Student suspended for speaking Spanish in school hallway

YOU are spouting off as if you ate the expert.

Roxxxanne's right, george. Get a hat.

Finn d'Abuzz,

Holy jumping Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Stop, Stop , Stop , PLEASE!

From the way you're completely mauling the legal issues, its clear I made a mistake. Your no law student or attorney, so please stop acting like you know what the hell your talking about.

Reading your posts makes me want to pull the hair out of my head, especially since I JUST took a First Amendment seminar class this semester. YOU ARE WRONG. You're misinterpreting law, you're applying the wrong standards, and using the wrong examples (tort law? TORT LAW? What?)

Read the link I gave you, and try to process the information. It addresses your hypothetical of a person yelling "fire" in a theater just fine. From how far off base you are, it would be pointless to try to get you to understand these concepts (especially when you're constantly trying to apply it to your point of vew, before you even have a full grasp of the subject. Here's a tip, if you want to actually have a coherent argument, FIRST understand the concept that you're arguing about.

I know you won't, but go back to the link I provided you (from your comments it's CLEAR you didn't read it in the first place). Read it. If your confused, look around that site to understand it better (it really is a great source of information).

But in the name of all that is holy, STOP TALKING LIKE YOU KNOW THE LAW. You just make yourself look really, really bad.

If and when you finish Law School and you are actually practicing law, it will be interesting to see how far you get in the construction of pleadings, briefs and oral arguments by stating: "Here look at this website. It will tell you why I think you are wrong, and so I don't need to."

This is a cyber-forum. A recitation of my qualifications are as meaningless as yours. That you claim to be a law student who has taken a course on the First Amendment is without substance.

The origin of this line of discussion was that a "frivolous" law suit might result.

Explain to us how you would represent this student as a lawyer, and what causes of action you would argue.
Explain to us what damages you would prove.
Explain to us how I am so pitifully wrong.
If you have learned anything a Law School, you should be able to eviscerate me with logic, not try and club me with ad hominem.
Explain to us, if you can, how this incident violated the First Amendment rights of the student or any statutorily provided civil right.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If and when you finish Law School and you are actually practicing law, it will be interesting to see how far you get in the construction of pleadings, briefs and oral arguments by stating: "Here look at this website. It will tell you why I think you are wrong, and so I don't need to."

If you don't see a difference between practicing law and debating on the internet, you've got bigger problams that I can't help you with.

So, in other words, you are suggesting that your feeble debating techniques (Here - look at this website and see that I am right!) will not be duplicated when you pass the Bar and practice?

One might have hoped that a legal education might manifest itself in at least competent debating skills in any forum, but I guess you're right, I have a unfortunate problem in understanding why this should not be the case.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

This is a cyber-forum. A recitation of my qualifications are as meaningless as yours. That you claim to be a law student who has taken a course on the First Amendment is without substance.

Very true. I could say I'm the king of Siam and it would hold the same weight. I only thought to say it because its true and would lend some credibility to my words so people just don't think I'm spouting off without any experience on the matter. Whether you believe me or not is up to you. Apparently you don't. Fine with me. I'm sure as hell not going to go through the trouble of scanning and posting my transcript for something like this, though.

Actually I do believe you, and I mourn the state of our law schools.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The origin of this line of discussion was that a "frivolous" law suit might result.

Not quite. You said how this kid yelling in a library would also be argued as a violation of his First Amendment rights. Then you made that train wreck an argument worse by all sorts of other incorrect comments.

No, quite. Go back and read the thread.

As for incorrect comments, you have yet to provide evidence of any kind how any of my comments are incorrect. You are the legal scholar, and yet you restrict you authoritative comments to such persuasive lines of argument as "Stop, you're making me pull out my hair!, "and "Go look at this website...it is very informative." There's an A student!

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Explain to us how you would represent this student as a lawyer, and what causes of action you would argue.
Explain to us what damages you would prove.
Explain to us how I am so pitifully wrong.
If you have learned anything a Law School, you should be able to eviscerate me with logic, not try and club me with ad hominem.
Explain to us, if you can, how this incident violated the First Amendment rights of the student or any statutorily provided civil right.

