> Also, ironically, the US Government has ruled that these rights can be reasonably curtailed at public schools even though they are US Government funded.
"Reasonably" being the key word here. Does a specifically religiously based restriction of speech fall into that category -- is that "reasonable"? Probably not; after all we call that category of discrimination out specifically in the constitution as being not OK.
> An example just a day ago, a judge ruled that a student could be disciplined for wearing a "There are two genders" T-Shirt. I'm not saying that's right or wrong.
Why aren't you saying if that's right or wrong? Like, seriously, does that seem to you like a reasonable use of government power? And do you think if that case was escalated up to the Supreme Court they would agree?
You're still making the same argument: "some speech is restricted." Well, yeah, but the why matters. The categories are not arbitrary. Some speech is allowed to be restricted, but some speech is not allowed to be restricted. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of student expression before.
So it's not useful to say "some speech is restricted." Some is, some isn't. Which of those two categories does this restriction of speech fall into?
> The First Amendment protects the student's right to speak - but does it actually protect the school's right to say whatever they wish to the students?
Yes, teachers are also covered by the 1st Amendment. And government restriction of viewpoint and restriction of access to a viewpoint can fall foul of the 1st Amendment. As just one example, if a student asks a teacher what religion they are, and the teacher answers that they're a Christian -- if they're not directly proselytizing, that is protected speech. We had a court case about this recently before the Supreme Court, and while the details of that expression were contested and court members disagreed about whether that expression was protected -- the basic idea that teachers have freedom of speech was not contested. The whole court was in agreement on that point; and ultimately the majority of the court ruled that banning or retaliating against that specific expression of religious speech was unconstitutional.
Not only did the entire court agree that teachers have 1st Amendment rights, the majority of the court ultimately argued that specific instance of expression was protected speech.
Viewpoint suppression by the government can be a 1st Amendment issue. To reiterate the above point, you keep saying that not all censorship is unconstitutional. But some censorship in schools is unconstitutional. We don't give the government unlimited power to suppress viewpoint in public school settings.
> if a teacher starts, or attempts to start, a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old female student
What? What on earth does this have to do with speech or censorship? Or are you implying this is a vice-versa restriction? It's not. If a teacher is in a sexual relationship with a student, it doesn't matter who started it, it's still grossly inappropriate.
> Why aren't you saying if that's right or wrong? Like, seriously, does that seem to you like a reasonable use of government power?
I, personally, do not believe that it is a fair use of government power, and I do believe it was a wrong decision.
> Do you think if that case was escalated up to the Supreme Court they would agree? You're still making the same argument: "some speech is restricted." Well, yeah, but why and how do we determine those categories? Some speech is not allowed to be restricted. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of student expression before.
The reason I keep bringing it up is that I keep hearing this argument framed as "book bans." They're banning books! To which I point out, yes, we ban books, don't pretend like we don't, or that the other side is pro-censorship when both sides have books they really don't like on shelves. It's a matter of which books. I keep bringing it up because the framing as though "they want to ban books, but our side doesn't because book bans are automatically fascist" is, I feel, hypocritical.
> As just one example, if a student asks a teacher what religion they are, and the teacher answers that they're a Christian -- if they're not directly proselytizing, that is protected speech. We had a court case about this recently before the Supreme Court, and while the details of that expression were contested and court members disagreed about whether that expression was protected -- the basic idea that teachers have freedom of speech was not contested.
And yet, if they were to say an optional non-denominational prayer before the beginning of class, they would often risk be fired. SCOTUS has ruled that's OK - they are not allowed to direct prayer in their official duties despite that somehow not infringing on their rights to freedom of speech. I think that's wrong but that's how that stands now.
> What? What on earth does this have to do with speech or censorship? Or are you implying this is a vice-versa restriction? It's not. If a teacher is in a sexual relationship with a student, it doesn't matter who started it, it's still grossly inappropriate.
My point was, is a teacher permitted to perform speech that would attempt to solicit such a relationship, in the name of freedom of speech? No laws were broken - she's at the legal age. The teacher had free speech, didn't he? Did she not have free speech? Did they both not have the freedom to associate with any individual of their choice? But we all accept penalties for it despite no laws officially broken.
