… trump the negative ones, like free speech
In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as “douche bags” because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize.
The case went to court and in March 2008, Sotomayor was on a panel that heard Doninger’s mother’s appeal alleging her daughter’s free speech and other rights were violated. Her mother wanted to prevent the school from barring her daughter from running.
Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption†at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.
The ruling then goes on to say the judges felt they really had no jurisdiction in this case, which is troubling because they should have stated that up front rather than tacitly approving schools policing their students off-campus behavior.
While a school may legitimately have a substantial interest when a student commits a criminal act off-campus, why these judges, including nominee Sotomayer, would allow a school to punish a student engaged in lawful and constitutionally protected activities off campus is troubling.
However, it is not surprising since Free Speech is not “free” if someone perceives the speech as “offensive”.
A University of Chicago dean ordered a student to change the title of his Facebook.com photo album and remove pictures of his ex-girlfriend after she complained to the dean. Dean of Students Susan Art invoked the university’s policy of “dignity and respect” and claimed the authority to police allegedly disrespectful off-campus speech, even when it appears on a personal Facebook page. Indeed, the university violates its own promises of free speech by maintaining a policy subjecting disrespectful speech to disciplinary action and a “bias incident” policy that encourages members of the university to report on the so-called biases of their neighbors.
Sotomayor is just a female Souter and a cynical pick by Obama. Her appointment and confirmation will not change the court; however, she can be useful to those that would wrest the Constitution back from the cultists that believe in a “Living” Constitution. Her past and future rulings like this one punishing people for legal actions in their private lives should be used to gain the support of people to reject the creeping galloping Nannystate.
UPDATE Via Dan Collins in the comments Sotomayer’s “perception is reality” stance is made clear
WASHINGTON — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s Supreme Court choice, has a blunt and even testy side, and it was on display in December during an argument before the federal appeals court in New York. The case concerned a Canadian man who said American officials had sent him to Syria to be tortured, and Judge Sotomayor peppered a government lawyer with skeptical questions.“So the minute the executive raises the specter of foreign policy, national security,†Judge Sotomayor asked the lawyer, Jonathan F. Cohn, “it is the government’s position that that is a license to torture anyone?â€
Mr. Cohn managed to get out two and a half words: “No, your hon—— .â€
Judge Sotomayor cut him off, then hit him with two more questions and a flat declaration of what she said was his position. The lawyer managed to say she was wrong, but could not clarify the point until the chief judge, Dennis G. Jacobs, stepped in, asking, “Why don’t we just get the position?â€
Comment by Joe on 5/29 @ 7:59 am #
“I think the First Amendment is probably the most important thing that you have in this country. And I’m always horrified at the cavalier way that you (Americans) treat it.â€
Neil Gaiman
Comment by Dan Collins on 5/29 @ 8:01 am #
That’s kind of funny for this reason, too, Darleen.
Comment by LTC John on 5/29 @ 8:06 am #
Dan,
Why listen to counsel when you have already decided in all your wisdom? It’s not like judges are supposed to use oral argument to gain information or something…
Comment by SBP on 5/29 @ 8:10 am #
What I want to know is whether she addresses any of those “tough” questions to her vagina while’s she’s on the bench.
It’s Latina, you know, and is therefore the source of her wisdom.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/29 @ 8:20 am #
I have this image of a soft voice coming from below the bench, “s’alright!”
I denounce myself…
Comment by sdferr on 5/29 @ 8:23 am #
That NYT article is one giant crescendo of tongue-bath isn’t it?
Comment by SBP on 5/29 @ 8:27 am #
I have this image of a soft voice coming from below the bench, “s’alright!â€
LMFAO!
For the younger folks, Rob was referring to this guy. Classic material.
Comment by JD on 5/29 @ 8:31 am #
The formulation of that question is similar to the “so what you are saying is … ” which is inevitably followed by something that in no way resembles what you are actually trying to say.