Who do you think you are, my professor? Get me some school credit for my work and I'll think about it. Look, you made a clearly WRONG comment (among others). I called you on it, and found a source of information with a (fairly short) focus on your incorrect comments that you could read and see where you went wrong (which you clearly STILL haven't done), and you're still giving me ****? Tell you what, I'll come over and read it for you. After that I can spoon feed you lunch, wipe your ass and tuck you in, too.

Either you love the attention or you just want to bust my chops. Let someone else hold your hand and try to get you to comprehend these things from now on.

Pathetic. You're a junkyard dog Justan. You skulk off snarling backwards, but still you skulk off.

Any idiot can say "You're wrong man! I know you're wrong because I'm right!"

Do the A2K Community a big favor and reveal your true identity, so that none of us will ever engage you as counsel once you graduate.

Do the A2K Community a big favor and reveal your true identity, so that none of us will ever engage you as counsel once you graduate.

Do the A2K Community a big favor and reveal your true identity,

JustanObserver wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

So if the kid was suspended for repeatedly yelling in the Library, would his right to free speech have been violated.

Are you kidding me?
You need a serious refresher course in what constitutes the First Amendment.
Particularly "Time, place and manner restrictions." Here ya go:

"Time, place and manner restrictions"

So, in other words, you believe that a kid suspended for repeatedly yelling in a school library has had his First Amendment rights violated?

Limits on the Exercise of Free Speech and Assembly Based Upon Forum Type

1. Public Forum:
Expressive activity in an open public forum may not be suppressed, controlled or excluded unless it is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. A compelling government interest means an interest of the greatest importance, such as protecting the health, safety and welfare of the community. However, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions may be used if applied neutrally to all similarly situated parties.

2. Limited Public Forum:
A University setting most often fits into this category (but is not exclusive of this category) because it contains public buildings and property whose primary purpose is to provide education, but is often designated to allow access to the public at times when the property is not being used for its primary purpose. The uses of the property may be limited to those designated by policy, and reasonable time, place and manner restrictions may be imposed, but each must be exercised neutrally among similarly situated persons.

Quote:

Do the A2K Community a big favor and reveal your true identity, so that none of us will ever engage you as counsel once you graduate.

You think you speak for the A2K community?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Do the A2K Community a big favor and reveal your true identity,

I'm not sure if you mentioned it already, but your name in real life is what again?

Since he has revealed that he has no expertise one can reasonably argue that it would be a greater service to the community for him to identify himself and thus allow A2Kers (at least) to avoid making the mistake to which less informed potential clients may fall prey.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

JustanObserver wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

So if the kid was suspended for repeatedly yelling in the Library, would his right to free speech have been violated.

Are you kidding me?
You need a serious refresher course in what constitutes the First Amendment.
Particularly "Time, place and manner restrictions." Here ya go:

"Time, place and manner restrictions"

So, in other words, you believe that a kid suspended for repeatedly yelling in a school library has had his First Amendment rights violated?

Ok Finn, you wanted the attention, so I'll make you happy and clear you up on something.

Your consideration of my wishes is truly touching.

The two parts that I bolded are why I didn't bother to give much of what you say any weight (and still don't).

First, you said "So if the kid was suspended for repeatedly yelling in the Library, would his right to free speech have been violated." That you actually made that comment shows you either didn't know or didn't understand the concept that there are certain allowable restrictions to free speech.

This is twisted nonsense, and of the sort that is sure to make your budding career as a lawyer come up short. Obviously the question implies an understanding that there are allowable restrictions to the right of free speech. What it did not imply was that you or any of the other fools clamoring that the student's right to free speech had been violated understood such legitimate restrictions.

Let's see if I can make it simple enough so that even a third year law student can understand. It is clear to anyone who understands the Law that the determination of whether or not this student's right to free speech had been violated is dependent upon the full panoply of specific facts. And yet, we had no few legal dilettantes (including yourself) proclaiming that based on the minimal fact pattern presented by the article, it was clear that the student's First Amendment rights had been violated. The question I posed ("So if the kid was suspended for repeatedly yelling in the Library, would his right to free speech have been violated.") was intended to ferret out whether or not you understood that there were legal limitations to the right of free speech. Somehow you have fashioned a loony argument that this question reveals that I do not understand these limitations. I cannot debate either insanity or idiocy and so if you insist on advancing this notion, I have no option but to concede you are oh so correct and withdraw from the discussion.

