New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Free Speech? HS seniors expelled and denied graduation because of anti-black video

Happened in Georgia . More racist hypocrisy. Blacks are allowed too say bad things about whites all they want!!!!


apr 17 2020 Two Carrollton High School seniors were expelled Friday and won’t be allowed to graduate after a racist video they posted online went viral.

In a statement, Carrollton City Schools Superintendent Mark Albertus said the students’ behavior was unacceptable and “not representative of the district’s respect for all people.”

“The racist behavior observed in the video easily violates this standard,” he said. “They are no longer students at Carrollton High School.”
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
Why do some people think it's OK to publicly say hateful racist things against Blacks and other people of color?
Does it give them a feeling of power and privilege to use the N word?
All responses will be appreciated.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Why do some people think it's OK to publicly say hateful racist things against Blacks and other people of color?
"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. " - Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1 (1791)
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
"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. " - Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1 (1791)
Thank you, Emily. But, this 1st Amendment doesn't give a person the right to say absolutely anything they want to say. We can't say "FIRE" in a crowded theater. We can't say "RACIST" on this board.
I do believe a person should be able to say whatever they wish in their own home or among family and friends.
P.S. Did you hear about the trouble NASCAR driver Kyle Larson got into for using the N word? Google it.
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
The N word carries lots of historical baggage. It cannot be considered part of free speech protected by the Constitution.
I cannot think of any other word as toxic as the N word. Can anyone else think of a word as ugly as the N word?
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
I feel like the kids will apologize and play the victim card in next few days.
Just remember that they prepared for the racist video.
They have props and wrote and say the words.
So it’s not a mistake, it’s intentional and post it publicly.
They meant it to get attention. It worked. Suckers bought it. And made them famous.
'Gottcha-ism' in it's finest form
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
I feel like the kids will apologize and play the victim card in next few days.
Just remember that they prepared for the racist video.
They have props and wrote and say the words.
So it’s not a mistake, it’s intentional and post it publicly.
They meant it to get attention. It worked. Suckers bought it. And made them famous.
'Gottcha-ism' in it's finest form
They should look for better ways to get attention. Wonder what their parents think of this?
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Thank you, Emily. But, this 1st Amendment doesn't give a person the right to say absolutely anything they want to say. We can't say "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
You're quite welcome.
The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that freedom of speech is not an absolute right. I'd contend, however, that the constitution's framers intended it to be darn close to absolute and certainly much more free than it is now. Taking the 1A as a whole, one could argue that we do, in fact, have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and anyone who suffers from our doing so has a right to petition for redress of their grievance.

We can't say "RACIST" on this board.
There's a distinction between privately owned space, including a virtual one like this board, and public space. In the former, we're subject to the owner(s)' rules or we do not participate. In the later, we're free citizens constrained only by the law, the basic principles of which are (or ought to be) constrained by the constitution.

I do believe a person should be able to say whatever they wish in their own home or among family and friends.
One should hope so. Limiting free speech to one's home and own familiars, though, goes against the plain meaning and obvious intent of the 1A. The free speech clause exists to protect public, not private, speech from governmental constraints.

P.S. Did you hear about the trouble NASCAR driver Kyle Larson got into for using the N word?
I did. He's an idiot, but was within his constitutional rights, imo. How those with whom he's affiliated react to his exercise of those rights is their right.

The N word carries lots of historical baggage. It cannot be considered part of free speech protected by the Constitution.
I cannot think of any other word as toxic as the N word. Can anyone else think of a word as ugly as the N word?
One supposed that jews might find "the K word" equally as toxic. What about "the C word" for half the population? Different people, different perspectives.

Granted, the experience of negroes in the US, while similar in some respects to that of others, is ultimately unique and something no others can truly understand. Therefore, the reaction of a negro to 'the N word' isn't something to which anyone else can really relate. That said, if speech that some find offensive or hurtful isn't protected by the 1A then the 1A is meaningless.

There's also the slippery slope argument: Did you hear about the newscaster who used the term "chink in his armor" and was fired for being offensive to Chinese-Americans? Or the sportscaster who used "guerrilla tactics" in reference to a black athlete's playing and was fired because "guerrilla" is a homonym of "gorilla" and was, supposedly, offensive to blacks? Again, private employers may impose any restrictions to speech on the job as they want, but these are examples of speech restrictions taken to a ridiculous extreme. Do we want really want government to legislate public speech? If it can prohibit "the N word" it can prohibit any word.
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
You're quite welcome.
The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that freedom of speech is not an absolute right. I'd contend, however, that the constitution's framers intended it to be darn close to absolute and certainly much more free than it is now. Taking the 1A as a whole, one could argue that we do, in fact, have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and anyone who suffers from our doing so has a right to petition for redress of their grievance.


There's a distinction between privately owned space, including a virtual one like this board, and public space. In the former, we're subject to the owner(s)' rules or we do not participate. In the later, we're free citizens constrained only by the law, the basic principles of which are (or ought to be) constrained by the constitution.


