Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

LifeFuel "Exterminate the Jews": Federal appeals court affirms high school student’s First Amendment right to make edgy jokes

PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
26,867
Online
250d 9h 52m
Despite the oft-repeated and misleading SJW talking point that "freedom of speech doesn't protect one from freedom of consequences," the First Amendment does in fact protect one from consequences imposed by state actors—including public schools. And one thing that American school administrators seem to forget constantly is that students, too, have free speech rights, more so when they’re off-campus.

Last month, officials at the Cherry Creek School District in Colorado learned this the hard way when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit revived a federal lawsuit filed against the district for violating the First Amendment.

You can read the Tenth Circuit's decision in C1.G. v. Siegfried here.

Related news article for lazycels:

Background

On September 13th, 2019, C.G. was shopping at a thrift store with his friends when they decided to try on costumes and silly hats, including one that resembled a WWII-era military hat. C.G. took a picture of three of his friends and posted it as a Snapchat story, with an accompanying tagline: "Me and the boys bout to exterminate the Jews". Soon after, C.G. deleted the post (see below), realizing that the joke was in bad taste.

D7cab34d ddf2 4639 8faf 0d5f4a190141 1140x641

But a femoid Snapchat "friend" had already screenshotted the post and notified her parents, who called the police and shared it with other parents. A police officer visited C.G.'s home and determined that there was no threat. Four parents filed a complaint with the school district. C.G. was initially suspended for five days before school officials decided on expulsion.

C.G.'s parents soon filed a federal lawsuit, but the district court dismissed the case in August 2020, which erroneously held that the school's responsibility to prevent disruptions on campus trumped C.G.'s First Amendment rights. C.G.'s parents appealed.

But while C.G.'s case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on an unrelated but similar case involving high school students' online speech rights. Brandi Levy (see below) was a high school sophomore in Pennsylvania who was upset about not having been selected for the varsity team. So, after school hours, she went on Snapchat and posted a picture of herself giving the middle finger, with the caption "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything". Levy's coaches found out and kicked her off the junior varsity team. After Levy’s parents sued, a federal judge granted an injunction ordering Levy's high school to reinstate her to the JV cheerleading team. The school district appealed the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court sided with Levy in an 8-1 ruling.

 119021147 hi066991455

Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored the majority opinion in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021), declined to specify where exactly schools can regulate off-campus speech without infringing on the First Amendment. Instead, Breyer merely noted that the courts should be "skeptical" of schools' attempts to regulate off-campus speech, that schools must face a "heavy burden" to justify doing so, and that schools themselves have an interest in protecting, not suppressing, unpopular speech: (Id. at 2046)
“America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy. Our representative democracy only works if we protect the “marketplace of ideas.” This free exchange facilitates an informed public opinion, which, when transmitted to lawmakers, helps produce laws that reflect the People’s will. That protection must include the protection of unpopular ideas, for popular ideas have less need for protection.”

Justice Samuel Alito agreed with Breyer. In a concurring opinion, Alito noted that allowing schools to punish students merely for unpopular speech would be tantamount to a heckler's veto: "If listeners riot because they find speech offensive, schools should punish the rioters, not the speaker."

The Tenth Circuit's Decision

2015 3 8 Byron White Courthouse
The Byron White U.S. Courthouse in Denver, CO

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mahanoy, it's unsurprising that free speech advocates and school administrators alike turned their attention to C.G.'s case: both involved high school students using Snapchat outside school hours. No less than four civil rights organizations—the ACLU of Colorado, FIRE, EFF, and the Cato Institute—filed amicus briefs in support of C.G.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the Cherry Creek School District and the National School Boards Association attempted to distinguish C.G.'s online speech from that of Levy's on the basis that it was “uniquely regulable” because it was “hate speech targeting the Jewish community”.

A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit unanimously rejected this argument. Judge Paul Joseph Kelly Jr., joined by Judges Scott Matheson Jr. and Carolyn B. McHugh, wrote that C.G.’s off-campus joke about “exterminating the Jews” would “generally receive First Amendment protection because it does not constitute a true threat, fighting words, or obscenity.” In a footnote, Judge Kelly added that “words as mere political argument, idle talk or jest” do not constitute “true threats”, citing United States v. Heineman, 767 F.3d 970, 972-973 (10th Cir. 2014).