I thought you might want to inform yourself on it so you don't make that mistake again, so I linked you to some information that addresses that issue in particular.

Since you seem to be incapable of looking at it and only pay attention to what I say to annoy me,

Don't flatter yourself.

I'll first post a bit of some of the relevant information from the site you refused to read, and then explain it for you, ok? Now, considering whether you argue a library is a "Public forum" or "Limited Public Forum", this is what could apply:

Quote:

Limits on the Exercise of Free Speech and Assembly Based Upon Forum Type

1. Public Forum:
Expressive activity in an open public forum may not be suppressed, controlled or excluded unless it is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. A compelling government interest means an interest of the greatest importance, such as protecting the health, safety and welfare of the community. However, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions may be used if applied neutrally to all similarly situated parties.

2. Limited Public Forum:
A University setting most often fits into this category (but is not exclusive of this category) because it contains public buildings and property whose primary purpose is to provide education, but is often designated to allow access to the public at times when the property is not being used for its primary purpose. The uses of the property may be limited to those designated by policy, and reasonable time, place and manner restrictions may be imposed, but each must be exercised neutrally among similarly situated persons.

Now now, don't go nuts yet, I'll explain it for you. What you just read (along with some more stuff from the site that you surely haven't) says essentially that your First Amendment rights are protected, but when you are in certain places, there are justifiable limits to such free speech.

Applying it to your "repeatedly yelling in a library" example would mean this: The library can restrict people from creating a nuisance by repeatedly yelling, since they aren't restricting what is being said. Instead they are restricting people from creating a disturbance in a location that is supposed to be used for a particular purpose.

And so you would instruct me in what I already know.

Now tell us, how do you know that the student in question was not involved in a fact pattern that allowed the principal from restricting his right to free speech?

Ok, still with me? Here is where I come off with the "I shouldn't waste my time with you any longer" comment. AFTER I provided you with a link that addressed your comment, you THEN said:
"So, in other words, you believe that a kid suspended for repeatedly yelling in a school library has had his First Amendment rights violated?"

This comment CLEARLY showed you didn't read the link. Or that you read it but didn't understand. If you had read it/understood what it said, you would not have made that asinine comment again.

Frankly, your arguments are so inane and illogical that I shudder to think of your representing someone as legal counsel, and yet you, clearly, consider yourself the personification of reason and clear thinking. I know I am right, and I know that I will never convince you that you are wrong and so we can continue this back and forth ad nauseum or we can walk aways shaking our heads at each other.

Here's hoping that before you graduate you will come to understand what you are being taught and that you can employ your education to the benefit of your fellow citizens.

Here's also hoping that when you enter the real world your (apparently inevitable) first ass whooping will not be so painful that you give up.

Finally here's hoping that I meet you as an adversary on a case which has the potential for costing my client millions of dollars.

As you said, "Any idiot can say "You're wrong man! I know you're wrong because I'm right!" Which is why I tried leading you to a source of information that could set you straight on the matter. You didn't even try. THAT is why I don't want to spend more time on you. Because it's a waste. Trust me, when I'm confronted with someone who does MORE than just make stupid ass inflammatory comments or pretends they know what they're talking about when they clearly don't, I'm happy to engage them. You've already won in the sense that you got me to waste this much time on you.

Please, don't waste any more of your time.

And I don't have a "true identity." I'm Superman all the time.

Now I know you will never be a successful lawyer. You are so cock sure of yourself and yet you pass up a chance to advertise yourself.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Since he has revealed that he has no expertise one can reasonably argue that it would be a greater service to the community for him to identify himself and thus allow A2Kers (at least) to avoid making the mistake to which less informed potential clients may fall prey.

I just handed you your ass and you gloss right over it. Thanks for proving my point.

By the way, I don't need people to "come to my defense." I handle things fine on my own. They were just pointing out how stupid it is to ask for people's information over the web and that I called you're bluff and exposed you on your ignorance.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
The question I posed ("So if the kid was suspended for repeatedly yelling in the Library, would his right to free speech have been violated.") was intended to ferret out whether or not you understood that there were legal limitations to the right of free speech.