One should hope so. Limiting free speech to one's home and own familiars, though, goes against the plain meaning and obvious intent of the 1A. The free speech clause exists to protect public, not private, speech from governmental constraints.


I did. He's an idiot, but was within his constitutional rights, imo. How those with whom he's affiliated react to his exercise of those rights is their right.


One supposed that jews might find "the K word" equally as toxic. What about "the C word" for half the population? Different people, different perspectives.

Granted, the experience of negroes in the US, while similar in some respects to that of others, is ultimately unique and something no others can truly understand. Therefore, the reaction of a negro to 'the N word' isn't something to which anyone else can really relate. That said, if speech that some find offensive or hurtful isn't protected by the 1A then the 1A is meaningless.

There's also the slippery slope argument: Did you hear about the newscaster who used the term "chink in his armor" and was fired for being offensive to Chinese-Americans? Or the sportscaster who used "guerrilla tactics" in reference to a black athlete's playing and was fired because "guerrilla" is a homonym of "gorilla" and was, supposedly, offensive to blacks? Again, private employers may impose any restrictions to speech on the job as they want, but these are examples of speech restrictions taken to a ridiculous extreme. Do we want really want government to legislate public speech? If it can prohibit "the N word" it can prohibit any word.
1) Perhaps the framers did intend for freedom of speech to be more literal than it is now. But, the Constitution is a living document and can be adjusted as the need arises. Example: When the Constitution was written the N word was in common, everyday use; it's what the framers called their enslaved Africans.
2) Public speech is protected in almost all cases. But, we should still use common sense and respect for others while exercising our free speech. It's not hard to get a point across in a nice way without insulting anyone.
3) Calling a Jewish person the K word publicly is ugly too. But, you rarely see that happen. Why? Because Jewish people have enough power to make you suffer if you do. Same with calling women the C word.
4) There is no such thing as a Negro. That is a racist term applied to African-Americans by White Supremacists. It is almost as bad as n****r IMO.
5) The slippery slope of language can be navigated quite well, as long as people think before they speak. This is a diverse, multicultural, multiracial society we live in. Maybe some words and phrases need to be let go i.e. chinck in his armour, guerilla tactics, the N word.
These are just my thoughts :)
 
Last edited:

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the prudence never to practice either of them"---Mark Twain.

It's ironic that I am a big fan of Mark Twain even though he used the N word constantly. But, he lived in a different time. And he actually was very liberal minded compared to most White people of his day. So, I'll give him a pass. :)
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
1) Perhaps the framers did intend for freedom of speech to be more literal than it is now. But, the Constitution is a living document and can be adjusted as the need arises. Example: When the Constitution was written the N word was in common, everyday use; it's what the framers called their enslaved Africans.
Yes, language changes over time (Your example Mark Twain and his use of "the N word" is a very relevant example). The principle behind the 1A, however, doesn't change. The constitution isn't a living document; it's a legal document that says what it says. There's a procedure for amending it. Unless it's amended, "abridging the freedom of speech" means what it means, which is the same as the framers' intended it to mean, and is as relevant today as it was when it was ratified and incorporated.

2) ... we should still use common sense and respect for others while exercising our free speech. It's not hard to get a point across in a nice way without insulting anyone.
Agreed, absolutely (and I wish more posters here would take that to heart).
A lack of common sense or of respect in one's use of speech shouldn't be punishable by law. Hurting people's feelings or offending their sensibilities causes no material harm and so should be punishable by law.

3) Calling a Jewish person the K word publicly is ugly too. But, you rarely see that happen. Why? Because Jewish people have enough power to make you suffer if you do. Same with calling women the C word.
Clearly, blacks have enough power to make someone who says "the N word" suffer-- loss of income, ruined reputation, etc. They're 13% of the US population and the majority population world-wide, make up a large proportion of about every major urban area in the US, are a major voting block and consumer cohort. Less money per capita and therefore less power than the jews, as one example, but hardly powerless.

4) There is no such thing as a Negro. That is a racist term applied to African-Americans by White Supremacists. It is almost as bad as n****r IMO.
I'll make an effort to avoid using "negro" when we interact out of consideration for you. However, it's the proper and technically accurate word, and so oughtn't be any more offensive than "Caucasian" or any other proper identifier. I'll not apologize for using correct terminology.

