High School Student Forced To Remove NRA Shirt, Because Pictures Of Guns Are Scaaaaary

from the the-pen-is-mightier-than-the-10mm-pistol dept

Tue, Oct 8th 2013 3:40am — Timothy Geigner

Being a strong, if not fanatical, supporter of free speech sure does make you occasionally jump in bed with strange folks. See, I think the National Rifle Association is largely a group of privileged blowhards who have gone so far past their original purpose as to be a caricature of their former selves. Any virtuous purpose it may have served has been pushed from the public eye by the kind of actions that make me think the NRA is being run by under-fed six-year-olds that found mommy and daddy's liquor cabinet.

And now, for my next magical trick, I'm going to defend a high school student's right to wear an NRA shirt to school. A sophomore from Orange County, California was ordered to remove an NRA t-shirt that included an image of a deer, an American flag, and the silhouette of a hunter.

Canyon High’s principal emailed Bullwinkle’s father, stating, in part, that “The shirt had a gun on it, which is not allowed by school police.” Note that the principal invokes, ominously, the authority of the school police – it’s the police, not administrators, who are enforcing this rule! Nevermind that administrators wrote the dress code and that the principal, according to CBS, enforced it. Pass the buck on the shirt about shooting bucks, if you will.

I don't care if you're the biggest gun-control supporter out there, you should think this is stupid. And, frankly, it's hard to divorce the school's actions from political leanings, because I'd bet everything I own that this young man wouldn't have been asked to remove a shirt with the US Army National Guard logo, which has a gun on it, or perhaps one of the US Army's secondary logos, which include swords. What this is, plain and simple, is a reactionary stifling of speech due to a combination of public opinion against the NRA and silly cautionary rules for expression in schools due to recent shooting incidents. And that isn't acceptable. In fact, courts in the past have said that kind of thing is likely a first amendment violation.

Besides all that, the school's dress code is hilariously broad.

Clothing or Jewelry that promotes or depicts: gang, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, violence, criminal activity, obscenity, the degrading of cultures, ethnicity, gender, religion and/or ethnic values. (In general, anything that is divisive or offensive to a staff member).

Oh, great, let's leave the definition of disallowed clothing up to the whims of a potentially easily-offended faculty. What could go wrong? You know, other than faculty claiming offense at something they dislike but is not offensive.

Let's be clear: the NRA may suck, but it doesn't make a habit out of promoting general violence and school shootings. It has its problems, to be sure, but the NRA is a legitimate lobbying organization. The t-shirt had a picture of a hunter, not an AK-47 spitting bullets into a series of small puppies. To pretend that there was any danger worth censoring a student's speech in any of this is as ridiculous as it is dangerous.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: free speech, nra, students

126 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ragnarredbeard (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 4:22am

"See, I think the National Rifle Association is largely a group of privileged blowhards who have gone so far past their original purpose as to be a caricature of their former selves."

Much like any other political organization.

Free speech is free speech. I'll defend your right to be an ass, but I don't have to like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
miatajim (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 4:30am

Re:
Thanks, you posted what I came here to post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 4:33am

Re:
To quote Jon Stewart:

"I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andy (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 4:44am

Remember, people
T-shirts don't kill...period. That is all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 4:45am

"High School Student Forced To Remove NRA Shirt, Because Pictures Of Guns Are Scaaaaary"

OK, OK, OK, I got it. Bear with me for a moment here.

A picture is worth a thousand words, right?

And some times words hurt, right?

Well, there's your problem! The school is just trying to protect the students from getting hur...

You know what? Screw it. I can't do this...it is just too retarded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JustMe (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 4:49am

Actually, I like that idea, Tim
Let's have everyone wear US military clothing for a few days in a row, as nearly every logo from the five branches depicts military hardware, which might incite the students to violence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 4:50am

(In general, anything that is divisive or offensive to a staff member).

Does this mean that a Miss Piggy emblem could be banned by a Muslim teacher?

This sort of rule is more likely to cause violence against the school than avoid it, due to its arbitrary and divisive nature; kids being punished for what they and their parents accept as reasonable behaviour or dress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 4:52am

The problem is all these ak 47's on the streets. I was walking home not three days ago from the local organic market, step around the corner and immediately trip over an ak-47 just lying there, dropped like three pounds of Chevre in a puddle. Pick myself up, get my cheese out of a puddle, turn around and immediately fall over yet another ak-47. Thinking this is just ridiculous I just leave my groceries, all of which are now dented, dinged or wet and throw my hands in the air in defeat. As I continue walking home, I notice people everywhere tripping over ak-47's, I try to get across the street and fell several more times, ak-47's were peaking out of bushes and hurling themselves at pedestrians, everyone was falling over all over the place. Someone is going to get a sprained ankle or something if we don't act quick. Would you want your child just stumbling over an rouge ak-47 in the street? WE NEED TO GET THESE GUNS OFF THE STREET! IT'S A MATTER OF SAFETY! CHILDREN! THINK OF THEM!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:03am

so, it's ok to censor a picture of an ak-47 shooting puppies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:17am

Hate to say it
But its my right, that I agree although freedom of speech is not absolute (anywhere), this does not really fall under anything that is commonly the subject of limitation.

Its also good to see TD promoting free speech, after the past few months of TD's ignoring it itself. Lets so how long it lasts this time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:20am

The first paragraph is rather childish and unworthy of this blog. The irrational anti-NRA bias does not belong here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:21am

Although it is an obscenity
It would not be too hard for a lawyer to show that someone (a teacher or staff) could think a picture (icon) of a gun is reasonably obscene. Taking into the consideration the US's history of school shootings. As you pointed out, NRA is in itself really an obscenity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:26am

Re:
This sort of rule is more likely to cause violence against the school than avoid it

so do you believe someone is going to go shoot up a school in protect of this guy being banned from wearing an NRA shirt ? I am just wondering how you think that would work? or is it a veiled threat?

Arbitrary and divisive nature? it's hardly arbitrary I would think, seems quite specific to me, is it divisive because how ? what groups are you dividing ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:34am

Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
a military logo shows the military units, Patriotism, serving the Country, protection, apple pie, hero's.. and so on.
NRA shirt promotes GUNS.

it's also an NRA T-Shirt, not his own speech, it's not his speech to be free. the NRA shirt expresses the speech of the NRA, if he has of made his own shirt with "NRA is great" then that is his own free speech or freedom of expression.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:35am

Re:
I read this blog for the opinions that I agree with. Please keep your opinions I disagree with out of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:38am

Re:
(In general, anything that is divisive or offensive to a staff member).

that would never pass legal muster, what it should read, or at least be read as is:

Anything that is (REASONABLY) considered divisive or offensive to a staff member. (or ANY attendees).

the "reasonably" is all important, makes all the difference, it means sure you can ban something, but you have to have a decent reason for it.

And it is IMO reasonable to believe people could be offended by icons of guns in schools in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brazenly anonymous, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:38am

Re: Remember, people
Stuff it down someone's throat and they'll probably still suffocate.

Everything could be used as a weapon. If it has any other use, it shouldn't be banned for that potential. A t-shirt is probably on the level with a plastic knife (up the nose, into the brain).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:39am

Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
it's also an NRA T-Shirt, not his own speech, it's not his speech to be free. the NRA shirt expresses the speech of the NRA, if he has of made his own shirt with "NRA is great" then that is his own free speech or freedom of expression.
This is completely, stunningly, mind-bogglingly wrong.

With an argument that sloppy and idiotic, you must be a lawyer . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brazenly anonymous, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:41am

Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
But wearing the shirt is an act of free speech. This act says "I support this organization and agree with what they have to say."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Travis, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:41am

Re:
Whoosh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:41am

Re: Although it is an obscenity
It would not be too hard for a lawyer to show that someone (a teacher or staff) could think a picture (icon) of a gun is reasonably obscene.
Actually, it would be incredibly hard. Read: impossible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brazenly anonymous, 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:47am

Re: Although it is an obscenity
As a public school it inherits constitutional protections from the State government it is maintained by (this interpretation is backed by Supreme Court rulings blocking prayer in school). Considering something obscene does not provide an exception the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:50am

Re: Hate to say it
"after the past few months of TD's ignoring it itself"

Awww, did someone's feelings get hurt again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 5:58am

Re: Re:
"hardly arbitrary I would think, seems quite specific to me"

A rule that basically says "no matter what it is, if a teacher doesn't like it then it can be banned" is specific to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:01am

Re: Re:
"the "reasonably" is all important"

...and not mentioned in the text quoted from the school's rulebook that you're addressing. I wonder why that is?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Anderson, 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:08am

I believe that the dress code is generally ok. Obviously a staff member must make the determination; it's not up to a student or some external force, it's up to the staff to enforce the dress code.

