Student Charged for Writing Violent Essay

[Chan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18353425/&GT1=9246

So much for free speech! What's next, charging a student for writing about the "violence" of sinners burning in the lake of fire?

[Trouvere]

my husband read this aloud to me this afternoon.This guy wrote some wierd stuff.

[Chan]

my husband read this aloud to me this afternoon.This guy wrote some wierd stuff.I agree that it was some weird stuff but there's nothing unconstitutional about writing weird stuff.

[Vegas]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18353425/&GT1=9246

So much for free speech! What's next, charging a student for writing about the "violence" of sinners burning in the lake of fire?

Wow Chan... this doesn't even deserve my sarcasm... are you really siding with this person?

[Chan]

Wow Chan... this doesn't even deserve my sarcasm... are you really siding with this person?Within the narrow confines of the United States Constitution, I side with the right of this student to write things that are stupid, vile and offensive as much as I side with the right of others to find what the student wrote to be stupid, vile and offensive.

[Vegas]

The freedom of speech does not give a person the right "to yell fire in a crowded theatre" and as far as I am concerned a member and a representative this country should not write things that would deem inappropriate to others.

The MCJ is the original Jurisprudence of members of the military not the constitution. This is the same reason it is not against the law for a normal person to commit adultery yet a member of the armed forces will be discharged and spend years in jail for this.

[Chan]

The freedom of speech does not give a person the right "to yell fire in a crowded theatre" and as far as I am concerned a member and a representative this country should not write things that would deem inappropriate to others.Where is it written in the first amendment that there are limits to the right to free speech? I agree it's irresponsible and potentially dangerous to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but there is nothing in the first amendment that places limits on free speech. As for your belief that an American should not write things that others would deem inappropriate, who gets to decide what "inappropriate" is? Since the majority of Americans are supposedly "Christian" (I don't accept that particular view but let's just go with it for a moment), an atheist writing against the existence of God might be deemed "inappropriate." Should his right to write such nonsense be denied in a country that espouses freedom of speech?

The MCJ is the original Jurisprudence of members of the military not the constitution. This is the same reason it is not against the law for a normal person to commit adultery yet a member of the armed forces will be discharged and spend years in jail for this.The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Vegas]

A long line of First Amendment cases recognizes that freedom of expression is not absolute. Even where the First Amendment fully applies, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously wrote, no one has the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, the First Amendment does not protect defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, threats or harassment, to cite just a few of the well-established, judicially approved limitations on free speech.

And Yes the UCMJ is very relevant as this person was a member of the military and COULD have been punished much more harshly

[Chan]

A long line of First Amendment cases recognizes that freedom of expression is not absolute. Even where the First Amendment fully applies, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously wrote, no one has the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, the First Amendment does not protect defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, threats or harassment, to cite just a few of the well-established, judicially approved limitations on free speech.Oh, please, don't give me this Supreme Court nonsense! Court decisions can (and sometimes have been) overturned by successive Supreme Court decisions. Besides, there's nothing in Article III (as amended) that gives the Court the right to "interpret" the Constitution or otherwise impose limits on what is set forth there.

And Yes the UCMJ is very relevant as this person was a member of the military and COULD have been punished much more harshlyMembers of the armed forces do, in fact, lose some of their rights by virtue of being in the military. However, this kid hadn't even gone to boot camp yet. I'm not denying the Marine Corps right to release the kid from his contract against his will (though a federal court might), I'm objecting to the school turning the essay over to the police and the police charging the kid with a crime. Further, the article never said what crime the student supposedly committed. It only said that "The charges could result in a $1,500 fine and as many as 30 days in jail if Lee is convicted." Note what also was said in the article: "'The teacher told students: "Be creative; there will be no judgment and no censorship,"' Thomas Loizzo said. 'There was never any warning from the teacher that if she determined the paper to be offensive, she would then pass it along to the authorities.'"

[Vegas]

Oh, please, don't give me this Supreme Court nonsense! Court decisions can (and sometimes have been) overturned by successive Supreme Court decisions. Besides, there's nothing in Article III (as amended) that gives the Court the right to "interpret" the Constitution or otherwise impose limits on what is set forth there.

Members of the armed forces do, in fact, lose some of their rights by virtue of being in the military. However, this kid hadn't even gone to boot camp yet. I'm not denying the Marine Corps right to release the kid from his contract against his will (though a federal court might), I'm objecting to the school turning the essay over to the police and the police charging the kid with a crime. Further, the article never said what crime the student supposedly committed. It only said that "The charges could result in a $1,500 fine and as many as 30 days in jail if Lee is convicted." Note what also was said in the article: "'The teacher told students: "Be creative; there will be no judgment and no censorship,"' Thomas Loizzo said. 'There was never any warning from the teacher that if she determined the paper to be offensive, she would then pass it along to the authorities.'"

