Marxist ßastard Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 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. SAISD is not Congress, nor did it make a law. SAISD is accountable to the TEA's own regulations, and I'm sure SAISD took those into consideration when it punished the three instigators. Further, freedom of speech applies most strongly to pure speech – the minimum required to convey a meaningful idea. Instigating a racist chant is speech plus disruptive behavior, so legal opinion doesn't grant it nearly as much protection. Or: If I walk into a DMV office with a loudspeaker and chant "SUZE ORMAN IS A DISGUSTING SACK OF VAGINAS" – I should probably expect to be thrown out of the DMV, at least. This isn't different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubjectProphet Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'm considering the fact that because of free speech, who cares? So if I chant USA on a bus that has a hispanic on it, I'm racist? This doesn't make sense! They chanted USA in a rude matter, sure, but you can't get on them for just chanting it. It'd be unconstitutional and there would be protest. Shouting you're nation's name in YOU'RE nation where EVERYONE is from that nation is NOT racist in any way. So why try to say it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Further, freedom of speech applies most strongly to pure speech – the minimum required to convey a meaningful idea. Instigating a racist chant is speech plus disruptive behavior, so legal opinion doesn't grant it nearly as much protection. Or: If I walk into a DMV office with a loudspeaker and chant "SUZE ORMAN IS A DISGUSTING SACK OF VAGINAS" – I should probably expect to be thrown out of the DMV, at least. This isn't different. I don't know if you have ever been at an Olympic Games in which you could hear USA being chanted, but it was pretty clear to me and most others in attendance what their 'pure meaning' was. Just had to slip in an anti conservative barb as your example?....so transparent...such a predictable attempt to get a rise from across the aisle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintii Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'm considering the fact that because of free speech, who cares? So if I chant USA on a bus that has a hispanic on it, I'm racist? This doesn't make sense! They chanted USA in a rude matter, sure, but you can't get on them for just chanting it. It'd be unconstitutional and there would be protest. Shouting you're nation's name in YOU'RE nation where EVERYONE is from that nation is NOT racist in any way. So why try to say it is? Yes, this is a very real problem ... Do you now go and ban people in the US from shouting USA USA USA on a bus in a train, plane, wherever, because therejust happens to be other nationalities onboard ?That is definitely going to be a problem and infringe on peoples rights. I don't agree that EVERYONE in the US is non racist ... that plague exists in every nation around the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Further, freedom of speech applies most strongly to pure speech – the minimum required to convey a meaningful idea. Instigating a racist chant is speech plus disruptive behavior, so legal opinion doesn't grant it nearly as much protection. Or: If I walk into a DMV office with a loudspeaker and chant "SUZE ORMAN IS A DISGUSTING SACK OF VAGINAS" – I should probably expect to be thrown out of the DMV, at least. This isn't different. I don't know if you have ever been at an Olympic Games in which you could hear USA being chanted, but it was pretty clear to me and most others in attendance what their 'pure meaning' was. Maybe that is because in the Olympic games the USA is facing off against other countries? It is beyond me how this is not common sense. I find it hard to believe that people don't understand the racism here. The other team was largely Hispanic and were US citizens. If you are chanting to support your country when the other team is part of your country you are implying they are either not actually part of your nation or do not belong there. Why do I even need to explain this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Sigh..the concept of protected speech is not just the speech you approve of, it's the speech you don't approve of also. If the Hispanic team really had their game on, they and their supporters should have chanted USA right back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintii Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Sigh..the concept of protected speech is not just the speech you approve of, it's the speech you don't approve of also. If the Hispanic team really had their game on, they and their supporters should have chanted USA right back. I have to support Marharth on this one ... it was seen as an offence by more than one party that's how obvious it was ... unless they do it after every game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sync182 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Being Australian as I am and, through the posession of a young family and strange working hours, largely ignorant of things going on in the world except for what I manage to read on various news websites, I hadn't heard about this one. However, I'm largely in the "don't care" basket, because things like this bother me. One crowd starts chanting something which is, to the outside observer like myself, patriotic; another crowd accuses the first of being racist by that same chant. How does that work? To me, it just reinforces the notion that there are too many people today who will look for trouble and therefore find it where no trouble previously existed; these people need to be shot. It does, however, guarantee the right to freedom of speech. Punishing people for exercising that right is straight up wrong. This one's always made me wonder. You have the right to say what you like; however:* don't say anything which offends, or could be construed to offend, other races/cultures* don't say anything which offends, or could be construed to offend, those with any form of disability* don't say anything which offends, or could be construed to offend, those with any form of medical issue* don't say anything which offends, or could be construed to offend, those of a different religion or faith* etc... Is there some form of hypocrisy going on here? How can Free Speech have so many conditions attached to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubjectProphet Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Being Australian as I am and, through the posession of a young family and strange working hours, largely ignorant of things going on in the world except for what I manage to read on various news websites, I hadn't heard about this one. However, I'm largely in the "don't care" basket, because things like this bother me. One crowd starts chanting something which is, to the outside observer like myself, patriotic; another crowd accuses the first of being racist by that same chant. How does that work? To me, it just reinforces the notion that there are too many people today who will look for trouble and therefore find it where no trouble previously existed; these people need to be shot. It does, however, guarantee the right to freedom of speech. Punishing people for exercising that right is straight up wrong. This one's always made me wonder. You have the right to say what you like; however:* don't say anything which offends, or could be construed to offend, other races/cultures* don't say anything which offends, or could be construed to offend, those with any form of disability* don't say anything which offends, or could be construed to offend, those with any form of medical issue* don't say anything which offends, or could be construed to offend, those of a different religion or faith* etc... Is there some form of hypocrisy going on here? How can Free Speech have so many conditions attached to it? Because there are those who don't know what "freedom of speech" means here in America. We say something on our opinion and you get told that you had no right to say that, when the constitution be abide by gave us the right to say it. Why? The media. News groups, more specificly. That bring EVERY little matter up and turn EVERYTHING into a major event, and it causes people to attempt to strip way the freedom of speech from someone. The media needs to have ground rules before it gets way to out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) To be completely clear, I am not sure punishing the team with legal matters is a good idea for something like this, but it is simply incorrect to deny the chant had a racist meaning to it. It seems to me that you should be legally allowed to say racist things. It is offensive speech but so is a number of other things. It should be dealt with inside of the school without bringing legal matters into it. A temporary suspension for the people chanting and a talk about why it was wrong would do. Edited March 10, 2012 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts