Student Charged for Writing Violent Essay

Originally Posted by Chan

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?

Originally Posted by Chan

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...

Originally Posted by Chan

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.

Originally Posted by Chan

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.

Originally Posted by Chan

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.

Originally Posted by Chan

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.

Originally Posted by Chan

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.