insomnomaniac

"Sticks and stones may break my bones" (page 3, google hits) caused me to laugh out loud given the context of the argument! What a great lawyer that kid had!

No, Deb! You have gone too far! Freedom of speech does not imply the right to print "fuck" in a crowded Webzine!

(tee hee)

It is about time for the punks to show up on your doorstep again.

This article http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/chapin/20030730.htm on schools and self-worth may explain why they act that way. They think are too smart to be caught. I know Boston schools are quite liberal and you are seeing the result.

ok what am i not getting here? back in the old days when i was inschool, if I were to yell "fucking fag" at a school official, I wouldve been suspended immendiately, maybe expelled and that wouldve been the end of it. any discipline would have been in house so to speak. When did this become a crime?? something for the courts?? God help me I find myself disagreeing again. i should be able to yell cuss words at any individual and never have to fear legal repurcussions.

Well Ed, I think this goes to intent a little bit, and it's possible that this is one of those "had to be there" situations. It's quite possible that this was no mere yelling of curse words. Sure, you should legally be able to stand on a street corner and yell curse words to your little heart's content without fear of the governement. But in school, in an enclosed space (this was a bathroom I believe), it is quite possible that the adult in question was in enough jeopardy as to have made the curse words a "threat." To my knowledge, threatening someone directly IS a crime, especially when it's done on public property. If this was a repeat of past situation (which I strongly suspect it was), it could be taken even more seriously.

My point is, I think in this particular case, the law has to take into account the potential consquences and intent of what was said. We only have the brief to go by, and only one side's take at that. I think we'd have to read the whole arrest warrant to really understand what happened. Prosecutors rarely take on cases like this unless they feel they have a hate-speech case or threat that can stick.

I take it on faith that they did, that's all. Perhaps my perspective is influenced by the punk-ass kids who harass me in my neighborhood. Believe me, if I could press charges for the things they say and do to me, I would, but getting someone to arrest them for saying things--worse than this kid said--takes way more evidence than I've got. I have to assume someone had it in this case, and the lawyer's brief is a last-ditch effort to get a really incorrigible menace to society out of the school.

Also, suspending/expelling kids today is nearly impossible. It's quite possible they prosecuted merely to make the suspension stick and to avoid counter-suit by the parents. I used to teach, trust me, this happens A LOT.

Deb, well those are all very good points, and I certainly defer to you on regard to your experience as a teacher. funny how the laywers make it impossible to suspend or discipline unruly children...and of course the trial laywers association is a huge contributor to the democratic party...
so can we say this ...if the kid merely said " fuck you you fucking fag" no matter how angrily, he is not guilt of a threat...and if he said something like " i'll kill you you fucking fag" then he is deserving of a day in front of a judge.
Now Deb I dont give much creedence to the idea of implied threats...meaning that someone who is demonstrably angry is automatically in someway threatening...i think it is the pussification of america that people all of the sudden cant handle other people being angry at them or hating them...and you mentioned hate speech as if it has some relevance in all this....and I dont recognize hate speech as being illegal in any way, outside of inciting people to break the law. being the die-hard corservative that you are, I have trouble beleiving that you recognize anything as ridiculous as hate speech or hate crime legislation.

Correct. But what I recognize and what the law happens to recognize are two different things. I'm just positing a reason this case made it to trial. I have no idea what really happened.

As for implied threats, I dunno...I agree that we are all a bit hypersensitive, but then again, I've seen people not take "implied" threats seriously, and end up grievously injured or dead (neighbor of mine in Chicago--sad story). So it's a tough call.

I'd be willing to bet that the scene went down something like you described--with the kid adding some threatening language into his little tirade. Again, my view is colored by current experiences with kids doing exactly that. It's rare that I hear a kid that is ballsy enough to call an adult in a position of authority "fucking faggot" not add in an "I'll kill you" or "I'll kick your ass" for good measure. And, if this kid did do something like that (kick a teacher's ass) in the past, then it seems to me that the threat of just "fucking faggot" would be slightly more than implied.

Bottom line? There's usually more going on than we get in the press or in a single legal brief. Given the burden of proof with even so-called "hate speech," (and believe me, it is tough to prove, whether you and I agree with the laws or not, they are rarely enforced to the full extent of the law--despite all the press noise to the contrary), I would tend to doubt that's the case being made. Just another remote possibility.

You can also check some information in the field of