Under the first amendment, it is perfectly legal to limit disruptive clothing in schools, and I can see disruption in each of the terms of the code under the lens of "promoting" the negative activities.

"Clothing or Jewelry that promotes or depicts: gang, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, violence, criminal activity, obscenity, the degrading of cultures, ethnicity, gender, religion and/or ethnic values."

On the other hand, the prohibition of anything that "depicts" one any these does seem a bit overbroad. For example, a shirt for "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" will be banned, simply because their primary logo is a key crossing a martini glass. To my mind, then, the inclusion of the "to a staff member" was intended to limit the overbroadness, not to make it more broad, as the author has suggested.

The main problem here is that the dress code has been erroneously extended to prevent protected free speech, e.g. the depiction of guns in a non-violent manner or way that will not cause disruption to the school. Should we be surprised that in a state headed for bankruptcy that the district lawyers would allow it to get this far because they will surely lose and the law states that when they lose, the California law regarding free speech in high schools stipulates that the school (or district) must pay for the legal fees of the prevailing high school student.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Anderson, 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:12am

Re: Re: Although it is an obscenity
Just wrong. Obscene T-shirts are clearly disruptive to high school education. Not sure why you have latched onto this "obscene" standard because as the Supreme Court has ruled, "Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:13am

I think I will draw Pedobear, with a mustache, with a swastika, wearing some skulls depicting all 3 major human races(Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid), holding a BFG(Big Fucking Gun), with a cigar that resembles a joint, taking a dump on Mohammed.

How many people I can offend with just one drawing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:13am

Let's be clear: The president just ordered 28 million to be spent on cops for schools, the very thing the NRA came out for the week after the Newtown killings by the SSRI (serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitor) inhibited nut case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Anderson, 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:15am

Ok, the comments on here are just strange. There seems to be a misunderstanding of "obscenity", which is defined as work that depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct.

The shirt obviously didn't have any sexual reference at all, so why are people clouding the issue with obscene content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:17am

Goddamn everything is shit these days.. I did not even get sent home for wearing my Cradle of Filth Jesus is a cunt shirt. They made me turn it inside out and told me for the love of god please never wear that to school again.

I'd hate to see what they'd do today over my knuckle tattoo that says Fuck You and my Grim Reaper with an AK on my forearm. Keep in mind I had those two done when I was 13.

Vulgar, yes
Offensive, yes very
My Birth right as an American, you fucking bet it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:23am

Re: Re:
"(In general, anything that is divisive or offensive to a staff member)."

Where is the word reasonably there? Are you just imagining things?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:26am

Re: Re: Re: Although it is an obscenity
How is a picture of a deer, the American flag and a gun, obscene? At worst, that's just a picture speaking about hunting, more than likely for food.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:27am

Re:
My god...make that a T-shirt and I'll buy it. Do it now!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:37am

Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
Even adopted speech is still individual speech.
By using the same symbolism created by others he is telling others he agrees with it does he not?

That is a choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:46am

Jewelry
I wonder what they would do if a student was wearing a pentacle? It could be considered "offensive to a staff member" if the staff member belongs to some fundamentalist religions. It is also a religious symbol.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:47am

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out yet that the school official clearly mistyped "police" for "policies". Seriously. I'm as much against this stuff as anyone, but he didn't mean to type "police" there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 6:50am

Actually, he probably meant to say "policy" and leave it at that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:12am

Re: Hate to say it
Tech Dirt isn't a government agency. DERP
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:15am

"...was ordered to remove an NRA t-shirt that included an image of a deer, an American flag, and the silhouette of a hunter."

Well? Did it have a picture of a gun on it or not?
Not that it matters, except if it didn't the whole thing is even more mornonic.

Many years ago my niece complained about the restrictive policies about what a T-shirt could say at her high school. Then she moved to another school for her last 2 years. We were walking by the T-shirt store where they had one of those shirts "I ama virgin. (This is an old shirt)" I told her she could wear that to school. She said, "naah, this school doesn't care what you wear so it's no fun trying to get them annoyed."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:24am

Re:
Not Murican... I think this is a ridiculous defence of promoting guns.
I don't agree at all in this instance. Promotion of weapons designed to kill people should not be allowed in schools or even TV etc.. We are not talking about free speech. We are clearly talking about the promotion of guns. What if his T-Shirt promoted "rape drugs" or even just cigarettes?
Oh wait... cigarettes are regulated in their promotion, in Murica.
FDA regulate the ingredients in tobacco products and the way they are distributed, sold and marketed.