5) The slippery slope of language can be navigated quite well, as long as people think before they speak. This is a diverse, multicultural, multiracial society we live in. Maybe some words and phrases need to be let go i.e. chinck in his armour, guerilla tactics, the N word.
Yes, people should always think before they speak. Definitely and always -- Our words can hurt both others and ourselves.
People should also think before they react.
People should also know the language of the land in which they reside.
The word "chink" has a meaning other than as a disparaging reference to the Chinese; "chink in his armor" is a common phrase of longstanding that, obviously, has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. "Guerrilla" and "gorilla" are two different words that mean entirely different things, just as many other homonyms in the English language. "Guerrilla tactics" has nothing to do with apes. (btw, what connection is there between blacks and gorillas other than being indigenous to the same continent, just as the connection there is between Eskimos and polar bears or Australians and koalas?) To consider either term a racial epithet is ignorant. To be penalized for saying them is ridiculous and wrong.
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
Yes, language changes over time (Your example Mark Twain and his use of "the N word" is a very relevant example). The principle behind the 1A, however, doesn't change. The constitution isn't a living document; it's a legal document that says what it says. There's a procedure for amending it. Unless it's amended, "abridging the freedom of speech" means what it means, which is the same as the framers' intended it to mean, and is as relevant today as it was when it was ratified and incorporated.


Agreed, absolutely (and I wish more posters here would take that to heart).
A lack of common sense or of respect in one's use of speech shouldn't be punishable by law. Hurting people's feelings or offending their sensibilities causes no material harm and so should be punishable by law.


Clearly, blacks have enough power to make someone who says "the N word" suffer-- loss of income, ruined reputation, etc. They're 13% of the US population and the majority population world-wide, make up a large proportion of about every major urban area in the US, are a major voting block and consumer cohort. Less money per capita and therefore less power than the jews, as one example, but hardly powerless.


I'll make an effort to avoid using "negro" when we interact out of consideration for you. However, it's the proper and technically accurate word, and so oughtn't be any more offensive than "Caucasian" or any other proper identifier. I'll not apologize for using correct terminology.


Yes, people should always think before they speak. Definitely and always -- Our words can hurt both others and ourselves.
People should also think before they react.
People should also know the language of the land in which they reside.
The word "chink" has a meaning other than as a disparaging reference to the Chinese; "chink in his armor" is a common phrase of longstanding that, obviously, has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. "Guerrilla" and "gorilla" are two different words that mean entirely different things, just as many other homonyms in the English language. "Guerrilla tactics" has nothing to do with apes. (btw, what connection is there between blacks and gorillas other than being indigenous to the same continent, just as the connection there is between Eskimos and polar bears or Australians and koalas?) To consider either term a racial epithet is ignorant. To be penalized for saying them is ridiculous and wrong.
Emily, you've bought up some very relevant points. I enjoy debating the issues with you because you are smart and you listen to my opinions in a respectful way.
On this particular issue, our interpretation of the 1A, we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to make you change your mind, and you're not going to make me change my mind.
Thank you for the conversation.
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
"The Constitution of the United States is a living document because it was written to be adapted by future generations.
If it had not been written with such intentions, the government would be unable to ratify new amendments since this in itself is a change"---MLive posted Oct. 2, 2010
I just happened to come across this on the internet. I agree with it 100%. :)
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
I'm glad these phrases aren't protected by the 1A for public use. These are phrases I've heard. You folks may know of others.
1) "Worked like a n****r".
2) " You don't have a Chinaman's chance in Hell".
3) "Must have been a n****r in the woodpile".
4) "Inny minny mitey mo, catch a n****r by the toe".
Yes. I'm glad the Constitution is a living document. :)
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
"The Constitution of the United States is a living document because it was written to be adapted by future generations.
If it had not been written with such intentions, the government would be unable to ratify new amendments since this in itself is a change"---MLive posted Oct. 2, 2010
I just happened to come across this on the internet. I agree with it 100%.
i agree with it, too, and using "living document" in that way is fine by me. What most people mean when the say "living document" isn't that, though. Rather, they mean that it can be reinterpreted, without amendment, to mean whatever suits their politics or legislative agenda. It's that to which i object.

I'm glad these phrases aren't protected by the 1A for public use. These are phrases I've heard. You folks may know of others.
1) "Worked like a n****r".
2) " You don't have a Chinaman's chance in Hell".
3) "Must have been a n****r in the woodpile".
4) "Inny minny mitey mo, catch a n****r by the toe".
Yes. I'm glad the Constitution is a living document. :)
i'm glad that most people consider the use of such phrases to be unacceptable.
i'm also glad that we have the 1A protecting people's unalienable right to speak their minds ... no matter how small their minds may be. For if government has the power to shut up a fool it has the power to shut up a genius

Emily, you've bought up some very relevant points. I enjoy debating the issues with you because you are smart and you listen to my opinions in a respectful way.
Thank you for your kind words. The sentiment goes both ways.
 

Sunset Rose

Mayor
Supporting Member
i agree with it, too, and using "living document" in that way is fine by me. What most people mean when the say "living document" isn't that, though. Rather, they mean that it can be reinterpreted, without amendment, to mean whatever suits their politics or legislative agenda. It's that to which i object.


i'm glad that most people consider the use of such phrases to be unacceptable.
i'm also glad that we have the 1A protecting people's unalienable right to speak their minds ... no matter how small their minds may be. For if government has the power to shut up a fool it has the power to shut up a genius


Thank you for your kind words. The sentiment goes both ways.
:)
 
Top