This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Symbolism and double meanings
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Because it's a Public School, there fore, as long as what he's wearing isn't offensive, they have no right to take away anything from him(as again, it's not a symbol of the Nazi's). Also, as soon as the teacher tried that, the guy should have headed for the office to tell them off.
Well, the problem is that it was offensive, or the teacher wouldn't have taken it away. Which is why I'm stressing that offense is not grounds for the infringement of freedom of expression.
While they're in public generally, be it on the government owned land of the school, the government owned land of the sidewalk or the government owned land of the park, they have the power / responsibility to protect the children, no? What makes schools unique?
Because they are under parental jurisdiction at all other times. At school, the parent is allowing the teacher / school administration to step in.
Post by
Heckler
Public Schools are intrinsically unique. They are publicly funded and there are laws which require attendance in some form. It's not the same thing as a park, and I honestly can't think of anything that is 100% analogous anywhere else in U.S. society.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Public Schools are intrinsically unique. They are publicly funded and there are laws which require attendance in some form. It's not the same thing as a park, and I honestly can't think of anything that is 100% analogous anywhere else in U.S. society.
Jails.
Lawl.
Post by
Adamsm
Because it's a Public School, there fore, as long as what he's wearing isn't offensive, they have no right to take away anything from him(as again, it's not a symbol of the Nazi's). Also, as soon as the teacher tried that, the guy should have headed for the office to tell them off.
I'm going back to the point that it's essentially considered as offensive, in the same way that short skirts are considered to be indecent. It's a subjective matter of opinion.
How is it offensive? I'd really like to know how you see it as such? What, just because it happens to share a shape with the Iron Cross, that means it's offensive? So the fact that I've problems with Bible thumpers should mean I have to throw a fit every time I see a cross around someone's neck? Again, it's not the guy's fault that his teacher is too narrow minded and stupid to realize that what he has on his ring isn't the Nazi symbol, so he shouldn't have had it confiscated.
Post by
Squishalot
Because they are under parental jurisdiction at all other times. At school, the parent is allowing the teacher / school administration to step in.
That doesn't remove the Government's responsibility to protect the children though.
Public Schools are intrinsically unique. They are publicly funded and there are laws which require attendance in some form.
Yes and no. Parents are entitled to have their kids schooled elsewhere.
Again though - if decency laws were really there to protect children, considering the restrictions on indecent behaviour by adults, shouldn't they also extend the public school decency restrictions to general public also?
Post by
Squishalot
I'm going back to the point that it's essentially considered as offensive, in the same way that short skirts are considered to be indecent. It's a subjective matter of opinion.
How is it offensive?
I'd really like to know how you see it as such?
What, just because it happens to share a shape with the Iron Cross, that means it's offensive? So the fact that I've problems with Bible thumpers should mean I have to throw a fit every time I see a cross around someone's neck? Again, it's not the guy's fault that his teacher is too narrow minded and stupid to realize that what he has on his ring isn't the Nazi symbol, so he shouldn't have had it confiscated.
Firstly, in case I haven't pointed it out (which I think I haven't, apologies),
I don't see it as offensive
, neither do I see pointed white hoodies as offensive. I might choose to steer clear of someone sporting Nazi symbols generally, but at the same time, I also steer clear of people sporting numerous tattoos all over their body, simply because of the risk that they match the stereotypes associated with those symbols.
Ok, with that out of the way.
It doesn't matter what the intent of a symbol is, or what its origins are. If I draw a strange shaped rocket ship and put it on my shopfront, and people accuse me of putting indecent phallic symbols on my windows, then I'm just as liable for indecency as I would be if I intended to draw phallic symbols. Offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Because they are under parental jurisdiction at all other times. At school, the parent is allowing the teacher / school administration to step in.
That doesn't remove the Government's responsibility to protect the children though.
Yes it does. The government has no right to get between a parent and their child until an actual incident has occurred.
Again though - if decency laws were really there to protect children, considering the restrictions on indecent behaviour by adults, shouldn't they also extend the public school decency restrictions to general public also? Outside of schools and places where they are given specific care of the child, it is not the place of the government to intervene prior to anything actually being done (or being threatened to be done).
It doesn't matter what the intent of a symbol is, or what its origins are. If I draw a strange shaped rocket ship and put it on my shopfront, and people accuse me of putting indecent phallic symbols on my windows, then I'm just as liable for indecency as I would be if I intended to draw phallic symbols. Offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder.
Which is why there is no basis for it being made into law. If something is subjective, the government has no right saying it is wrong or not to do it.
Post by
Squishalot
Yes it does. The government has no right to get between a parent and their child until and actually incident has occurred.
Outside of schools and places where they are given specific care of the child, it is not the place of the government to intervene prior to anything actually being done (or being threatened to be done).
Do you disagree with public decency laws generally then?
Which is why there is no basis for it being made into law. If something is subjective, the government has no right saying it is wrong or not to do it.
There's very little that is completely objective, especially in law... that's why we have so many lawyers in the first place.