Honestly from an outsiders view... I am not surprised you equate "free speech" to "free to promote".
You guys have nearly all drugs advertised and promoted on your TV's FFS.
That alone is amazing. We only have the occasional "off the shelf" Flu, Migraine, "upset stomach" type medicine advertised and promoted. You know... the stuff that doesn't need a medical professional to prescribe it.

"Free speech" is NOT "right to promote"
Disagree?
Then I am sure Marlborough have some great t-shirts, pens etc... to give to your kids.

Americans are literally getting more ridiculous by the day.
Mindless peoples controlled by poll-testing absurd ideas that are twisted to Orwellian meaning. Snap out of it ffs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:30am

Re:
who is the mustache meant to offend?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:31am

Re: Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
I hate to be the one that has to tell you this, but he's being sarcastic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:32am

Re:
I'll buy it if you add Abraham, the Constitution and Hitler to those being dumped upon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:32am

Re: Re:
Unlike tobacco, which is all negatives (the closest positive that I can think of is it helps calm you down, but that's only once your craving for nicotine kicks in, which was caused by tobacco in the first place), guns can and do have useful purposes.
Yes, they kill people. They can also be used to hunt for food, to scare off pest animals from farmland, to defend against invaders.

I am saying that as someone who hopes earnestly never to have to handle a gun in his entire life. I don't like guns myself, but I can recognize their value.

I'd also like for you to back up your assertion that nearly all drugs are advertised on TV. The statement, all drugs, would also include all illegal ones, like cocaine and heroin. They are also drugs. When was the last time they were advertised on TV?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:36am

Every student, everywhere, should wear a NRA t-shirt to school tomorrow. It's called vigilance in the face of tyranny which is like important and stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yayagoddess (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:43am

I think that the lesson here is to teach kids about the importance of rules. Just like I have to dress a certain way for my job, or for a job interview, or a formal event, so kids need to learn that they have to abide by certain policies, and standards out in the real world. School is what kids "do." It is supposed to prepare them for real life. Rules are a part of that. I cannot stand up at work and yell out a profanity at someone. I can't wear jeans and sneakers. I can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Free speech, whether in the form of verbal uttering or dress, is curtailed every single day, in many situations. That's life. The kid and her parents should deal with it. The writer of the article has no proof that the school wouldn't ask a student to remove a National Guard shirt. He is just assuming. Also, at not time did the principal SAY the picture of the hunter with the gun was "scary." The writer is inserting his own assumptions once again. But, as for an Army shirt, I bet they have an ROTC at the school ,so a military shirt would fall under an approved school activity/course of learning. Unless they have a hunting club, then a shirt depicting the imminent slaughter of wildlife does not carry the same approval. So, the two cannot actually be compared. I did look up the school. They do have an ROTC but not a hunting club or course of study in becoming a hunter or woodsman.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:45am

Re: Although it is an obscenity
Allowing even one of our constitutional rights to be chipped away at opens the door for us to lose all of them. It's why I'm opposed to anything that imposes restrictions on our fundamental rights as defined in the bill of rights. These are non-negotiable. If we lose even one, we lose the foundation that our country is built upon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kozway, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:48am

Re:
i would buy this shirt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:49am

Re: Re: Re:
"back up your assertion"... "not all drugs are legal".

Nit-picking a valid argument to attempt a win.

Point is that the drug's manufacturers of drugs that you can not buy without prescription are advertising those drugs that you can not buy to you.
Because you know best, you have a medical doctorate and all the symptoms the drugs say they defeat?

It's a ridiculous promotion

Misuse of legal medications kills more US citizens than die in car crashes.

United States now consumes 80% of the world's opioid pain medications

United States now consumes 99% of the world's hydrocodone (semi-synthetic opioid)

HURR FUCKKING DURRR, If you cant see the obvious correlation then all hope is lost.