Listen as someone whom deals with psychology (I am not going to give the extent to which I do) I understand the need to catch things this early into it.

The student that shot and killed 32 other students at VT had been brought to a counseling center because of his writing.

The issue I see is that the student DID violate the safety and rights of others by his writing.

The point I would like to make is that if he were to fight the appeal it would end up in a supreme court case, where they would err on the side of safety.

The fact of the matter is the Supreme Court has the authoritative right to interpret what the first amendment of the constitution means when it says the right to freedom of speech. Here is where that is found:

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."

The first amendment is a granted freedom and as a preacher I do know this amendment by heart:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Which if you ask me is not at hand here... the amendment states that congress (later extended to the states as well) shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech... they did not say this person could not say the things he said the issue was the things he said were deemed to cause a situation where it seemed to infringe upon others safety.

[Chan]

Listen as someone whom deals with psychology (I am not going to give the extent to which I do) I understand the need to catch things this early into it.Your credibility just went out the window. If you hadn't claimed some association with that wicked worldly philosophy (psychology), I might have a different opinion. I agree that there is a need to address potential problems early on - before they become problems - but the way they should have done it was to go to the parents and let the parents get whatever "help" they felt was appropriate.

The student that shot and killed 32 other students at VT had been brought to a counseling center because of his writing.Obviously the counseling didn't do him any good. Maybe the real issue there wasn't some sort of "mental illness" but, instead, evil. Humans are evil by nature. Jesus went so far as to say that there is none good but God.

The issue I see is that the student DID violate the safety and rights of others by his writing. Nonsense! There is no constitutional right to be protected from the writings of others and there is nothing unsafe about the written word. Now, if this kid had acted on his strange views then that's an entirely different matter.

The point I would like to make is that if he were to fight the appeal it would end up in a supreme court case, where they would err on the side of safety.I'm not sure the present Supreme Court would err on the side of safety but I agree with the person who said more than two hundred years ago that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little security don't deserve to have either one.


The fact of the matter is the Supreme Court has the authoritative right to interpret what the first amendment of the constitution means when it says the right to freedom of speech. Here is where that is found:

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."
This is not the authority to interpret the Constitution or any of its amendments.

The first amendment is a granted freedom and as a preacher I do know this amendment by heart:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.No, it is not a granted freedom, it's a prohibition against the government.

Which if you ask me is not at hand here... the amendment states that congress (later extended to the states as well) shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech... they did not say this person could not say the things he said the issue was the things he said were deemed to cause a situation where it seemed to infringe upon others safety.The issue here is the abridging of the freedom of speech. The written word does not infringe on other people's safety and, even if it does, the first amendment specifically states that freedom of speech is not to be abridged.

[synycisity]

I am a friend of Vegas, and I would like to try and finish where he left off... (no I am not he I am a friend and he will be back soon).

[synycisity]

Your credibility just went out the window. If you hadn't claimed some association with that wicked worldly philosophy (psychology), I might have a different opinion. I agree that there is a need to address potential problems early on - before they become problems - but the way they should have done it was to go to the parents and let the parents get whatever "help" they felt was appropriate.

Wow, you are kidding about psychology I hope.... you just said Vegas had an association with a wicked philosophy I wonder if I can report that?



Obviously the counseling didn't do him any good. Maybe the real issue there wasn't some sort of "mental illness" but, instead, evil. Humans are evil by nature. Jesus went so far as to say that there is none good but God.

Because he did not go through with the counseling... you cannot FORCE a person to get counseling (in this situation but in others you can, I highly disagree with it). I agree that only God is good but what does that have to do with this discussion? Seriously I have read all the posts thus far and it seems you have meandered off the path...

Nonsense! There is no constitutional right to be protected from the writings of others and there is nothing unsafe about the written word. Now, if this kid had acted on his strange views then that's an entirely different matter.

In the preamble of the constitution it declares "and provide for the common defense" this to me seems to denote that we are protected from individuals.


I'm not sure the present Supreme Court would err on the side of safety but I agree with the person who said more than two hundred years ago that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little security don't deserve to have either one.

Thanks for the pointless comment offering's the feudalism.

This is not the authority to interpret the Constitution or any of its amendments.

It does... because judicial power is set to interpret the law... they are the frontlines and that is exactly what they were intended to do.