“Defendants [the school district] cannot claim a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption to regulate C.G.’s off-campus speech by simply invoking the words “harass” and “hate” when C.G.’s speech does not constitute harassment and its hateful nature is not regulable in this context,” Judge Kelly concluded.

Why this Case Matters

Over the years, schools and public employers alike have expanded their definition of “discrimination” and “bullying” to cover not only violent threats and targeted harassment but also the mere utterance of politically incorrect viewpoints. Most institutions have spinelessly acquiesced to left-wing demands to enforce ideological conformity at the expense of freedom of speech and due process. It was inevitable that the excesses of progressivism would run into constitutional headwinds.

For decades, the judiciary has consistently held that “hate speech” is in fact free speech, even in an educational setting. Since the late 1980s, the federal courts repeatedly have struck down “anti-discrimination” speech codes, much to the chagrin of soys. See e.g., Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich.1989); UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991); Bair v. Shippensburg University, 280 F. Supp. 2d. 357 (M.D. Pa. 2003). As recently as 2021, the Sixth Circuit found that a college professor had a First Amendment right to “misgender” his students. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021).

Though C1.G. v. Siegfried considers the off-campus speech rights of high school students writing online (as opposed to the on-campus speech rights of college students and professors), the gist of the decision remains similar: it is not the place of educators to act as the social justice thought police.

All of these precedential First Amendment cases have important implications for American incels. Imagine if a 16-year-old boy was sitting at a cafe or in the town library after school, and a classmate inadvertently noticed his screen activity. Perhaps he was venting on Discord or Reddit or even our forum. “i hate my life all the foids at school are sluts who suck chads cock only” might upset a leftist school administrator, but as it currently stands, the U.S. Constitution bars public schools from disciplining a student for writing such a comment outside school hours.

For us, it’s a positive development that both the U.S. Supreme Court and now the Tenth Circuit have put overzealous school officials on notice: You may face legal consequences for trampling on your students’ constitutionally protected speech, even if a mob of pink-haired soys are triggered by “muh hates peach”. :feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:

Keep seething, cucks. These based federal judges have lifetime appointments and will be around for quite a while. :feelsLSD::feelsLSD::feelsLSD:
 
Vitarius

Vitarius

Catholicel
Joined
May 12, 2022
Posts
1,055
Online
30d 10h 40m
Recently a student was expelled from the public university where I study, because of "racist comments". Not only that, but the Brazilian State is also investigating him because racist speech is a crime in Brazil.

It sucks having to live in this kind of political tyranny.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
26,867
Online
250d 9h 52m
Recently a student was expelled from the public university where I study, because of "racist comments". Not only that, but the Brazilian State is also investigating him because racist speech is a crime in Brazil.

It sucks having to live in this kind of political tyranny.
bolsonaro is a cuck
 
C

ChrolloLucilfer04

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 31, 2021
Posts
409
Online
3d 15h 31m
Recently a student was expelled from the public university where I study, because of "racist comments". Not only that, but the Brazilian State is also investigating him because racist speech is a crime in Brazil.

It sucks having to live in this kind of political tyranny.
Wtf is wrong with Brazil…
Globohomo spare nobody with their agenda

Home to one of the most beautiful stacy/Becky in the world
Now a feminist shithole
 
Broly

Broly

Designer to the ground I can barely spell the name
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 6, 2021
Posts
31,743
Online
203d 7h 38m
yoooo it's me, @Broly, and @Azaylias (in that order)
Massive cope. You’re in the middle with me and the penguin from family guy 1999
 
Meus

Meus

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Posts
7,245
Online
150d 9h 31m
Never happened
They deserved it
Should have happened
It will happen again
 
doomed 7

doomed 7

believer. j3ws are your enemy. get back to god!
★★
Joined
Jul 13, 2019
Posts
1,675
Online
19d 4h 37m
so many hard English words why do u flex hard english bro
 
BraincelsRefugee

BraincelsRefugee

KHHFDTV 5'7 curry truecel
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
8,393
Online
87d 11h 31m
Recently a student was expelled from the public university where I study, because of "racist comments". Not only that, but the Brazilian State is also investigating him because racist speech is a crime in Brazil.