Comment by Pablo on 5/29 @ 8:34 am #
Make that a Syrian born man with dual Syrian/Canadian citizenship, a man the Canadians did not want in Canada, who was deported to Syria based on information given the US by the RMCP.
Pedantic, ain’t I?
Comment by Mr. Pink on 5/29 @ 8:35 am #
You guys seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmHF6DTLAUA&feature=related
Comment by Pablo on 5/29 @ 8:37 am #
Because deportation is torture. And therefore, Teh Executive should not do it, ever.
Comment by Dan Collins on 5/29 @ 8:41 am #
Cafeteria Constitutionalist.
Comment by JHoward on 5/29 @ 8:43 am #
For want of another way to get this to you Darleen, it seems the Governator is going all off on the insolent CA voter.
Comment by sdferr on 5/29 @ 8:45 am #
The second would be one of those dispositive rights I guess.
Comment by psycho... on 5/29 @ 8:48 am #
So what you’re saying is judges shouldn’t be tough on lawyers.
So what you’re saying is you’re afraid the SCARY BROWN LADY with power.
So what you’re saying is her colorful South Bronx sass shatters your pale patriarchal dreams of suburban sumbission.
So what you’re saying is “taco taco taco.”
Comment by Dan Collins on 5/29 @ 8:51 am #
Here’s a nutshell summary of La Raza, its activities, policies and connections.
Comment by JD on 5/29 @ 8:51 am #
So what you are saying … is that you are all racist homophobic jingoistic xenophobic imperialistic bed-wetters.
So what you are saying is that you all have wet dreams thinking about torturing unicorns.
So what you are saying is that you want to donkey punch Rosie O’Lard while Michael Moore services himself in the corner.
So what you are saying is that Teh Uno has big Dumbo ears.
Comment by Pablo on 5/29 @ 8:53 am #
So what you’re saying is that you’re a racist. Isn’t that right, Cracker?
Comment by Mr. Pink on 5/29 @ 9:00 am #
Is this racist or just f#cked up?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1
Comment by Mr. Pink on 5/29 @ 9:02 am #
19 is a link to a Washingon Times article on those black panthers that blocked a polling place in PA. Yeah political guys at the Justice Department told the lawyers to drop the case because who gives a shit about voter fraud and intimidation when you help usher in the era of CHANGE.
Pingback by Jules Crittenden » Compelling BS Line on 5/29 @ 9:25 am #
[...] a line of questioning to pursue, politely. How does the nominee feel about free speech, its prior restraint, and offensiveness? Protein [...]
Comment by geoffb on 5/29 @ 9:26 am #
Now it can be inferred what the role of ACORN and the new groups of “volunteers” will be in the 2010 election. They will “protect” the sanctity of the polls from being abused by those who do not share our leaders vision of “justice”.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/29 @ 9:27 am #
It’s racist and we’re fucked.
Comment by McGehee on 5/29 @ 9:35 am #
So what you’re saying is, “Yes.”
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/29 @ 9:40 am #
Nice to see the Democrat party returning to its roots of violence and threats.
And, since the Obama administration shut down the prosecution, we can safely say it’s official administration policy that carrying a weapon outside a polling place and making threats against voters who aren’t the “right” race is perfectly fine.
Ya know, I honestly did not think I could get more pissed off. This story proved me wrong.
Comment by Mr. Pink on 5/29 @ 9:42 am #
“we can safely say it’s official administration policy that carrying a weapon outside a polling place and making threats against voters who aren’t the “right†race is perfectly fine.”
Would that be a positive or a negative right Rob?
Comment by JD on 5/29 @ 9:44 am #
Mr. Jackson [one of the racist thugs] was an elected member of Philadelphia’s 14th Ward Democratic Committee, and was credentialed to be at the polling place last Nov. 4 as an official Democratic Party polling observer, according to the Philadelphia City Commissioner’s Office.
Nice to see the Democrat party returning to its roots of violence and threats.
