Comment on Girl, 7, 'Too Young' for First Amendment Rights, Punished for 'Racist' BLM Drawing
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 4 months ago
The first amendment does not and has never protected hate speech, so her first amendment rights were not violated.
The first amendment protects citizens from speaking out against government. It is not license to say anything.
Why do conservatives constantly forget this? Its almost like they don’t know basic constitutional law.
“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.”
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Then you misunderstand, because years of legal precedent disagree lol.
Yeah someone is making crap up. “Hate” speech is still protected under the 1st amendment. Now she is a student which has more restrictions but the term all lives matter is a nice gesture since she’s seven.
The parents will win if they go to court.
Hate speech is very much not protected under the 1st amendment:
Even your linked articlevsays it is. You just cant make specific and clear threats that you have the ability to follow through on.
jimbolauski@lemm.ee 3 months ago
While there are established limits to free speech, the Schenck v US rulling was narrow in scope and doesn’t apply to a little girl drawling a picture. If you’re going to cite case law at least find applicable cases and not just pick the 1st one in your search without reading the ruling.
There are many more applicable rulings, mostly to do with how much a school can limit a student’s speach, even those do not cover everything, which is what the Supreme Court is for. Why do liberals constantly forget this? It’s almost like they don’t know constitutional law.