It sucks having to live in this kind of political tyranny.
Cuckzil will arrest some kid for making a racist comment while a new video of favela niggers robbing each other and shooting up stores pops up on gore websites every day
 
Glerforpus

Glerforpus

Major
★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Posts
2,349
Online
7d 9h 44m
Based court :feelsaww:
But a femoid Snapchat "friend" had already screenshotted the post and notified her parents, who called the police and shared it with other parents
How mentally ill do you have to be to call the cops on this?
 
fukurou

fukurou

the supreme coder
★★★★
Joined
Dec 17, 2021
Posts
877
Online
20d 13h 15m
the fuck is varsity ? sounds like whore pokecenter
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
26,867
Online
250d 9h 52m
the fuck is varsity ? sounds like whore pokecenter
at least in north america, like a high school's main sports team for a particular sport. cheerleading isn't really a sport though.

junior varsity is like a second team that's slightly worse
 
erenyeager

erenyeager

Destroy the world for inceldia
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 18, 2021
Posts
12,459
Online
73d 8h 28m
Massive cope. You’re in the middle with me and the penguin from family guy 1999
nigger, im literally right there. quit that nt shit and accept your brocel (in videogame)
 
W

weedwhacker

Greycel
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Posts
18
Online
3h 24m
Despite the oft-repeated and misleading SJW talking point that "freedom of speech doesn't protect one from freedom of consequences,"
have you ever heard of "the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law", concept?
 
Azaylias

Azaylias

Born to be ungovernable Forced to pay taxes
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Posts
928
Online
91d 10h 37m
shhh They aren't supposed to know that you're actually the penguin from @FamilyGuy1999
oy vey the goyim know im the penguin from familyguy1999

shut it down
 
GeneralKnoxx

GeneralKnoxx

Recruit
★★
Joined
Aug 4, 2022
Posts
100
Online
14h 15m
Despite the oft-repeated and misleading SJW talking point that "freedom of speech doesn't protect one from freedom of consequences," the First Amendment does in fact protect one from consequences imposed by state actors—including public schools. And one thing that American school administrators seem to forget constantly is that students, too, have free speech rights, more so when they’re off-campus.

Last month, officials at the Cherry Creek School District in Colorado learned this the hard way when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit revived a federal lawsuit filed against the district for violating the First Amendment.

You can read the Tenth Circuit's decision in C1.G. v. Siegfried here.

Related news article for lazycels:

Background

On September 13th, 2019, C.G. was shopping at a thrift store with his friends when they decided to try on costumes and silly hats, including one that resembled a WWII-era military hat. C.G. took a picture of three of his friends and posted it as a Snapchat story, with an accompanying tagline: "Me and the boys bout to exterminate the Jews". Soon after, C.G. deleted the post (see below), realizing that the joke was in bad taste.

View attachment 645089

But a femoid Snapchat "friend" had already screenshotted the post and notified her parents, who called the police and shared it with other parents. A police officer visited C.G.'s home and determined that there was no threat. Four parents filed a complaint with the school district. C.G. was initially suspended for five days before school officials decided on expulsion.

C.G.'s parents soon filed a federal lawsuit, but the district court dismissed the case in August 2020, which erroneously held that the school's responsibility to prevent disruptions on campus trumped C.G.'s First Amendment rights. C.G.'s parents appealed.

But while C.G.'s case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on an unrelated but similar case involving high school students' online speech rights. Brandi Levy (see below) was a high school sophomore in Pennsylvania who was upset about not having been selected for the varsity team. So, after school hours, she went on Snapchat and posted a picture of herself giving the middle finger, with the caption "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything". Levy's coaches found out and kicked her off the junior varsity team. After Levy’s parents sued, a federal judge granted an injunction ordering Levy's high school to reinstate her to the JV cheerleading team. The school district appealed the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court sided with Levy in an 8-1 ruling.

View attachment 645091

Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored the majority opinion in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021), declined to specify where exactly schools can regulate off-campus speech without infringing on the First Amendment. Instead, Breyer merely noted that the courts should be "skeptical" of schools' attempts to regulate off-campus speech, that schools must face a "heavy burden" to justify doing so, and that schools themselves have an interest in protecting, not suppressing, unpopular speech: (Id. at 2046)


Justice Samuel Alito agreed with Breyer. In a concurring opinion, Alito noted that allowing schools to punish students merely for unpopular speech would be tantamount to a heckler's veto: "If listeners riot because they find speech offensive, schools should punish the rioters, not the speaker."