Drug ads were illegal on television in U.S. until 1997.
The US and New Zealand are the only two countries where direct to consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs is legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:50am

Re:
But, as for an Army shirt, I bet they have an ROTC at the school ,so a military shirt would fall under an approved school activity/course of learning.

I bet they teach American history and government classes too, so a NRA shirt would fall under course of learning as well. Free speech is the first amendment for a reason. It trumps everything else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:50am

and exactly what action has/is being taken to right this wrong, this intrusion on a person's right to dress how he/she wants, or in the case of children, how the parents want to dress them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:51am

Re:
The problem isn't the AK-47's, it's the bullets, they are the heavy part of it, so do a civil duty and pick up the AK and empty it's clip in the air, then you can just drop it, since it's light as the air, and bounce around as a balloon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:51am

NRA are traitors and cowards. JPFO are the real deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 7:55am

Re: Re: Re:
Also... "Nearly all drugs" means not all. You replaced what I said with "all drugs" in the very next sentence.

""I'd also like for you to back up your assertion that nearly all drugs are advertised on TV. The statement, all drugs, would also include all illegal ones""

Nit picking via a deliberate fallacy of my intended meaning via misquoting what I said. It didn't even address my points.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
P., 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:07am

Re: Re:
Free speech is the right to promote.

If I can't promote my ideals... how is that NOT suppression of free speech?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CSMcDonald (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:08am

a) - small clarification - the teen in question is a young lady, not a young man (Tim, did you even go and read the original news story about this?)

b) For everyone yammering that the school was right, they have already backed down and apologized - http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9273909 (this story is a week old at this point)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:20am

Re:
The irrational anti-NRA bias
I understand the NRA once used the phrase "recreational hand grenade". I think irrational was 3 or 4 turns back...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:23am

Re: Re:
Guns are used for hunting and target shooting, which are legal acts. Further one of the greatest causes of violence is when one person tries to impose their morality on another person, which is what you are trying to do. I do not wish to own a gun is a reasonable position to take, you cannot own a gun for any purpose is an unreasonable position to take.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:35am

Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
Assuming that "corporations are people my friend" and hence they have free speech... Go and promote terrorism, murder and other illegal acts. Surely that is protected under free speech.

Promoting things to children... Most definitely should not protected under "free speech". If you think it should then you have serious problems.
Are pedophiles allowed to promote pedophilia to your kids ?

"Free speech" does not mean you can say what you want to whoever you want without consequence. There are borders of what is and what not is acceptable to "freely say". Ignoring the borders of acceptable "free speech" ignores reality.

TL;DR
Use the "free speech" argument in court when you threaten to kill someone.
"free speech" does not trump "reality of society" and grant you ability to say whatever you want to whomever you want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:38am

Re:
"I cannot stand up at work and yell out a profanity at someone. I can't wear jeans and sneakers. I can't yell fire in a crowded theater."

Those are all situations where the First Amendment, the right to free speech, doesn't apply. The school, being an arm of the government, has to respect First Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haywood (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:41am

Re: Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
Except when it says this shirt was $2 at the thrift shop, & I needed a shirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:43am

Re: Re:
to not-amurican:

you -like too many real murican's- know nothing of what 'free speech' is supposed to entail...

short story: you MUST allow the worst, most despicable speech from your worst enemy, or you are NOT for free speech...

please read up on my boy chomsky's tireless work in this regard...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy

art guerrilla at windstream dot net

eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:44am

Re:
so kids need to learn that they have to abide by certain policies, and standards.

This is not a case of going against a clear rule, such as no slogans, emblems on shirt, or just no obscene shirts. It is a case of arbitrary decision by a school to ban a shirt because they disagree with its politics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:45am

Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
Your mind is a very scary place. Because it's wrong to promote terrorism and murder (I can agree with you there), it's therefore automatically wrong to promote something else that has nothing to do with those things?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:53am

Re:
...or a PETA jerk,
...or a fat teacher,
...or a person who dislikes sillinesss,
...or any of at least 6 billion reasons why *someone*/*anyone* can 'object' to ANYTHING for ANY 'reason'...

its bullshit all the way down...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adam, 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:57am

RE... wow
As much as I applaud the actual content of what your saying, your portrail of the NRA leaves your words a bit empty. To paint a group of over 5 million Americans with such a broad brush only serves to weaken your argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:58am

Re: Re: Re:
False argument...
Nowhere did I say that guns do not have a valid purpose.
Nowhere did I attempt to Impose my morality on others.