No, it is not a granted freedom, it's a prohibition against the government.

Is not prohibiting infringement against not granting the freedom thereof? I fail to see any logic in that statement as well as others where you say that you do not imply...ever... thats silly because by saying that it is a prohibition you just implied that the right to free speech wont be infringed upon.


The issue here is the abridging of the freedom of speech. The written word does not infringe on other people's safety and, even if it does, the first amendment specifically states that freedom of speech is not to be abridged.

That is what Vegas said.... written speech does infringe upon other peoples safety... if I write something that would cause someone else to feel unsafe about my actions I am therefore taking away their right to feel safe. The freedom of speech was never intended to mean slander vulgarity... I guarantee the forefathers did not have playboy in mind when they gave freedom of the press.. this is why we have the Supreme court. New things come about that were not accounted for.

The freedom of speech was there to appease the conservative people.. they did not want the government to infringe upon peoples rights to do the things they had been doing all their lives. IT was added because it had been done many times before where people were not allowed to speak ill of leaders without punishment.. so the federalists wrote that in as an AMENDMENT to the constitution.

[synycisity]

I wrote an extensive reply to Chan... it is not showing up?

[IAintMovin]

I wrote an extensive reply to Chan... it is not showing up?
Wow you look just like Vagas in your posting style.......hummmm......me thinks I will check more into this......

[Chan]

Wow, you are kidding about psychology I hope.... you just said Vegas had an association with a wicked philosophy I wonder if I can report that?My utter contempt for psychology is well known here.




Because he did not go through with the counseling... you cannot FORCE a person to get counseling (in this situation but in others you can, I highly disagree with it). I agree that only God is good but what does that have to do with this discussion? Seriously I have read all the posts thus far and it seems you have meandered off the path...Vegas said "The student that shot and killed 32 other students at VT had been brought to a counseling center because of his writing." My reply, which was directly related to this particular statement Vegas made, was "Obviously the counseling didn't do him any good. Maybe the real issue there wasn't some sort of "mental illness" but, instead, evil. Humans are evil by nature. Jesus went so far as to say that there is none good but God." What my statement about how only God is good is relevant to the specific statement to which I replied and was intended to support my statement that humans are evil by nature and, thus, my speculation that the kid's real problem was not so-called "mental illness" but evil.


In the preamble of the constitution it declares "and provide for the common defense" this to me seems to denote that we are protected from individuals.Only if you stretch it so far out of proportion as to make it unrecognizable! Of course, being protected from individuals is not the same as some fabrication about having a right to be protected from what people say or write.



Thanks for the pointless comment offering's the feudalism.Your sentence makes no sense whatsoever.


It does... because judicial power is set to interpret the law... they are the frontlines and that is exactly what they were intended to do.There is nothing in Article III of the Constitution that even remotely suggests interpreting the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution is the standard against which laws are to be interpreted.

Is not prohibiting infringement against not granting the freedom thereof?No, because the founders held that it is not governments that grant rights. The government cannot grant or deny rights.

I fail to see any logic in that statement as well as others where you say that you do not imply...ever... thats silly because by saying that it is a prohibition you just implied that the right to free speech wont be infringed upon.I don't imply. My statements mean exactly and only what is written and it is not your place to assign any other meaning to them. In stating that the government was prohibited from abridging the right of free speech, the founding fathers accepted that there was a right of free speech. Read the first amendment for yourself.


That is what Vegas said.... written speech does infringe upon other peoples safety... if I write something that would cause someone else to feel unsafe about my actions I am therefore taking away their right to feel safe. The freedom of speech was never intended to mean slander vulgarity... I guarantee the forefathers did not have playboy in mind when they gave freedom of the press.. this is why we have the Supreme court. New things come about that were not accounted for.I know what he said, I placed my reply right after the quote! And, again, NO, written speech does not infringe upon the safety of other and, further, there is no right to "feel" safe. The amendment says that the freedom of speech shall not be abridged. You must take that absolutely literally because the founding fathers did not further qualify the statement. Of course, freedom of the press has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

The freedom of speech was there to appease the conservative people.. they did not want the government to infringe upon peoples rights to do the things they had been doing all their lives. IT was added because it had been done many times before where people were not allowed to speak ill of leaders without punishment.. so the federalists wrote that in as an AMENDMENT to the constitution.No the first amendment (and the other nine in the "Bill of Rights" were insisted upon by at least some of the states as a condition upon which they would ratify the Constitution. Since the states were being asked to give up some of their autonomy to a federal government, they wanted certain guarantees that would keep the federal government in check.