The Tenth Circuit's Decision

View attachment 645090
The Byron White U.S. Courthouse in Denver, CO

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mahanoy, it's unsurprising that free speech advocates and school administrators alike turned their attention to C.G.'s case: both involved high school students using Snapchat outside school hours. No less than four civil rights organizations—the ACLU of Colorado, FIRE, EFF, and the Cato Institute—filed amicus briefs in support of C.G.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the Cherry Creek School District and the National School Boards Association attempted to distinguish C.G.'s online speech from that of Levy's on the basis that it was “uniquely regulable” because it was “hate speech targeting the Jewish community”.

A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit unanimously rejected this argument. Judge Paul Joseph Kelly Jr., joined by Judges Scott Matheson Jr. and Carolyn B. McHugh, wrote that C.G.’s off-campus joke about “exterminating the Jews” would “generally receive First Amendment protection because it does not constitute a true threat, fighting words, or obscenity.” In a footnote, Judge Kelly added that “words as mere political argument, idle talk or jest” do not constitute “true threats”, citing United States v. Heineman, 767 F.3d 970, 972-973 (10th Cir. 2014).

“Defendants [the school district] cannot claim a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption to regulate C.G.’s off-campus speech by simply invoking the words “harass” and “hate” when C.G.’s speech does not constitute harassment and its hateful nature is not regulable in this context,” Judge Kelly concluded.

Why this Case Matters

Over the years, schools and public employers alike have expanded their definition of “discrimination” and “bullying” to cover not only violent threats and targeted harassment but also the mere utterance of politically incorrect viewpoints. Most institutions have spinelessly acquiesced to left-wing demands to enforce ideological conformity at the expense of freedom of speech and due process. It was inevitable that the excesses of progressivism would run into constitutional headwinds.

For decades, the judiciary has consistently held that “hate speech” is in fact free speech, even in an educational setting. Since the late 1980s, the federal courts repeatedly have struck down “anti-discrimination” speech codes, much to the chagrin of soys. See e.g., Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich.1989); UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991); Bair v. Shippensburg University, 280 F. Supp. 2d. 357 (M.D. Pa. 2003). As recently as 2021, the Sixth Circuit found that a college professor had a First Amendment right to “misgender” his students. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021).

Though C1.G. v. Siegfried considers the off-campus speech rights of high school students writing online (as opposed to the on-campus speech rights of college students and professors), the gist of the decision remains similar: it is not the place of educators to act as the social justice thought police.

All of these precedential First Amendment cases have important implications for American incels. Imagine if a 16-year-old boy was sitting at a cafe or in the town library after school, and a classmate inadvertently noticed his screen activity. Perhaps he was venting on Discord or Reddit or even our forum. “i hate my life all the foids at school are sluts who suck chads cock only” might upset a leftist school administrator, but as it currently stands, the U.S. Constitution bars public schools from disciplining a student for writing such a comment outside school hours.

For us, it’s a positive development that both the U.S. Supreme Court and now the Tenth Circuit have put overzealous school officials on notice: You may face legal consequences for trampling on your students’ constitutionally protected speech, even if a mob of pink-haired soys are triggered by “muh hates peach”. :feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:

Keep seething, cucks. These based federal judges have lifetime appointments and will be around for quite a while. :feelsLSD::feelsLSD::feelsLSD:
whoa great posting and great for them and im glad they kicked the jews asses in courts all my school teachers were white back in high school but i knew they secretly sided with the jew way of thinking. I know it in my heart that first comes niggers as the problem, then comes jews and then comes curries. JUST my freedom of speech and expressing my views thank you!:feelsautistic:
 
oldcel75

oldcel75

Major
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Posts
2,062
Online
21d 23h 33m
I'm a nationalistic Jew, a Zionist. I killed people for Zionism, I will kill again, and I will die for it. But I support the 1A even if it means swastikas on the street and "exterminate the Jews" on the internet. Putting too many limits on 1A is a slippy slop, and we must avoid it.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
26,867
Online
250d 9h 52m
"the spirit of the law" is one of the vaguest and most nonsensical phrases ever invented by dummies who can't be bothered to understand the actual letter of the law, so they justify their normative arguments with what amounts to "this is the vibe i get from the law"

it's ridiculous

have you ever heard of "the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law", concept?
 
