Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
If I were the owner of a buisness would it be ok for me to wear a sexually offensive shirt twoard women? I bet you I would get sued for sexual harasment if I did. Freedom of Speech is not freedom to be an asshole.
|
You would be within your rights. Women would also be within their rights to sue you.
How it played out in court would depend what kind of damage the women were claiming and how that related to the nature of your business. If you worked at a rape crisis shelter, you'd probably lose. If you work at a fetish SMBD strip club, it probably wouldn't work.
Also at question would be the nature of the shirt. If you're wearing a plain white undershirt, they'd probably lose their case, even if that type of shirt is known as a "wifebeater" and is potentially offensive. If there text of the shirt was without question meant to be offensive, it might go the other way.
It's largely a matter of speech that
is offensive vs. speech that
offends.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
no you are wrong flstf freedom of speach is not unlimited. There are many things you cannot say legally. For instance I can not legally lie about someone else. I cannot say things that would insite panic or violence (yelling fire in a crowded theator, insiting others to attack someone, ect). You cannot say you want to kill or someone should kill the president.
|
And these example have what to do with a dress made out of a flag?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
This dress falls under the saying things that could insight panic or violence.
|
No, it does not. The dress does not call for any specific action or response.
ANY symbol or speech could incite panic or violence depending on how people choose to respond to it. For the restriction of speech to be justified it has to be shown that the panicked, violent, or toherwise illegal response is the intended reaction. This is why you can't give false alarm (shout fire in a theater), express intention to commit a crime, or call for others to commit crimes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
It could have easily escelated things at the prom to a dangerous levels putting everyone at risk.
|
Those at fault would be those that escalated things and put others at risk. The dress poses no such risk on its own.
Surely you're not suggesting the police were in the right to supress the uppity negros on account that they made the white folks angry by asserting their rights?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
The administration was 100% correct in not letting her wear it. Of course the freedom of speech would only matter if this were a publicly funded event but it wasn't it was privatly funded and as such the school can make up whatever rules they want.
|
No, the private organization holding the event could make up whatever rules they want. "The school" is not a private organization. Even if by some sleight of hand we accept that there is an ad hoc private organization made up of school administrators, that is not really the school, we then have to bring up the question of this private organization being granted favored access to the students by the school. By selecting which private organization hosts the prom and sets the rules, the school is in effect choosing the rules... which puts us back to square one, private funding or no private funding. If by some further sleight of hand we ignore that... we then have a conflict of interest in the school chosing a private organization managed by its own staff.
How it would finally settle up would probably depend on what policies the school has in place to react to the students organizing their own "private event" without accepting any input from the school.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
For instance is it against free speech that they force people to go to prom in formal attire? What if i wanted to go in a speedo. That should be allowed right? Yet the dance requires formal attire.
|
Now that you bring it up, I'm not sure I'd agree that it could
require formal attire. I think highschool culture is sufficiently self-regulating that the people not wanting to wear formal attire (and, yes, baby blue crushed velvet with ruffled front or a t-shirt printed to look like a tuxedo count as formal attire. Even if you're trying to be ironical, you're still paying homage to formal attire) choose to boycott rather than attend. Personally, I'd make no issue of it, let you get ostracised (but not abused), and go get another glass of punch as you fled. That or be mightily impressed by the metaphorical size of your prominently displayed balls.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
Any time one's actions are going to, or likely to produce violence or harm to someone, the right to expression is properly limited.
|
This is already covered above. Obscure laws about "fightin words" aside, you can say just about anything you want provided you do not express intent to commit a crime, call others to criminal action, or give false alarm. I suppose slander and libel would come up, too, but I believe that's civil law. If you say something, and someone becomes angry and causes a disturbance, they are the one primarily at fault. It is in the better interests of the state to encourage self-control than to restrict free expression.
For example, it's illegal to incite a riot, but the police can't stop you from speaking to a crowd because you might possibly get the mob riled. After you've committed a crime they have justification for restricting your rights... not before. Which is another important point that I think has been missed. Prior restraint is very difficult to justify.
If you think about it, the justification being made is that you think the students at this highschool lack the maturity and/or intelligence to respond to an ugly dress in any way besides violence. Granted I've known some stupid people from Kentucky (and, incidentally, I count this girl among them), but I'd give them more credit than that.