alt.education

"leonard78sp@gmail.com" wrote in
news:8c242232-a0a1-49b9-929f-9ada5906dc59@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 13, 7:12 pm, Deadrat wrote:
>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" wrote in
>> news:514ba111-
>> 2d4e-4f3d-bb95-12c709e6e...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Randy Principles
>> > First Grade outrage.
>>
>> > By Mark Steyn
>>
> ** Copyright violation bedamned.

OK with me. If you want to violate the law and open yourself to civil
liability, knock yourself out. I hope you don't mind if I don't follow
your example.

> You dont like what I post-- do not read it.

What makes you think I care much one way or another about what you post
(or in this case copy)? I just wanted to correct an ignorant
assertion in the material.

> You did a more serious violation by trimming
> the followups and did not post notice of it.

Followups be damned. If you don't like where I post my replies, then
don't read them. Copyright violation is against the law. Trimming
followups, not so much.

>> > Last week, an
>> > Obama delegate was revealed to have told her next door neighbor's
>> > kids to come down from the tree and quit playing "like monkeys."
>> > Unfortunately for her, they were African American, so she was
>> > "ticketed" for racist speech by the Carpentersville police,
>
>> Perhaps because even "racist speech" is protected by the 1st
>> Amendment against "ticketing" by the Carpentersville police.
>
> ** I would take Mark Steyn's word againt yours
> every day of the week.

Well, of course you would. But then you're an ignoramus who's willing to
let other people do his thinking. Consider the following:

American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (1985). An appeals court
struck down an Indianapolis anti-pornography law that banned sexually
explicit material as discrminatory against women.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). The Court rules
that in the absence of libel, public figures may not recover damages from
hateful speech, even when the speaker means to cause emotional distress.

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul 505 U.S. 377 (1992). The Court strikes down
an ordinance against cross-burning as too broad, noting that the state
cannot prohibit speech or even "expressive conduct" solely because of the
point of view expressed.

Virginia v. Black et al., 538 U.S. 343 (2003). The Court allowed an
ordinance to stand that disallowed cross-burning with the intent to
intimidate, but refused to allow such ordinances to ban cross-burining as
an ideological statement.

> Of course there is no indication of what happened later. The
> cop was, perhaps, as stupid as you.

The cop could have been as dumb as a stump. The cop could have been as
clueless as you. Doesn't matter. In the absence of conditions like
intimidation, fightingk words, or the like, laws against racist speech
are not Constitutional.

Don't worry, though. Letting Mark Styen do your thinking for you is
still legal.