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Commander
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
3,034
Online
46d 7h 47m
Despite the oft-repeated and misleading SJW talking point that "freedom of speech doesn't protect one from freedom of consequences," the First Amendment does in fact protect one from consequences imposed by state actors—including public schools. And one thing that American school administrators seem to forget constantly is that students, too, have free speech rights, more so when they’re off-campus.

Last month, officials at the Cherry Creek School District in Colorado learned this the hard way when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit revived a federal lawsuit filed against the district for violating the First Amendment.

You can read the Tenth Circuit's decision in C1.G. v. Siegfried here.

Related news article for lazycels:

Background

On September 13th, 2019, C.G. was shopping at a thrift store with his friends when they decided to try on costumes and silly hats, including one that resembled a WWII-era military hat. C.G. took a picture of three of his friends and posted it as a Snapchat story, with an accompanying tagline: "Me and the boys bout to exterminate the Jews". Soon after, C.G. deleted the post (see below), realizing that the joke was in bad taste.

View attachment 645089

But a femoid Snapchat "friend" had already screenshotted the post and notified her parents, who called the police and shared it with other parents. A police officer visited C.G.'s home and determined that there was no threat. Four parents filed a complaint with the school district. C.G. was initially suspended for five days before school officials decided on expulsion.

C.G.'s parents soon filed a federal lawsuit, but the district court dismissed the case in August 2020, which erroneously held that the school's responsibility to prevent disruptions on campus trumped C.G.'s First Amendment rights. C.G.'s parents appealed.

But while C.G.'s case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on an unrelated but similar case involving high school students' online speech rights. Brandi Levy (see below) was a high school sophomore in Pennsylvania who was upset about not having been selected for the varsity team. So, after school hours, she went on Snapchat and posted a picture of herself giving the middle finger, with the caption "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything". Levy's coaches found out and kicked her off the junior varsity team. After Levy’s parents sued, a federal judge granted an injunction ordering Levy's high school to reinstate her to the JV cheerleading team. The school district appealed the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court sided with Levy in an 8-1 ruling.

View attachment 645091

Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored the majority opinion in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021), declined to specify where exactly schools can regulate off-campus speech without infringing on the First Amendment. Instead, Breyer merely noted that the courts should be "skeptical" of schools' attempts to regulate off-campus speech, that schools must face a "heavy burden" to justify doing so, and that schools themselves have an interest in protecting, not suppressing, unpopular speech: (Id. at 2046)


Justice Samuel Alito agreed with Breyer. In a concurring opinion, Alito noted that allowing schools to punish students merely for unpopular speech would be tantamount to a heckler's veto: "If listeners riot because they find speech offensive, schools should punish the rioters, not the speaker."

The Tenth Circuit's Decision

View attachment 645090
The Byron White U.S. Courthouse in Denver, CO

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mahanoy, it's unsurprising that free speech advocates and school administrators alike turned their attention to C.G.'s case: both involved high school students using Snapchat outside school hours. No less than four civil rights organizations—the ACLU of Colorado, FIRE, EFF, and the Cato Institute—filed amicus briefs in support of C.G.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the Cherry Creek School District and the National School Boards Association attempted to distinguish C.G.'s online speech from that of Levy's on the basis that it was “uniquely regulable” because it was “hate speech targeting the Jewish community”.

A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit unanimously rejected this argument. Judge Paul Joseph Kelly Jr., joined by Judges Scott Matheson Jr. and Carolyn B. McHugh, wrote that C.G.’s off-campus joke about “exterminating the Jews” would “generally receive First Amendment protection because it does not constitute a true threat, fighting words, or obscenity.” In a footnote, Judge Kelly added that “words as mere political argument, idle talk or jest” do not constitute “true threats”, citing United States v. Heineman, 767 F.3d 970, 972-973 (10th Cir. 2014).

“Defendants [the school district] cannot claim a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption to regulate C.G.’s off-campus speech by simply invoking the words “harass” and “hate” when C.G.’s speech does not constitute harassment and its hateful nature is not regulable in this context,” Judge Kelly concluded.

Why this Case Matters

Over the years, schools and public employers alike have expanded their definition of “discrimination” and “bullying” to cover not only violent threats and targeted harassment but also the mere utterance of politically incorrect viewpoints. Most institutions have spinelessly acquiesced to left-wing demands to enforce ideological conformity at the expense of freedom of speech and due process. It was inevitable that the excesses of progressivism would run into constitutional headwinds.

