Dear ALTRAV,

What was being discussed was the rights of students
in a school. And as stated quite clearly students
have free speech rights but they are more constrained
than those of adults. School districts can limit them
in the interests of maintaining a disciplined educational
environment.

All this and more was explained in my posts. I have
nothing to do with the policies of the schools.
However I agree that school administrators must have
some latitude to prevent in-school speech that is intended
to vilify minority individuals and groups.

Everyone can say what they want (outside of schools) but
if you want to promote something that's harmful, then
don't get angry if you're shut down by people who don't
want to hear it.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier - nowadays its fairly
standard to find that when something problematic
happens and people complain about it, there's almost always
one person who says, "But what about free speech?"

Freedom of speech is, of course, the phrase used to
describe the fact that in most countries people are free
to say whatever they want. And, that's fine. But sometimes
however, free speech can shift into the dangerous territory
of hate speech.

Free speech as stated means you can say whatever you want -
hate speech is when people say things that are outrightly
harmful to a particular group of people.

Free speech works both ways. If your free speech becomes
hate speech then some of us can use our right to free
speech to complain and critique yours. The line needs to
be drawn when genuinely harmful things are being said.
If someone is plainly using hate speech we have a right
to complain and not give it a platform.

Instead of bemoaning the "PC culture" people might be better
served if they stopped and considered how - whatever it is they
are intent on saying might make someone feel.

No Foxy, sorry, but absolutely not.
I will draw the line at disgusting comments, in school or anywhere for that matter, but I don't care for restrictive, censored speech, anywhere, especially schools.
Those of you who conveniently highlight the words 'hate speech' are in fact guilty of hate speech by even suggesting it.
People are what they are.
They are who they are.
It is not for you or anyone else including the law to demand that someone stop being themselves.
You, nor the law, no-one has any right to tell anyone else to stop hating or stop speaking hatefully.
What the hell do you or any other sanctimonious self righteous and holy-er than thou person know what someone is thinking and why they are lashing out.
You will not push your self righteous agenda just to satisfy your personal ego or whatever it is that makes you feel that you are or know better than everyone else.
If someone wants to malign or vilify someone else, he has a reason. You are not part of that interaction, you are not part of the reason so, but out.
What arrogance.
Now we're going to be told what we can say and to whom and when.
Yeah, right.
No I say to all those pushing this crap agenda, shut up or get stuffed.
There, is that free speech enough for you all.
What a friggin liberty.

Ahh! first world problems.....most of the world is scratching for a living and getting by with the linguistic skills momentarily required to advance their quest...and then we have those finding it necessary to re interpret what has defined man for thousands of years to a vaginaless individual so as to avoid using the sexist word 'man' and so render the word 'woman' as obsolete as a consequence.
This is getting as as bad as that dyke postulating as a woman, claiming that babies covered in the proverbial need to be asked for permission to change their nappy so that they can feel inclusive in the process.

Society needs a war to re introduce it back to necessities as it's obviously incapable of correcting the banalities as they arise.
Judgement is totally non existent

Where the fukkk is Hitler when you need him

Hi Foxy,
Ours laws stipulate the limits in relation to 'speech'; as opposed to 'causing offence'.
The limits to my (permitted) speech require that it remains within the constraints of 18c and 18d.

There are no limits or constraints on my speech in relation to 'causing offense';
- So long as my speech remains within the constraints of 18c and 18d.

I could (for example) deliberately say something to someone very offensive and hurtful just by telling the truth.
Which means that free speech is a sword, and I should take care to weild it wisely.

Schools have certain expectations.
I always wore my proper uniform at school though on free dress day I recall wearing something offensive once and was made to change it (but I just put it back on later).

The point you are trying to make I believe is 'discernment' in regard to common ethics and decency.

FYI, my comment 'God hates fags' was chosen because I was being lazy and didn't want to type out the full phrase whilst using my smartphone.
It was actually a reference to Westboro Baptist Church.
http://goo.gl/images/Nov8va
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

I also used it because its a shortened version of what you said, and I do tend to talk that way.
For example, it's easier for me to say someone 'has their head up their...'; than explain this in a convoluted manner such as might be taught at finishing school, it's just how I am.
But I probably wouldn't normally use the word 'fag' when talking directly to people (like yourself) who I think might find it off-putting, because of discernment.
That said, I have little care or respect for political correctness and given that I think gays stepped over the line with indoctrination of kids and victimising other members of the community I may sometimes be in such a mood where I may feel it's my duty to offend, with references such as 'poofter'.

(Cont.)
One more point I forgot Foxy.
This speech thing; the law says your entitled to speak your true beliefs.
But leftists in society are trying to socially engineer people into thinking it's about 'not causing offense', and these are two different things altogether.

Hey ALTRAV,
Nice job spotting Foxy's attempt to limit or control my speech, on this topic too which she started.
I'm not sure she realised what she did, and I missed it too until I got halfway through your first response.

Special Delivery, my apologies I assumed you were stating your beliefs, when you were actually criticizing Forwardplease, as a resent escapee. What I said about you applies to Fowardplease. A misunderstanding of who you were as I have not read your previous posts. Forwardplease, one always assumes the person as non gender and "he" and "him" are non gender, same with "man" as "woman' identifies woman as gender; that the person has a womb. There are some aboriginal who wish to take advantage of White education as the Kathy Freeman foundation. Tania Major, 2007 Young Australian of the Year, was the only person in her school class to go to university. She’s from Kowanyama in Queensland’s Cape York, and remembers her class. “I’m also the only girl in my class who did not have a child at 15. Of the boys in my class, seven have been incarcerated, two for murder, rape and assault. Of the 15, there are only three of us who are not alcoholics. And one of the saddest things I must report is that four of my classmates have already committed suicide.” Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/education/aboriginal-students-in-higher-studies-at-university#ixzz5HsSk9f1