Originally posted by RSMA1234Because he narcissisticly abuses the right to try and pull of a controversial and offensive publicity stunt to get himself on TV.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6238672.stm
I have always thought that Freedom of speech is an illusion, why should a student lose his rights when entering a school
Originally posted by Daemon SinSo what....does he still not have the freedom of speech ?
Because he narcissisticly abuses the right to try and pull of a controversial and offensive publicity stunt to get himself on TV.
This is excally what I mean by an illusion, its ok to say something if the "powers that be" agree with it, but when they don't then its a different case
Originally posted by RSMA1234Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
So what....does he still not have the freedom of speech ?
This is excally what I mean by an illusion, its ok to say something if the "powers that be" agree with it, but when they don't then its a different case
He had something, so he weren't free.
Originally posted by RSMA1234Incredible, you think that an 18 year old should be allowed to encourage drug culture?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6238672.stm
I have always thought that Freedom of speech is an illusion, why should a student lose his rights when entering a school
There is a huge problem in schools and much of it is that some students are often barrack room lawyers.
A few years ago there was a peace march in London.
All the yobs who were the most lazy, selfish and self absorbed pupils in the school, "threatened" to go on strike unless they were granted permission to go on the march.
Originally posted by RSMA1234There are no absolute freedoms. Had he wanted to hold that banner at his house or on a random street corner, that would be within his freedom of speech. As he was at a school-sponsored event, school rules apply. He was advocating a currently-illegal activity because he wanted to get on television. It worked. It is indeed a murky area and slippery slope. Had he advocated helping slaves escape to freedom or ending apartheid or returning native lands to indigenous people, I suspect more people would have supported his position although some would consider the "big picture" to be the same. Additionally, he was not espousing a cause he believes in and taking a stand to correct injustice. He simply figured out what would get him the attention he craved and went for it. For some of us, that makes it harder to go to bat on his defense.
So what....does he still not have the freedom of speech ?
This is excally what I mean by an illusion, its ok to say something if the "powers that be" agree with it, but when they don't then its a different case
edit: On the plus side, it was nice to read a news story that had nothing to do with a single singer/actor/performer.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerFair enough, but freedom of speech is an illusion
There are no absolute freedoms. Had he wanted to hold that banner at his house or on a random street corner, that would be within his freedom of speech. As he was at a school-sponsored event, school rules apply. He was advocating a currently-illegal activity because he wanted to get on television. It worked. It is indeed a murky area and slippery sl ...[text shortened]... he craved and went for it. For some of us, that makes it harder to go to bat on his defense.
I thought that the law of the land always takes precedent over school rules ?
I know bascially he is being a "nob", but all I'm trying to point out to all the users that "bark" on about freedom of speech is that it does not exist or if it does its within limits
Originally posted by RSMA1234Of course it is within limits. All freedoms are.
Fair enough, but freedom of speech is an illusion
I thought that the law of the land always takes precedent over school rules ?
I know bascially he is being a "nob", but all I'm trying to point out to all the users that "bark" on about freedom of speech is that it does not exist or if it does its within limits