Court Sides With Student In Bush T-Shirt Flap

The truth hurts.

Ouch! That had to hurt!! If you don't want your dirty past to haunt you then keep it clean..any more trash on anyone?? I think it's 'freedom of speech!

I wonder what would have been the outcome if he had a shirt depicting Clinton as a sex addict.
Liberal Left at work again.

schmed wrote:

I wonder what would have been the outcome if he had a shirt depicting Clinton as a sex addict.
Liberal Left at work again.

Excellent!

schmed wrote:

I wonder what would have been the outcome if he had a shirt depicting Clinton as a sex addict.
Liberal Left at work again.

I would wear a shirt that said, I SAVED the dress. Or show Clinton blowing a trumpet with the caption, A BLOW IS BLOW. See, we can make fun of ALL the presidents, not just one particular PARTY.

Very, very glad to see that we still have freedom of speech in this country despite the President gutting the Constitution!

schmed wrote:

I wonder what would have been the outcome if he had a shirt depicting Clinton as a sex addict.
Liberal Left at work again.

I actually saw t-shirts and bumper stickers with much that theme. Nobody really seemed to care. At all.

Maybe because Clinton's transgressions didn't result in people dying.

Or the credibility of our country be undermined.

Or a substantial increase in the terrorist activity that we're supposed to be suppressing (but it's *so* nice that it isn't happening on US soil...yet).

Or a breakdown in the constitutional rights of the citizens of the US.

Or a brown-shirt similar reaction from empty patriots against anyone who dares question the decision the president has made.

mr bush just needs to fess up that this war was and is a him and his daddy thing

schmed wrote:

I wonder what would have been the outcome if he had a shirt depicting Clinton as a sex addict.
Liberal Left at work again.

Liberals don't suppress free speech. That's a right-wing tactic.

Yuban wrote:

<quoted text>
Liberals don't suppress free speech. That's a right-wing tactic.

Yea, right, that's why the Liberals are always trying to shut down talk radio and conservatives who say things they don't like.

That's why liberal colleges won't let Justice Clarence Thomas and other conservatives speak on campus.

Heck, Liberals are ALWAYS protesting things they don't want said - not to mention hecklers and others who disrupt conservatives.

Leftists are the champion of orwellian double-speak - the originators of politically correct speech, which surpressing whatever they disagree with.

Indeed, I came here to question whether this right would have been upheld if it were Pro-Bush or as viciously against some liberal sacred cow...probably not.

aiki_mcr wrote:

<quoted text>
I actually saw t-shirts and bumper stickers with much that theme. Nobody really seemed to care. At all.
Maybe because Clinton's transgressions didn't result in people dying.

Don't be so sure. Clinton committed a MAJOR security breach by getting head from Monica while talking on an unsecure telephone line...it wasn't long after that when he met privately Chinas leader - in an unprecedented neeting with just 1 Chinese interpretor -...then he capitulated to a lot of demands from the Chinese. Can anyone say "blackmail"?

Besides, there is a HUGE difference between bumper stickers and t-shirts in the general public and what a "schoolboy" is wearing to class.

Wham Bam wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea, right, that's why the Liberals are always trying to shut down talk radio and conservatives who say things they don't like.
That's why liberal colleges won't let Justice Clarence Thomas and other conservatives speak on campus.
Heck, Liberals are ALWAYS protesting things they don't want said - not to mention hecklers and others who disrupt conservatives.
Leftists are the champion of orwellian double-speak - the originators of politically correct speech, which surpressing whatever they disagree with.

Care to give specific examples and sources of what you're babbling about?

Yuban wrote:

<quoted text>
Liberals don't suppress free speech. That's a right-wing tactic.

Really ? every special interest group, typically liberal, threatens lawsuits at the drop of a hat.
ACLU ?

schmed wrote:

<quoted text>
Really ? every special interest group, typically liberal, threatens lawsuits at the drop of a hat.
ACLU ?

