| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Great Cultural Revolution |
| Surber: No, judge, the First Amendment protects hate speech |
| 2022-12-30 |
| Kaidong Chen's lawsuit against the Albany Unified School District in California took a step closer to the Supreme Court after a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of the the school system. The next step would be a larger panel and then the Supreme Court. I wish the Supreme Court would take up the case (which already is 5 years old) tomorrow but the wheels of justice turn at the speed of government with 13 holidays and three months of vacation each year. Classmates Chen and Cedric Epple disparaged other students in a social media account accessed by 13 students. The lads used the N-word. The school system got wind of this and expelled them. But the expulsions violated the state constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Justices have ruled that off-campus speech is not the business of the schools and that hate speech is protected. Hate speech is the reason we have a First Amendment. We have it to protect what you don't want to hear as well as what you do want to hear. Judges Daniel P. Collins (a Trump appointee), Roslyn O. Silver (a retired Clinton appointee) and Robert M. Gould (another Clintonite) ruled that Chen and Epple can be kicked out of school over a private communication. Precedent be damned! In his concurring opinion, Gould wrote, "I write separately to express my views on the topic of hate speech, disturbingly present in both the facts of the case before the panel and regrettably, a reemerging threat to society throughout the nation today. I reaffirm the viewpoint I stated when another case involving hate speech in schools came before this court: 'Hate speech, whether in the form of a burning cross, or in the form of a call for genocide, or in the form of a tee shirt misusing biblical text to hold gay students to scorn, need not under Supreme Court decisions be given the full protection of the First Amendment in the context of the school environment, where administrators have a duty to protect students from physical or psychological harms.' Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2006) (Gould, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc), vacated on other grounds, 549 U.S. 1262 (2007). Read the rest at the link |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #2 In totalitarian states, such as Soviet Russia, anything the State does not approve of is Treason! Note that the definition of 'Hate Speech' is equally subjective... |
| Posted by: magpie 2022-12-30 09:59 |
| #1 Yes it does. Hate speech is protected speech. Once the government can decide what is hate speech, anything it doesn't like will magically become hate speech. And you are going to jail for saying the government is inefficient and wasteful. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2022-12-30 00:13 |