And, since the Obama administration shut down the prosecution, we can safely say it’s official administration policy that carrying a weapon outside a polling place and making threats against voters who aren’t the “right†race is perfectly fine.
Ya know, I honestly did not think I could get more pissed off. This story proved me wrong.
Ditto
Comment by Bob Reed on 5/29 @ 9:48 am #
Mr. Pink,
Thos guys in that story were protypes of the coming O!-force…
And, And, And…Only eeeeeeevil Boooooosh! political appointees override the judicious hard work of career lawyers at justice, right..?
I wonder how they are still hanging around AG Holders most excellent, ethical, and finally “Just”, DOJ..?
Funny that, eh?
Comment by Bob Reed on 5/29 @ 9:49 am #
Remember the “new politics” of the identity politics card deck folks…
Racism is not so bad, as long as the “correct” people are in the roles of opressor and opressed…
Judgement!
O!
Comment by JD on 5/29 @ 9:51 am #
That story proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how fucking disingenuous the Left it when it comes to elections. Ditto on picture ID’s. Ditto on voter fraud.
Comment by thor on 5/29 @ 9:51 am #
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/world/europe/29iht-poll.html?_r=1&ref=world
Feel the burn.
Comment by JD on 5/29 @ 9:53 am #
Go fuck Michael Vick. Since he is on house arrest, you should be able to catch him this time.
Comment by Bob Reed on 5/29 @ 9:58 am #
thor,
Those poll results are not surprising for a couple of reasons…
1) It’s
PravdaThe New York Times…2) It’s no surprise that the world is cheering the O!ne’s takedown of the worlds remaining superpower…
Seeing how he’s a “citizen of the world” and all, I’m not surprised he’s more popular abroad than at home…
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/29 @ 10:01 am #
Just sent to my Congresscritter and Senators:
Comment by thor on 5/29 @ 10:03 am #
Yeah, over the next eight years he’s bound to see an occasional dip in the polls.
Comment by Jim Ryan on 5/29 @ 10:03 am #
Mr. Cohn managed to get out two and a half words: “No, your hon—— .â€
Judge Sotomayor cut him off, then hit him with two more questions and a flat declaration of what she said was his position.
So she has anger management issues, too. In a lefty? Imagine that.
Comment by thor on 5/29 @ 10:10 am #
She’s the Dick Cheney of the Judiciary.
Comment by JD on 5/29 @ 10:15 am #
I am positive that if thor and this lady had their way, none of you bitch asses would have any rights.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/29 @ 10:19 am #
So, basically, we have a Democrat party that actively supports and empowers racists. Hell, that was pretty clear during the campaign, when they simply refused to see anything wrong with Obama’s attendance at TUCC (and his often-stated admiration for Rev. Wright). But now it’s not merely a matter of appearance, it’s become their policy.
First Obama Supreme Court nominee: speaks in front of racist organization named “The Race”, openly states her race and sex make her “wiser” than those of other races and sex.
Obama Justice Department: violent intimidation of voters is OK by us. Oh, but since we can’t stop the work already done by the career lawyers, we’ll just have to let it stand that a Democrat thug is enjoined from carrying weapons to polling places.
Comment by SBP on 5/29 @ 10:23 am #
What I’m worried about is what’s going to happen when it becomes painfully clear to everyone that the rule of law no longer applies.
I don’t see that working out well for my little constitutional republic, no matter who comes out on top.
Comment by Joe on 5/29 @ 10:29 am #
JD, I agree with your statement about thor and Sotomayor above but we can also turn it around this way: I am positive that if thor had his way with this lady, she would definitely be turned off to men forever.
Comment by SBP on 5/29 @ 10:31 am #
she would definitely be turned off to men forever.
I’m thinking that Sotomayor already owns several pairs of comfortable shoes, IYKWIMAITYD, NTTAWWT.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/29 @ 10:33 am #
Yeah. Scares me shitless.