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html

Yuban wrote:

<quoted text>
Care to give specific examples and sources of what you're babbling about?

Only to a liberal are clear statements babble. What part did you not understand?...but I guess you only pay attention to your side of the argument.

Do your own research, it is all out there. but, okay, here are a few tidbits pulled out of a quick "Google":

Concerning Brown University, Duke University and the University of Colorado - and more:

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1153

"The persistent theft of conservative college newspapers and those that ran David Horowitz's anti-slavery reparations ad, including the Brown Daily Herald, did not warrant any remark from the Duke faculty, and neither did the gagging of conservative columnist and fellow North Carolina professor Michael Adams, who was banned by his own department at UNCW from discussing his columns in front of other professors who find them "offensive."

The Chronicle respondents offered no opinion about recent attempts by numerous colleges to prohibit students from protesting affirmative action by sponsoring satirical bakesales in which brownies or cookies are sold at different prices depending upon the race of the buyer. One would think the bakesale at the University of Colorado at Boulder would have warranted some commentary. There, the University banned the planned event, then relented when it was about to be sued by FIRE, which argued that CU's claim that the bakesale was racially discriminatory was undermined by the school's own embrace of reverse discrimination in its admissions policies. So CU allowed the bakesale to proceed— provided organizers adopted the university's own farcical obfuscation of its racial policies; that is, that race would only be used as an undefined "plus factor" in determining the price of the cookies. Students who supported the school's inequitable admissions policies could not tolerate the same principles being adopted in a satirical protest, so they physically blocked access to the protest, vandalized the booth, stole the cookies, and tore down the protest signs."

AND

Concerning Princeton, Stanford, Boston and Berkeley:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArti...

"Exactly which aspects of the message were racist, Stephens and his fellow witch-hunters naturally left to their readers’ imaginations. No need for substance when the agenda is slander. Being Ivy Leaguers endowed with the genes of arrogance, the Prince’s princes decided to go one better. "Finally, in a gesture that we hope will demonstrate to our readers our commitment to open dialogue, but also our own integrity as a campus publication, we have decided not to keep the money that Horowitz’s group paid for the ad. Instead, we will donate the proceeds from the ad to the Trenton chapter of the National Urban League, a non-profit, non-partisan group that works for civil rights and racial understanding. We do not want to profit from Horowitz’s racism. Donating the money seems like the right thing to do." In other words, let’s defame Horowitz and then make him pay reparations."

The students are not the problem. At Berkeley and in Boston the mobs that tried to prevent me from speaking were organized by the Spartacist Youth League, a group of aging Trotskyites that split off from the Fourth International in 1956 over their support for the Soviet invasion of Hungary. AT BROWN UNIVERSITY, 60 PROFESSORS HAVE SIGNED A STATEMENT ENDORSING REPRESSION OF IDEAS AND DEFENDING THE VANDALS WHO SEIZED AN ENTIRE PRESS RUN OF THE DAILY HERALD WITH THAT AS THEIR PURPOSE. The faculty statement uses the pretext of an alleged "escalating racist climate on our campus" – how classic – to back its demands that the Administration investigate the editors of the Daily Herald for "harassment" of blacks because they published ideas that allegedly made some uncomfortable.

AND
Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-...

"As this book points out, once one has rules against offensive speech, not just against intimidation (or worse), that leads to thought control. And there are some examples of what has been happening along these lines.

One spectacular example is the 1993 "water buffalo" case at the University of Pennsylvania. A Penn freshman got in trouble for using the term "water buffalo" in response to students who were making too much noise at midnight outside his dormitory. Although a simple apology from him would have been the most reasonable resolution, Penn made this into a major case. So did much of the nation! The result was not only a victory for the accused student, but the removal of the "speech codes" at Penn. It seems that the speech codes were doomed by the idiotic claims of Penn officials, including the Penn President, that they were merely following due process in the water buffalo case.

