4 ms·

Don't you think you're walking a bit of an edge there, minimising racism by equating it with criticism of an organisation? I hope you're aware the history of i

Don't you think you're walking a bit of an edge there, minimising racism by equating it with criticism of an organisation? I hope you're aware the history of it isn't something that should be trivialised?

scoopertrooper 5y ago
This case would be argued along exactly the same lines before the court had the student in question thrown in a racial slur. It will also have an impact on the ability for schools to punish students for racist cyberbullying in future. So I don't think it's problematic in the slightest to bring race into the equation.
- textgel 5y ago
  One is criticism of the running and operation of an organisation; the other is steeped in the history of genocide and slavery, there are even laws in place around the world to protect people from it because of it's heinousness. But you're professing that advocacy of racism is no more malignant than basic complaints about a company? I'm not sure if what you're advocating is because of perhaps missing education on the subject but this is a serious hot button issue at the moment; I'm honestly surprised you'd espouse this so freely.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    An unreformed racist sprouting out bigotry and a teenage girl having a bit of a moan about the cheerleading squad are both protected forms of speech under the first amendment. If the Supreme Court made an exceptionally broad ruling to the effect of forbidding any organ of the state revoking an appointment on the basis of first amendment protected speech uttered while not performing duties, then the ruling would protect a racist police officer and irate cheerleader equally. The Supreme Court is, of course, very unlikely to make such a broad ruling in this case, but it does seem like that's the remedy which quite a few people in this thread would like to see decided.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

4 ms·

Don't you think you're walking a bit of an edge there, minimising racism by equating it with criticism of an organisation? I hope you're aware the history of i

by textgel 5y ago

scoopertrooper 5y ago
This case would be argued along exactly the same lines before the court had the student in question thrown in a racial slur. It will also have an impact on the ability for schools to punish students for racist cyberbullying in future. So I don't think it's problematic in the slightest to bring race into the equation.
- textgel 5y ago
  One is criticism of the running and operation of an organisation; the other is steeped in the history of genocide and slavery, there are even laws in place around the world to protect people from it because of it's heinousness. But you're professing that advocacy of racism is no more malignant than basic complaints about a company? I'm not sure if what you're advocating is because of perhaps missing education on the subject but this is a serious hot button issue at the moment; I'm honestly surprised you'd espouse this so freely.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    An unreformed racist sprouting out bigotry and a teenage girl having a bit of a moan about the cheerleading squad are both protected forms of speech under the first amendment. If the Supreme Court made an exceptionally broad ruling to the effect of forbidding any organ of the state revoking an appointment on the basis of first amendment protected speech uttered while not performing duties, then the ruling would protect a racist police officer and irate cheerleader equally. The Supreme Court is, of course, very unlikely to make such a broad ruling in this case, but it does seem like that's the remedy which quite a few people in this thread would like to see decided.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]