For decades, the judiciary has consistently held that “hate speech” is in fact free speech, even in an educational setting. Since the late 1980s, the federal courts repeatedly have struck down “anti-discrimination” speech codes, much to the chagrin of soys. See e.g., Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich.1989); UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991); Bair v. Shippensburg University, 280 F. Supp. 2d. 357 (M.D. Pa. 2003). As recently as 2021, the Sixth Circuit found that a college professor had a First Amendment right to “misgender” his students. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021).

Though C1.G. v. Siegfried considers the off-campus speech rights of high school students writing online (as opposed to the on-campus speech rights of college students and professors), the gist of the decision remains similar: it is not the place of educators to act as the social justice thought police.

All of these precedential First Amendment cases have important implications for American incels. Imagine if a 16-year-old boy was sitting at a cafe or in the town library after school, and a classmate inadvertently noticed his screen activity. Perhaps he was venting on Discord or Reddit or even our forum. “i hate my life all the foids at school are sluts who suck chads cock only” might upset a leftist school administrator, but as it currently stands, the U.S. Constitution bars public schools from disciplining a student for writing such a comment outside school hours.

For us, it’s a positive development that both the U.S. Supreme Court and now the Tenth Circuit have put overzealous school officials on notice: You may face legal consequences for trampling on your students’ constitutionally protected speech, even if a mob of pink-haired soys are triggered by “muh hates peach”. :feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:

Keep seething, cucks. These based federal judges have lifetime appointments and will be around for quite a while. :feelsLSD::feelsLSD::feelsLSD:
They will be around for a while, so then the question becomes: will these sort of rulings be applied for educators working in the K-12 school system as well? Because currently, many of them would be terminated (wrongly) for exercising free speech which goes against the popular normie opinions, etc.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
26,867
Online
250d 9h 52m
They will be around for a while, so then the question becomes: will these sort of rulings be applied for educators working in the K-12 school system as well? Because currently, many of them would be terminated (wrongly) for exercising free speech which goes against the popular normie opinions, etc.
That's an excellent question but one that doesn't have a clear-cut answer—speech by public employees is a not-infrequently litigated issue.

Public schools usually cannot fire a K-12 teacher for making public statements on an issue of public importance outside work hours. In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), the Court held it unconstitutional for a school district to fire a teacher who wrote a letter criticizing the school board's budget in the town newspaper. Nor can a public university prohibit its employees from being a member of the Communist Party. See Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).

In the case of public employees more generally, speech that relates to an issue of public importance has significantly more First Amendment protection than speech that does not. In Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 136 S. Ct. 1412 (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a police chief to demote an officer for carrying a lawn sign supporting a candidate challenging the city's incumbent mayor while the officer was off-duty. On the other hand, in City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 477 (2004), the Court upheld the termination of a San Diego police officer who sold a pornographic video of himself stripping off a police uniform and masturbating. In a per curiam opinion, the Court noted that his sexually explicit conduct was not an issue of public importance, and thus his firing did not infringe on his First Amendment rights.

Finally, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court found that statements made by public employees as part of their work duties are not protected from employer discipline. Garcetti involved a deputy district attorney who wrote a heated memo disagreeing with his supervisor's decision to prosecute a particular case. The Court held that the memo was written as part of his official duties as an employee, not as a private citizen, so it was not protected by the First Amendment.

Here's where the case law gets interesting. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on whether Garcetti applies to educators employed in public institutions, but multiple federal appeals courts have; They have generally held that academic freedom offers professors another layer of First Amendment protection not applicable to other public employees. In Adams v. Trustees of Univ. of North Carolina-Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550 (4th Cir. 2011), for example, the Fourth Circuit reinstated a college professor's First Amendment lawsuit alleging that administrators retaliated against him for his conservative viewpoints. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit held that Garcetti "would not apply in the academic context of a public university." Id. at 562. The Ninth Circuit similarly held that Garcetti does not apply to "speech related to scholarship or teaching," Demers v. Austin, 746 F.3d 402, 406 (9th Cir. 2014). And as I mentioned in my OP, the Sixth Circuit ruled last year that a college professor had a First Amendment right to intentionally “misgender” his students, though interacting with students was part of his work duties. See Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021).