Comment by Mr. Pink on 5/29 @ 10:43 am #
Hey Thor GM is now selling for 88 cents. Good call on those GM stocks. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=gm
Comment by thor on 5/29 @ 10:48 am #
GM and Mr. Pink go down every day. No mystery.
Comment by Joe on 5/29 @ 10:49 am #
I should rephrase SBP. Actually thor’s “mighty hammer” might turn her off to sex forever. Out of complete boredom.
Comment by neb on 5/29 @ 11:30 am #
Putting comments on the Internet is not “private” and “free speech” does not mean “speech without personal consequences”. Schools should be allowed to expect proper conduct of their students in public, even government schools, and that goes double for colleges. This attitude kids have these days that your MySpace page is somehow sacrosanct is just silly. It denigrates real free speech. Maybe if either of these cases had been situations where someone had written a thoughtful essay about a flat tax or another political position and been disciplined we’d have a discussion. Not trolling, just saying since I didn’t see any discussion on it and I think this is far from a Constitutional case.
Comment by LTC John on 5/29 @ 11:32 am #
Well, he’s back and another thread shot to Hell. Back to reading less of this site…
Comment by Joe on 5/29 @ 11:40 am #
neb–I disagree. Free speech is free speech. I am not saying it is unlimited, you should not be permitted to slander or liable someone, but calling them a douchebag is not that. Yes, if you go on your blog and call your boss a “douchebag” you have the freedom to do that and your boss also has the freedom to fire you. But critizing school officials, outside of school, is different. A person attending a public school should have the right to critize its administration outside of school.
One of the things about Rehnquist was he was always very much for protecting the 1st Amendment. That quote I put up at the beginning from Neil Gaiman is correct. We are the only country in the world that protects speech in that manner. If anything is the core of American Exceptionalism, it is the ability to call people in government on their failures and that includes calling them douchebags.
Comment by dicentra on 5/29 @ 11:41 am #
Putting comments on the Internet is not “private†and “free speech†does not mean “speech without personal consequencesâ€.
And calling school administrators “douchebags” is the height of inappropriate. We can’t have any foreseeable risks of substantial disruption running for office in the halls of academe.
Hurry, check to see if her parents donate to the GOP.
Comment by Joe on 5/29 @ 11:44 am #
And calling school administrators “douchebags†is the height of inappropriate.
Anyone saying that has obviously not been around a lot of public school administrators.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 5/29 @ 11:44 am #
It’s back and still fellating the Big O for no apparent reason other than he’s a black guy. So the whole thing is a lie. There has been NO change.
Comment by JHoward on 5/29 @ 11:59 am #
What the HELL are you talking about?
Comment by neb on 5/29 @ 12:11 pm #
Joe, thanks for the thoughtful response. This is a thorny issue. In the matter of the high school case there are lots of things to examine, so I’ll try to pick the best point. Ultimately what harm was done to this student? None, really. Something like student government is held entirely as an extracurricular activity and school admins are free to have or not have it. The point is supposed to be to teach students a lesson about how things like politics and government work (how well it does that is not clear but not the point). It would have been one thing if her blog post had been something thoughtful and along the lines of a defense of the battle of the bands (even more extracurricular). Now maybe if I had my own politics blog I’d read up more on this case but I think it’s reasonable to assume her post was something less than this. bottom line is I’m not a big fan of government school admins by a long shot. But I also think that this was an appropriate action. These are children and they are supposed to be in school to learn. The lesson here was supposed to be how to act in a civil manner. Unfortunately it seems this child will instead “learn” that she has the “RIGHT” to say whatever she wants, whenever she wants with little or no consequence so long as it stops short of false accusations or puts others in danger of life and limb. This is a major example of misunderstanding what Liberty actually is.
