The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Striker Archive
The Department of Justice and ADL Call On Supreme Court to Rule That Students Do Not Have Right to Free Speech Off Campus
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a cut-and-dry First Amendment case on April 28th, but the erratic Department of Justice has thrown its hat into the ring in hopes of complicating the matter.

In B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District, a 14-year-old girl was punished by her administrators at her school for writing “Fuck School fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” on Snapchat after failing to make her varsity cheer team. She was subsequently disciplined by her junior varsity squad after a tattle tale showed the message to her coach.

While established legal precedents allow public schools to police what students say during school hours, landmark cases like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) defend the right to free speech off campus.

Because the case only deals with expressions of obscene language, the left-wing interest group ACLU has decided to represent the plaintiff in Mahoney.

Yet, in a bizarre display of flagrant disrespect for the First Amendment, the US government — through the DoJ — has filed what appears to be the sole amicus brief arguing in favor of unqualified powers for school administrators to reprimand students for what they say among themselves or to the public outside of school.

The debate appears on the surface to be an intra-liberal disagreement. While there doesn’t appear to be a political factor in the specific instance being debated, a number of Jewish organizations have weighed in with their own demands of the court due to the ramifications of a ruling.

The ACLU, in advocating for the plaintiff, believes that failing to update Tinker in the social media age in a free speech friendly way could in theory prevent students from engaging in left-wing activism that educators perceive as disrupting or distracting from learning during school hours.

The DoJ, on the other hand, seems to be playing “bad cop” with its brief, calling for granting schools full leeway.

The point of this dialectic may be to guide SCOTUS’ opinion towards a worse-of-both-worlds synthesis of the opposing arguments, which is embodied in a March 31st filing by the Anti-Defamation League and a slew of affiliated gay and Jewish groups.

According to the ADL’s recommendations, schools should not have the right to punish kids for expressing vulgarity, but should retain the authority to suppress them when they engage in off-campus “bullying, harassment, and threats” using the open-ended and subjective boundaries of: “whether the speech was reasonably likely to instill fear in other students for their physical, mental, or emotional safety.”

While the argument doesn’t necessarily outline too many specific qualifications, under the ADL’s own rubric, political criticisms of Israel, Jewish overrepresentation, transsexuals, immigration, etc all constitute threatening speech. The brief only goes on to articulate what it considers to be speech that administrators should not have a right to control, ” Some schools may consider “disruptive” political speech, coming-out speech, or speech supportive of historically marginalized groups questioning the status quo.”

If SCOTUS rules according to the standards the ADL and its collaborators have set, the binary legal question of whether schools can control off-campus speech or not will go unresolved due to their calls for “context-dependent inquiry” — as in, administrators still get to define whether protected speech impedes the “emotional safety” of students.

In Mahoney, the court agreeing to using this contradictory standard could lead to the school suspending the plaintiff from athletic activities again under the guise that her statements emotionally triggered her cheerleading team.

Many First Amendment advocates are watching this case closely, but the fact that bad faith actors who believe right-wing speech is terrorism — the ACLU, the ADL and the Department of Justice — are occupying the left, right and center of the argument risks turning the ruling into a new standard that institutionalizes obscenity and anti-white hate while suppressing the forces of civility and white counter-argument.

(Republished from National Justice by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: ADL, Freedom of Speech 
Hide 15 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. meamjojo says:

    In B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District, a 14-year-old girl was punished by her administrators at her school for writing “Fuck School fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” on Snapchat after failing to make her varsity cheer team.

    Then she went out and had a cigarette.

    • LOL: Verymuchalive
  2. Darkwing says:

    According to the US Constitution “We the people” have the right to free speech, no matter what we say. But governments and the ADL do not follow the US Constitution, they follow what they want, CONTROL.

  3. mijj says:

    in case there’s any doubt, the core framework is: speech isn’t speech, money is speech.
    In that light, the “right to free speech” is actually the right for money to control.

    • Troll: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Realist
  4. How dare a citizen criticise any aspect of their government-run indoctrination centre.

  5. In the pre internet age, if threats were made against a student off campus, the school would have no jurisdiction there, and the municipal authorities would be the proper mediators of discipline. Online speech and activities are exactly analogous to that situation. A more precise, although likely contrived and rare situation, would be for a student to have made statements in a circulated newsletter or newspaper in the pre internet age. Again, no one would have thought that a public school could assert discipline against the student in that situation. This case is all a contrived attack on free speech.

    Has anyone else noticed they recently took the comments on reviews away on Amazon? That’s another attack. They don’t want us communicating back and forth.

  6. MrBoompi says:

    Children are being conditioned to US version of 1984 groupthink, which will grease the way for the neo-communism the globalists have planned for us.

  7. In other news, the highest court in the land will review arguments about the case of the poorly drawn penis discovered in the margins of a discarded spiral notebook.

  8. anon[228] • Disclaimer says:

    “According to the ADL’s recommendations, schools should not have the right to punish kids for expressing vulgarity, but should retain the authority to suppress them when they engage in off-campus “bullying, harassment, and threats”

    America has used its own version of realities, definition of rights, breadth and scope of its ideas and philosophy ,and even its own legal position on domestic matters to impose those values abroad and pursue the fulfilment of those definitions, frameworks, references, and contexts abroad.

    Can we use this ADL inspired “bullying, harassment, and threats” abroad agents Israel whose constant drumbeat for wars against Iran followed similar drumbeats against Libya Iraq and Syria ?
    Dark vader-ADL has pursued US’s domestic rhetoric and polemics outside USA.

  9. If that vindictive little vixen could vote, she’d probably be a Trumpkin.

  10. Realist says:
    @mijj

    You are absolutely correct.

    The current downfall of the US was augmented by these SCOTUS rulings.

    The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of representative democracy. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
    These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and power total influence in elections.

  11. El Dato says:

    Can I still advocate for the physical eliminiation of all enemies of Israel, on and off-campus?

    I promise to leave my blinking christmas-light adorned rotating swastika billboard at home.

  12. I think the result of this case is a foregone conclusion. I’m shocked the ACLU even took the case but I guess they need someone to throw the game.

  13. Exile says:

    The (((Department of (Social) Justice))) has no interest in actual justice. It is entirely staffed by Talmudic Zio-shill lawyers and shomrim thugs who spend more time manufacturing cases against normal White people by subverting the mentally ill and addicted than it ever did chasing actual threats to American society.

    It needs to be entirely torn down and replaced. But that’s not going to happen until the rest of the rotten illegitimate occupational government falls. Until then, Americans can expect no justice from their government.

  14. notamason says:

    The commie rats of the ADL try to eliminate anyone who speaks against their apartheid government. Israel is a country that has no idea how scruples could help them. As long as they grovel for money and steal property they sell not be happy and content.

  15. Public education. Great news for lawyers.

    Abolish public education and this whole speech issue goes with it.

    [MORE]

    While established legal precedents allow public schools to police what students say during school hours ..

    I am so sick and tired of lawyer-judges who can’t understand the constitution’s simple, written English.

    Across the land, constitution text unequivocally affirms the principle that the government cannot abridge speech. What part of “cannot” is incomprehensible for those Ivy alums?

    What’s worse, the government drafts kids into totally crappy, often physically dangerous public schools, then it has the gall to tell them to shut up while they’re in/out-side.

    When the army suddenly deploys some kid’s father to Afghanistan (for the third time in two years), it’s ridiculous that the kid can’t immediately call his congressman to complain (or answer his dad’s goodbye call).

    So a kid can get punished for wearing a t-shirt to school that states, so obviously true, “This school sucks!”, and so forth.

    Public education must eventually collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Striker Comments via RSS