One remaining question here, I suppose, is the extent to which Adams, Demers, Meriwether, and similar cases exempting academics from the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Garcetti applies to K-12 schoolteachers (as opposed to university professors, who have far more leeway in terms of structuring their curriculum and conducting research). That's largely undecided.
 
Last edited:
JayGoptri

JayGoptri

Commander
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Posts
3,034
Online
46d 7h 47m
That's an excellent question but one that doesn't have a clear-cut answer—speech by public employees is a not-infrequently litigated issue.

Public schools usually cannot fire a K-12 teacher for making public statements on an issue of public importance outside work hours. In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), the Court held it unconstitutional for a school district to fire a teacher who wrote a letter criticizing the school board's budget in the town newspaper. Nor can a public university prohibit its employees from being a member of the Communist Party. See Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).

In the case of public employees more generally, speech that relates to an issue of public importance has significantly more First Amendment protection than speech that does not. In Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 136 S. Ct. 1412 (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a police chief to demote an officer for carrying a lawn sign supporting a candidate challenging the city's incumbent mayor while the officer was off-duty. On the other hand, in City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 477 (2004), the Court upheld the termination of a San Diego police officer who sold a pornographic video of himself stripping off a police uniform and masturbating. In a per curiam opinion, the Court noted that his sexually explicit conduct was not an issue of public importance, and thus his firing did not infringe on his First Amendment rights.

Finally, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court found that statements made by public employees as part of their work duties are not protected from employer discipline. Garcetti involved a deputy district attorney who wrote a heated memo disagreeing with his supervisor's decision to prosecute a particular case. The Court held that the memo was written as part of his official duties as an employee, not as a private citizen, so it was not protected by the First Amendment.

Here's where the case law gets interesting. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on whether Garcetti applies to educators employed in public institutions, but multiple federal appeals courts have; They have generally held that academic freedom offers professors another layer of First Amendment protection not applicable to other public employees. In Adams v. Trustees of Univ. of North Carolina-Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550 (4th Cir. 2011), for example, the Fourth Circuit reinstated a college professor's First Amendment lawsuit alleging that administrators retaliated against him for his conservative viewpoints. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit held that Garcetti "would not apply in the academic context of a public university." Id. at 562. The Ninth Circuit similarly held that Garcetti does not apply to "speech related to scholarship or teaching," Demers v. Austin, 746 F.3d 402, 406 (9th Cir. 2014). And as I mentioned in my OP, the Sixth Circuit ruled last year that a college professor had a First Amendment right to intentionally “misgender” his students, though interacting with students was part of his work duties. See Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021).

One remaining question here, I suppose, is the extent to which Adams, Demers, Meriwether, and similar cases exempting academics from the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Garcetti applies to K-12 schoolteachers (as opposed to university professors, who have far more leeway in terms of structuring their curriculum and conducting research). That's largely undecided.
No employee wants to go through litigation as a process, but in general you are correct in citing these cases. They are protected, but the political landscape of a local region or government can also play a big role in how these "protections" are carried out, pursued, or dropped away entirely.
 
Rice Rice Baby

Rice Rice Baby

gibs me bat
★★
Joined
Jan 31, 2022
Posts
190
Online
2d 18h 38m
As recently as 2021, the Sixth Circuit found that a college professor had a First Amendment right to “misgender” his students. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021).
One of the unluckiest panel draws for the university given it was Thapar, McKeague, and Larsen.
No less than four civil rights organizations—the ACLU of Colorado, FIRE, EFF, and the Cato Institute—filed amicus briefs in support of C.G.
The ACLU is cucked sometimes but not this time at least.
"the spirit of the law" is one of the vaguest and most nonsensical phrases ever invented by dummies who can't be bothered to understand the actual letter of the law, so they justify their normative arguments with what amounts to "this is the vibe i get from the law"

it's ridiculous
Off the top my head the more common form is "in the spirit of equity." But that doesn't really apply to questions of statutory interpretation.

Also, given you know how to Bluebook and have bothered to look at the various U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions, there's no way you haven't had at least some legal education. Or, you have way too much time on your hands and bothered to learn the Bluebook, get a subscription to Lexis/Westlaw, and have a good understanding of First Amendment doctrine.
 
faded

faded

Leechmaxxed kikecel
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 7, 2021
Posts
4,470
Online
95d 18h 16m
OY VEY we are working overtime to shut this down immediately!!!!!
FUCK ALL FUCKING ANTISEMITES NEED TO FUCKING DIE AND HAVE ALL THEIR MONEY AND ASSETS TRANSFERED
TO ME FUCKING ANTI SEMITES :feelsping::feelsping::feelsping::feelsping::feelsping::feelsping:
 
faded

faded

Leechmaxxed kikecel
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 7, 2021
Posts
4,470
Online
95d 18h 16m
Recently a student was expelled from the public university where I study, because of "racist comments". Not only that, but the Brazilian State is also investigating him because racist speech is a crime in Brazil.