Joe, since you conceded my larger point I think the wrinkle here is the involvement of the government via the school. In this case I don’t consider it equivalent to, say, were I to have a blog that referred to this fellow in such a manner and then I get a letter in the mail that I have three points added to my driver’s license. Dressing up this girl’s actions as “criticizing the government” is bogus and is also the way the Left has snuck through a lot of their agenda – through the schools. I hope you don’t think children suing their parents for disciplining them is a constitutional right, but that is what is coming; there have already been a few cases of this.
Now since this is the Internet I will state the following for the record: government schools are sheep factories designed to mass-produce good little socialists. I think this kid and most would be better served by being home-schooled. That is irrelevant to this issue except in that this child’s lack of civics education is obvious to me. I will also say that I think Sotomayor is clearly a leftist and should be opposed as an enemy of liberty – Dan Collin’s post about her hectoring a witness is far better. Also for the record I think David Brooks is a douche. There, now I sound more like a commenter from these parts.
Comment by Grammatiknazi on 5/29 @ 12:17 pm #
Precisely because government schools are run by the coercive power of the state, they must operate under limits to that power that would not apply to private schools. A government school therefore can’t be as responsive to the needs of its students as a private school can. This is one of the best arguments in favor of government funding of schools being mediated through vouchers, so that each individual family gets the power to take that money to a competing school, which they can’t do to money directly allocated to the institution.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/29 @ 12:18 pm #
Colleges?!
I can’t recall anyone in college who wasn’t within a few months of their 18th birthday. They’re adults. Let’s treat them as adults.
As for grade school students — when they’re not on school property, they’re not the school’s business. If the officials wanted to complain to the parents and let the parents handle it, fine.
Comment by The Monster on 5/29 @ 12:18 pm #
Oops. Damned sock.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 5/29 @ 12:41 pm #
This is a thorny issue.
I’m afraid I disagree. Freedom of speech, with the usual caveats on defamation, should be absolute.
Comment by SBP on 5/29 @ 12:41 pm #
Unfortunately it seems this child will instead “learn†that she has the “RIGHT†to say whatever she wants
DAMN that First Amendment. DAMN IT TO HELL!
Comment by Makewi on 5/29 @ 1:47 pm #
I’m not making an argument on this particular case, but just want to point out that children do not get full constitutional protections.
Comment by neb on 5/29 @ 1:57 pm #
“Precisely because government schools are run by the coercive power of the state, they must operate under limits to that power that would not apply to private schools. A government school therefore can’t be as responsive to the needs of its students as a private school can.”
This is precisely true, which is why I decided to face the hooting throngs and post my thoughts in the first place. I don’t think there’s a lot of daylight between conservatives on this issue. I think where we disagree is in this being an appropriate limit on the coercive power of the school. I don’t think so, and tried to point out why in the previous post. I also think that by the time enough damage has been done to society to establish how inadequate a government school is, it will be too late, and no one will give a shit.
I know I’m coming off a bit douchey, sorry, I know this ain’t that kind of blog. I’m just trying to be as precise and persuasive as possible since I know I have a hostile audience here (albeit one that is mostly not a waste of time unlike, say, HuffPo). I’m working on it. And failing. But I’ll keep trying.
Anyway, Rob Crawford (BTW, could someone please pull my coat and tell me how to quote people? I just got here) brought up the college point. So I’ll expand on that. I don’t quite understand the idea of treating people like adults by having no expectations of their behavior, but maybe that’s not what you meant. Bottom line again. If this sort of thing in the govt. schools raises the specter of DUNH DUNH DUNNNN, CHILLING EFFECT, the only reason for that is the government involvement, right? Because of its coercive power? Okay. So where is this is colleges? State schools? No one is forcing anyone to go to a state school. I think this is people confusing the legal with the good. Do I necessarily agree with some kind of official sanctioning by a college? Ehh, not really, maybe if they have an Honor Code or something that is actually supposed to matter to people, like UVA (then again maybe it doesn’t matter there anymore either). But really, it’s their college, they can run it how they want. Some might argue about federal funding, but that I think has been shown, again, to be a Trojan Horse for the Left that accomplishes more for them than it ever could for our side.