Also, who are you to judge it as being grossly inappropriate? What is your basis for that? Again, you have no laws you can point to as having been broken. Why is it not an infringement on their human rights to judge them that way? Why does "Love is love" not apply? (I'm still against it BTW - I just want you to think about it. Either Love is Love, or sometimes, Love isn't always Love but that has implications...)
Right, but what I'm saying is that this argument is complete nonsense. "We censor some things but not other things" -- yeah, that's how the 1st Amendment works. It has limitations and they're established in law, and it is useful to try and figure out when something is still stepping over a line because it is possible to step over the line.
Of course, both Democrats and Republicans are often hypocritical about free speech issues. That is to be expected. But it adds nothing to the conversation to say "some censorship is allowed." Okay, some censorship is allowed. So? Sometimes Democrats are hypocritical about speech, and that means... what we're all going to be hypocritical now? We're just going to have a field day with it, everybody ban anything they want?
Is censorship that is (by your description) specifically designed to enforce religious adherence constitutional? That question doesn't go away just because we don't allow porn in the kids section of a library.
This just seems so silly to me. Who looks at someone being hypocritical and says, "the answer to this is to have fewer objective standards so that it's even easier for hypocrites to abuse power?"
> And yet, if they were to say an optional non-denominational prayer before the beginning of class, they would often risk be fired. SCOTUS has ruled that's OK. I think that's wrong but that's how that stands now.
If you're referring to Abington v. Schempp, SCOTUS protections for retaliation in that area have never been weaker. But okay, let's talk about those boundaries. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled (recently) that it is illegal to fire a teacher over some religious speech, including specifically optional public prayers. So there does appear to be a boundary here between what the Supreme Court views as government censorship vs government compelled speech. I guarantee you the Supreme Court does not see that boundary as arbitrary.
So we're back to the start. Some speech is protected, some isn't. But you can't act like this is arbitrary; pointing out that some speech is banned adds nothing to the conversation. And if your argument is that the Supreme Court believes that state-endorsement of Deism isn't protected, that's not really an argument in favor of religiously motivated book bans.
> My point was, is a teacher permitted to perform speech that would attempt to solicit such a relationship
Entering into a sexual relationship with a student is not speech.
"Reasonably" being the key word here. Does a specifically religiously based restriction of speech fall into that category -- is that "reasonable"? Probably not; after all we call that category of discrimination out specifically in the constitution as being not OK.
> An example just a day ago, a judge ruled that a student could be disciplined for wearing a "There are two genders" T-Shirt. I'm not saying that's right or wrong.
Why aren't you saying if that's right or wrong? Like, seriously, does that seem to you like a reasonable use of government power? And do you think if that case was escalated up to the Supreme Court they would agree?
You're still making the same argument: "some speech is restricted." Well, yeah, but the why matters. The categories are not arbitrary. Some speech is allowed to be restricted, but some speech is not allowed to be restricted. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of student expression before.
So it's not useful to say "some speech is restricted." Some is, some isn't. Which of those two categories does this restriction of speech fall into?
> The First Amendment protects the student's right to speak - but does it actually protect the school's right to say whatever they wish to the students?
Yes, teachers are also covered by the 1st Amendment. And government restriction of viewpoint and restriction of access to a viewpoint can fall foul of the 1st Amendment. As just one example, if a student asks a teacher what religion they are, and the teacher answers that they're a Christian -- if they're not directly proselytizing, that is protected speech. We had a court case about this recently before the Supreme Court, and while the details of that expression were contested and court members disagreed about whether that expression was protected -- the basic idea that teachers have freedom of speech was not contested. The whole court was in agreement on that point; and ultimately the majority of the court ruled that banning or retaliating against that specific expression of religious speech was unconstitutional.
Not only did the entire court agree that teachers have 1st Amendment rights, the majority of the court ultimately argued that specific instance of expression was protected speech.
Viewpoint suppression by the government can be a 1st Amendment issue. To reiterate the above point, you keep saying that not all censorship is unconstitutional. But some censorship in schools is unconstitutional. We don't give the government unlimited power to suppress viewpoint in public school settings.
> if a teacher starts, or attempts to start, a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old female student
What? What on earth does this have to do with speech or censorship? Or are you implying this is a vice-versa restriction? It's not. If a teacher is in a sexual relationship with a student, it doesn't matter who started it, it's still grossly inappropriate.