adults during school hours, Matlock.
Correct. I wasn't arguing, I was laughing at the comparison of murder (an illegal act) to cursing (not an illegal act). That's what the :lol: :lol: are for, Matlock.

As for the 2nd point, I already addressed the school grounds issue and the possibility of that being a valid reason for suspension, in the context of an activity that is clearly a display of free speech.
The only one to laugh at is yourself for making such an absurd argument that I can use murder as an analogy to show everyone how stupid it is.

The best part is you don't even realize it and showed your arse again. :lol:

As for #2, gold star for you creating and defeating your argument in one post!
You realize that what I posted was agreeing with your argument that the school has authority over their kids, as long as they punished him for violating an actual school policy, and that they apply that punishment evenly, right?
No, you dismissed that argument.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Correct. I wasn't arguing, I was laughing at the comparison of murder (an illegal act) to cursing (not an illegal act). That's what the :lol: :lol: are for, Matlock.

As for the 2nd point, I already addressed the school grounds issue and the possibility of that being a valid reason for suspension, in the context of an activity that is clearly a display of free speech.
The only one to laugh at is yourself for making such an absurd argument that I can use murder as an analogy to show everyone how stupid it is.

The best part is you don't even realize it and showed your arse again. :lol:

As for #2, gold star for you creating and defeating your argument in one post!
You realize that what I posted was agreeing with your argument that the school has authority over their kids, as long as they punished him for violating an actual school policy, and that they apply that punishment evenly, right?
No, you dismissed that argument.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
Just stop.

I left open the possibility that they have a reason for punishment (the "if" part), based on school policy, and state that I haven't seen anything about them having such a school policy (the "it" that I haven't seen).

And using insubordination as justification is still silly. Whoever came up with that is a boob.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: ACLU argues that a 17 year old cussing out

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
The only one to laugh at is yourself for making such an absurd argument that I can use murder as an analogy to show everyone how stupid it is.

The best part is you don't even realize it and showed your arse again. :lol:

As for #2, gold star for you creating and defeating your argument in one post!
You realize that what I posted was agreeing with your argument that the school has authority over their kids, as long as they punished him for violating an actual school policy, and that they apply that punishment evenly, right?
No, you dismissed that argument.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
Just stop.

I left open the possibility that they have a reason for punishment (the "if" part), based on school policy, and state that I haven't seen anything about them having such a school policy (the "it" that I haven't seen).

And using insubordination as justification is still silly. Whoever came up with that is a boob.
If you want to back track from your dismissal of alternative explanations, that's fine with me.

Your defense of children in school dropping f bombs on adults is pretty hilarious and sad at the same time.
Post Reply