Honestly this is the sort of trap that gets laid for us and so many tend to blunder right into it. Ultimately this kind of thing ends up making their position even stronger. This is why the lefties think Sotomayor is secretly an idiot – she can’t get hip to the jive.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/29 @ 2:41 pm #
Speech != behavior.
Billy Joe Bob Student says something unpleasant — so what? He’s an adult. His reputation suffers; people listen to him and take into account his history.
Billy Joe Bob Student does something illegal — he deserves the punishment coming to him.
Yes, there are odd cases where speech crosses the line — threats, slander, false statements that cause panic — but calling a school administrator a “douchebag” is not one of them.
More often than not, these restrictions are used to either insulate the officials from criticism (this is one of those cases) or to protect people who, frankly, aren’t emotionally ready to operate in the adult world.
I’m skeptical of crap like this because of my personal experience. Back in my college days — before the WWW, even — a low-ranking administrator tried to get a ban on “misleading” speech in online discussions. The motivation was a single student who couldn’t handle another student making a pro-choice argument by alluding to the possibility she was pregnant. Everyone involved was a nominal adult, it was a private university, and there was no action, ever, that could be considered a violation of any law!
You would have had a few thousand adults having to live with a broadly-worded restriction on their speech because a single person wasn’t emotionally capable of dealing with life in the adult world. Yes, since it was a private university the school didn’t have to worry about Constitutional issues — but on the other hand, the tuition was what was paying to run those computers, and a university shouldn’t be a place where you censor your speech for fear of someone deciding to sic an administrator on you for a “misleading” statement.
In the high school example, why didn’t the school administrators just shrug and get on with their lives? Fer crissake, you’re an authority figure over a few hundred teenagers — if they’re not calling you names, you’re not doing your job. Man-up, grow-up, and stop worrying that little Suzy doesn’t like you.
Comment by SBP on 5/29 @ 2:47 pm #
This is precisely true, which is why I decided to face the hooting throngs and post my thoughts in the first place…I know I’m coming off a bit douchey, sorry, I know this ain’t that kind of blog
Well, you might start by not referring to people who have a different viewpoint as “hooting throngs”.
Douchenozzle.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/29 @ 3:02 pm #
We’re not “hooting thongs”. We’re “rooting thongs”.
Totally different thing altogether.
Comment by dicentra on 5/29 @ 3:05 pm #
And let’s not forget the fact that school administrators tend to be grade-A1 ignoramuses. They’re incompetent teachers who were kicked upstairs to minimize the damage they can inflict on individual students.
And if any of you out there take umbrage at what I just said, chill out. If you’re reading this blog and you’re a school admin, you’re one of the exceptions. And you also know that I’m right about your colleagues.
Comment by SBP on 5/29 @ 3:06 pm #
And let’s not forget the fact that school administrators tend to be grade-A1 ignoramuses.
Above them, of course, are school boards, and we all know what Mark Twain said about them, don’t we?
Comment by The Monster on 5/29 @ 3:18 pm #
I know I root for thongs, except if someone like Rosie is gonna wear one. Then I’m probably rooting against the idea.
Comment by The Monster on 5/29 @ 3:21 pm #
Those who cannot do, teach.
Those who cannot teach, adminstrate.
Those who cannot adminstrate, consult.
Those who cannot consult, administer consultancies….
Comment by dicentra on 5/29 @ 4:59 pm #
Those who cannot consult, administer consultancies….
And the Peter Principle kicks them upstairs to Congress.
Comment by dicentra on 5/29 @ 5:01 pm #
we all know what Mark Twain said about them, don’t we?
That rumors of their death were greatly exaggerated? I don’t feel like looking it up, so you’ll have to share.
Comment by SBP on 5/29 @ 5:02 pm #
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board.
–Mark Twain