Downs describes how speech codes were removed at the University of Wisconsin as well. And there is some fascinating material about the University of California, Berkeley. The campus newspaper ran an ad that offended some people, and then compounded the problem by apologizing for it (offending even more folks). And then, there was a speech by well-known conservative David Horowitz. An assistant chancellor warned Horowitz that he might be shouted down "because the right of free expression also" belonged to those that disagreed with him! I find it incredible that such censorship could be called "free expression." Others were similarly censored just for having "politically incorrect" views. A striking example was former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was prevented from speaking to 2000 waiting ticket holders by a couple of hundred foes of free speech. One of these people, when challenged about what she had done replied that she didn't "believe in free speech for war criminals." By the way, given Netanyahu's record, I find such a charge against him ludicrous. And I wonder if genuine criminals, such as Yasir Arafat, would have been shouted down at Berkeley.

One more topic in the book is the sexual misconduct policy at Columbia University. That's another university that has a problem with taking political correctness too seriously. But in this case, the issue was simply that people accused of sexual misconduct were denied due process, including the right to hear the testimony against them or to cross-examine. That policy eventually had to be scrapped. Still, the incident serves to show the moral blindness of some of those who create policies on campus."

Yuban wrote:

<quoted text>
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees

Yea, right...like it's vigorous defense of the 2nd amendments, eh? You know, the right to "bear arms"...
Once again you show your ignorance...or your true allegiance...

From its very beginning, the ACLU had strong socialist and communist ties. As early as 1931, the U.S. Congress was alarmed by the ACLU's devotion to communism. A report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated “The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists.”

Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.

Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote “I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

Earl Browder, the general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States, admitted that the ACLU served as a "transmission belt" for the party. Baldwin agreed, claiming, "I don't regret being a part of the communist tactic which increased the effectiveness of a good cause."

Baldwin was a devoted follower of the anarchist Emma Goldman (or "Red Emma" as she was called), who was eventually deported to the Soviet Union in 1919 for her communist activities. Goldman was a consistent promoter of anarchism, radical education. According to an online exhibit of Goldman's papers, her career "served as inspiration for Roger Baldwin, a future founder of the American Civil Liberties Union."

Crystal Eastman was a great admirer of the Soviet revolution. Of her many leftist friends and associates, Eastman held the highest regard for Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a passionate advocate of eugenics – the attempt to improve the human race through selective breeding. Abortion was a primary means to this "improvement," leading Sanger to write, "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Roger Baldwin was also a great admirer of Sanger. This adoration set the tone for the history of the ACLU concerning the issue of abortion. To this day, the group fights for the most extreme of pro-abortion positions, including support for partial-birth abortion and opposition to parental consent for minors.

Instead of being an organization that simply took a "wrong turn," the ACLU has devoted itself from the very beginning to the devastation of America's most cherished traditions, values, and laws.

Wham Bam wrote:

<quoted text>
...but I guess you only pay attention to your side of the argument.

Both David Horowitz and Michael Adams are right-wing racists and homophobes. As far as I'm concerned, they have every right to spew their bigotry, just like the "Rev." Fred Phelps. Fee speech is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment for all people, even bigots. However, bigots shouldn't be surprised when open-minded, tolerant people oppose their hate-filled messages.

Yuban wrote:

<quoted text>
Both David Horowitz and Michael Adams are right-wing racists and homophobes. As far as I'm concerned, they have every right to spew their bigotry, just like the "Rev." Fred Phelps. Fee speech is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment for all people, even bigots. However, bigots shouldn't be surprised when open-minded, tolerant people oppose their hate-filled messages.

I am not surprised by your close mindedness, but the point was to show you how your liberal brothers are censoring free speech.

Why don't you speak up for those you disagree with? Afterall, it is their right and you are more interested in protecting the rights than you are supressing what you disagree with aren't you??

In the end, I have given "specific examples and sources" to solidly enlighten what you were apparently ignorant of and, thus, I was not "babbling".