Seems there's a lot of inspiration going around the skeptical portion of the blog-o-sphere at the moment. Must be synchronisity or something. I'm really grateful for the internet, blogs, and so forth, because it lets me know that I'm not alone in being an atheist, I can talk candidly, and just all around warm fuzzies when my fur doesn't suffice.Anyway, here's some linkdom:
PZ covers exactly why atheists shouldn't shut up, "framing" be damned.
Skeptico shows a YouTube video of an Australian show I should see about importing. Today's target: The Secret.
You Mac people out there: Tell me how fun this is. Feel free to post examples. I'd like to see some Christian Fundie screed translated to newage(rhymes with sewage)ism.
If I wasn't afraid of the cost of replacing car windows, I'd get one of these.
Tom Foss covers some of the wonderful commenting he's been doing, lately.
And just for reiteration, here's that 2% Co. link.
Just in: PZ covers the problem with some gun nuttery in the wake of Virginia Tech.
5 comments:
Far be it from me to think the government has any right saying what the kid can or can't say, but I just want to make sure I understand the situation. Was the kid actually arrested for making this banner, or did the school just decide to suspect him for it? If it's the latter, isn't this college a privately owned place? If that's the case, doesn't it hold the right to pretty much suspend anyone it wants for most any reason it wants, up to and including behavior it finds out about outside the college?
I may disagree with the college's decision (oh, and I do), but in what way was this kid's first amendment rights violated? It seems he still has every right to promote his message (and he should, though for the life of me I have no idea what "bong hits for Jesus" is supposed to mean, politically or philosophically), and the law won't get involved, but that doesn't prevent all consequences. It would be the same as a company firing someone because they found out about a web log that person made criticizing the company. So long as the law doesn't do the enforcing and it's a private manner, I don't see a violation.
Anony,
"Was the kid actually arrested for making this banner, or did the school just decide to suspect him for it?"
He was suspended, and in my opinion, without merit.
"If it's the latter, isn't this college a privately owned place?"
It wasn't a private university, but a public high school.
"If that's the case, doesn't it hold the right to pretty much suspend anyone it wants for most any reason it wants, up to and including behavior it finds out about outside the college?"
Moot.
"...in what way was this kid's first amendment rights violated?"
The principal unduly confiscated his sign, and that is what constitutes a violation of his right to free speech.
Next time, try following the links.
The post was intended as a link dump. You'd think someone would follow those links and read them.
If it was a public high school (for some reason I misread) then I agree it was a violation. Once you made that point clear that's all that need be said, of course the rest would be moot.
You know what makes it even worse? He wasn't even holding the sign on school property, and he was still suspended for it.
Post a Comment