It sucks having to live in this kind of political tyranny.
Antisemitism is the worst crime anyone can commit you filthy Goyim :feelsping:
((((Brazil))))) will not tolerate any antisemitism and worships their Jewish overlords so Goyim better keep their mouth shut, work harder, and pay all their (((taxes)))) :feelsLSD:
 
Idotms

Idotms

Virgin not incel
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Posts
30,363
Online
103d 1h 53m
how is this incel related?
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

Modcel
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
26,867
Online
250d 9h 52m
One of the unluckiest panel draws for the university given it was Thapar, McKeague, and Larsen.
Thapar is such a based Chadpreet. I like his punchy writing style. I wish Trump had nominated him to SCOTUS instead of Barrett.

The ACLU is cucked sometimes but not this time at least.
The ACLU was pretty based up until November 2016—when Trump won and they made an absolute killing fundraising off of soys who wanted to freeze Trump's agenda through the courts. After Charlottesville, those same soys were aghast to learn that the ACLU supported the civil liberties of everyone, not just progressives. Obviously, the ACLU caved to the woke crowd.

Lara Bazelon's op-ed in the Atlantic earlier this year was absolutely on point:

Also, given you know how to Bluebook and have bothered to look at the various U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions, there's no way you haven't had at least some legal education. Or, you have way too much time on your hands and bothered to learn the Bluebook, get a subscription to Lexis/Westlaw, and have a good understanding of First Amendment doctrine.
Reading is fun, what can I say? :ahegao:

Anyhow, thoughts on SFFA v. Harvard, SFFA v. UNC?
 
W

weedwhacker

Greycel
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Posts
18
Online
3h 24m
"the spirit of the law" is one of the vaguest and most nonsensical phrases ever invented by dummies who can't be bothered to understand the actual letter of the law, so they justify their normative arguments with what amounts to "this is the vibe i get from the law"

it's ridiculous
well when someone states "spirit of the law vs letter of the law", it's similar to stating "morality vs legality", in that while morality and legality aren;t the same, they are similar. for example, murder and rape are illegal, primarily because everyone thinks those are immoral, very immoral acts. (there are some other slightly immoral acts that are not illegal, but those aren't illegal since they are seen as 'not a big deal', so people let it slide)
 
W

weedwhacker

Greycel
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Posts
18
Online
3h 24m
well when someone states "spirit of the law vs letter of the law", it's similar to stating "morality vs legality", in that while morality and legality aren;t the same, they are similar. for example, murder and rape are illegal, primarily because everyone thinks those are immoral, very immoral acts. (there are some other slightly immoral acts that are not illegal, but those aren't illegal since they are seen as 'not a big deal', so people let it slide)
@PPEcel to elaborate when SJWs or other people use the phrase, "freedom of speech doesn't protect one from freedom of consequences," this could be a form of not respecting the spirit of the law. The point of free speech is to allow someone to express their opinion without fear of consequences.

Although, you said earlier you don't really believe in that term, so I'm not sure what your thoughts on the above statement would be.
 
1337hikki

1337hikki

Captain
★★★
Joined
Jan 22, 2022
Posts
1,776
Online
18d 12h 5m
Ridiculous that this even had to go to court, also inceldom=discussed
 
nightbane

nightbane

Officer
★★
Joined
Oct 27, 2021
Posts
605
Online
18d 10h 21m
"The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated." -Proudhoun
 
Robtical

Robtical

Had it with these cucks!
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Posts
32,176
Meanwhile rosties can talk about wanting to kill men all day on social media with almost no one saying anything.
 
BardakTheGreat

BardakTheGreat

ExtERminator of foids, fags and NT's
Joined
Jan 13, 2022
Posts
4,030
Online
12d 4h 5m
totalcel

totalcel

Officer
★★★★
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Posts
892
Online
27d 3h 23m
God bless the founding fathers
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top