Post by
Heckler
LOL, I'm done arguing with you Squish, I can see this going down the same road every argument does. You don't have a point, and you're simply arguing anything which has
justification to be argued
. I linked 3 or 4 supreme court cases, I don't have an opinion other than this:
The opinions of the court have the force of law and should be followed.
If the OP's friend feels his rights were violated, he should be making a fuss -- if he doesn't, he has no reason to complain.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Do you disagree with public decency laws generally then?
Yes
There's very little that is completely objective, especially in law... that's why we have so many lawyers in the first place.
Killing innocents is bad.
Stealing is bad.
Rape is bad.
Those are objective and thus they are the subject of law.
Just because people like twisting laws doesn't make them any less objective.
Post by
217067
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Do you disagree with public decency laws generally then?
Yes
Ok, that works then. Just trying to work out how you reconciled it all.
LOL, I'm done arguing with you Squish, I can see this going down the same road every argument does. You don't have a point, and you're simply arguing anything which has
justification to be argued
. I linked 3 or 4 supreme court cases, I don't have an opinion other than this:
The opinions of the court have the force of law and should be followed.
If the OP's friend feels his rights were violated, he should be making a fuss -- if he doesn't, he has no reason to complain.
Nothing wrong with that opinion! I'm not taking it from a legal rights point of view (if there is sufficient court precedent, by all means he should go for it!), I'm more looking at a consistency in principle point of view - why on earth are the laws like that?
Alright so according to you I can come to my math final wearing a shirt with all the formulas and examples written on it, and the teacher can't take it away or make me go to the bathroom and turn it inside out?
And if they do try to do that I can just go to the office and "tell them off"?
Distraction / disruption to the learning experience.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Alright so according to you I can come to my math final wearing a shirt with all the formulas and examples written on it, and the teacher can't take it away or make me go to the bathroom and turn it inside out?
And if they do try to do that I can just go to the office and "tell them off"?
No, I personally don't think the teacher should be allowed to force you to take it off. He/she can fail you for cheating on a closed-book exam though.
Post by
Squishalot
Killing innocents is bad.
Stealing is bad.
Rape is bad.
Those are objective and thus they are the subject of law.
Just because people like twisting laws doesn't make them any less objective.
Assault is bad, but subjective.
Negligence is bad, but subjective.
(Note - the subjectivity isn't in whether it's bad or not, but whether a push/shove/punch/pinch/^&*!@slap counts as 'assault'. Just to be clear.)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Assault is bad, but subjective.
Negligence is bad, but subjective.
(Note - the subjectivity isn't in whether it's bad or not, but whether a push/shove/punch/pinch/^&*!@slap counts as 'assault'. Just to be clear.)
Oh, it's completely objective. Any unwarranted force against an individual is assault. The only difficulty is in determining if it was unwarranted or not. A man claiming a guy hit him isn't enough, so things like visible injuries, eye-witnesses, etc become part of the law, but that doesn't make the fact that there is something objective there.
The same goes for abuse: any unwarranted force or neglect.
Post by
Squishalot
Oh, it's completely objective. Any unwarranted force against an individual is assault. The only difficulty is in determining if it was unwarranted or not. A man claiming a guy hit him isn't enough, so things like visible injuries, eye-witnesses, etc become part of the law, but that doesn't make the fact that there is something objective there.
The same goes for abuse: any unwarranted force or neglect.
Mm, I disagree, I think eye-witness evidence is subjective by definition, making the law itself deal with subjective issues, but we're digressing enough.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Mm, I disagree, I think eye-witness evidence is subjective by definition, making the law itself deal with subjective issues, but we're digressing enough.
The issue isn't any less subjective. The enforcing of it is, but not the assault itself.
Post by
Squishalot
Mm, I disagree, I think eye-witness evidence is subjective by definition, making the law itself deal with subjective issues, but we're digressing enough.
The issue isn't any less subjective. The enforcing of it is, but not the assault itself.
But you're satisfied with the subjective enforcement of assault, but not the subjective enforcement of offensiveness? Someone is offended or not offended, that is objective - it's whether it can be demonstrated that they were offended that is subjective.
'Unwarranted' is subjective as well, I might add.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But you're satisfied with the subjective enforcement of assault, but not the subjective enforcement of offensiveness?
No I'm not satisfied with that. But it's the best that's humanly possible that this point.
Someone is offended or not offended, that is objective - it's whether it can be demonstrated that they were offended that is subjective.
But that's not the issue. The issue is whether X object is objectively offensive, just as how murder and rape (or X action if you want to keep it in specifics) are objectively wrong. However that's a meaningless question, because an object's "offensiveness" is subjective.
'Unwarranted' is subjective as well, I might add.
Not at all. Me hitting you in this manner, in this context, is either unwarranted or not. There is no subjectivity. Just because context effects something doesn't make it less objective. 22 + 22 = 44. That's an objective truth, even though it's only true if the context is base10.
Post by
Squishalot
Offensiveness is equally as objective (or subjective) as unwarranted - either a person is offended or they're not offended, irrespective of context. The issue isn't whether X object is objectively offensive, it's whether Y person is objectively offended by X object. Likewise, the issue isn't whether you're hitting me, the issue is whether said hit is warranted or not.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.