If anything...
Promoting guns to kids is IMPOSING the promoters morality of "guns are good" on others.

The whole idea of promotion is that it is inescapable. You cannot help but notice the adverts between tv shows. You cannot help but notice the posters up everywhere. It literally imposes a message that a child is in no way developed enough to fully comprehend or question.

If stopping people who are forcing their promotion on kids is more evil than the promotion... I hear you. I wouldn't want to stop a healthy eating promotion. Stopping the promotion of guns to kids is no where close to the evil of promoting guns to kids.

The kids don't belong to the NRA. Why should the NRA be allowed to force their promotion on your kids.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
P., 8 Oct 2013 @ 9:10am

Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
Yes.

If I want to wear my Futurama T-shirt... I can. Paramount (that big evil corporation) makes plenty of them.

If I want to wear the one with Bender saying "Kill all Humans". I can.

If I want to wear a shirt that says "Derp!" with a picture of {GWBush || Obama}... I can.

If I want to wear a shirt that says "Jack Kevorkian for White House physician"... I can.

If one wants to wear a shirt with Pedobear, or the "Super Adventure Club"... fine.

Free speech *HAS* been used in court on threats of killing somebody... that's why we have to find if the threats are creditable. People have made death threats to both Bush and Obama... they still walk free because those threats aren't creditable.

as for "'free speech' doesn't trump 'reality of society'"... That is *EXACTLY* what it does. Society doesn't have the right to silence people they disagree with. Society has the right to ignore them... but not to silence those they disagree with. All of the movements... Civil rights in all forms, started by people saying things that society didn't agree with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shawn (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 9:13am

LOL a school with a "Comanche" for a mascot wants to regulate what is offensive! With two spears in the logo they should make sure none of its students wear the logo on school grounds those spears look like scary weapons! And I hope they make the football team play without their helmets the spear image on the side could be mistaken for a weapon.

http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/canyon/index.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 9:22am

literalists of an ideological concept "free speech" = "free to say anything without consequence" are actually ignorant to reality.

There is no literal "free speech". It's an abstract concept that relies on there being no consequence to ANY speech.
If 10 people were in a room and they couldn't see each other. If those 10 people only spoke one language and each language was different... then free speech exists in that room. Consequential "free speech" in it's purest form.

We are dealing with the reality of "free speech" rules and regulations. We SHOULD all know that literal "free speech" is not a realistic ideology, would probably destroy society and make individuals lives a living hell. Alas... some people seem to think that they can say whatever they want and it's "consequence free speech".

Not to say that we shouldn't try to have as much freedom to speech as we can. We should. We just can't ignore the consequences of speech which are very much real.

Sticks and stones didn't break her bones... but the verbal threats and abuse made her commit suicide.

Interesting subject btw... I will read up on that. Thx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 10:10am

People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
Lots of people HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama... Google it.
Threatening and stating a fictional plot are different. They check if a "plot" was credible. A threat is checked for intent were the means are irrelevant unless plotted.

Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater
�The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic � . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.�
1919 U.S. Supreme Court written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

'free speech' doesn't trump 'reality of society' ... end of
Your are literally delusional to think otherwise.

Sure we can argue over the boundaries of what should and should not be protected with "free speech" but denying the existent of the boundary is not relevant. It exists and is a fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 10:22am

Re:
did NOT say that speech ('free' or not) does not have 'consequences', if it didn't, why bother with speaking ?

i *am* saying:
A. many -if not most- people -muricans or not- have a stunted view of 'free speech'; essentially, they define it to mean: 'you can say whatever you want as long as it isn't *too* icky...'
*that* is NOT 'free speech' in just about any objective definition you could find, and yet sheeple still 'believe' in it...

B. in 'reality', we *barely* have any significant opportunity for warts-and-all free speech: not on *MOST* of the venues of the inertnets (rampant censorship); at work (shut up, droid, and don't say ANYTHING); at school (shut up, kid-with-no-rights, and take off that tee shirt that says ANYTHING); in public (shut up, citizen, and get back in your 'free speech' cage); and, you don't even have to be paranoid to wonder who is listening to your phone/tee vee/radio/'puter/whatever in your own dog damn castle ! ! !

as far as i'm concerned, true free speech is THE bedrock right upon which all others are predicated: no speech, no voice... literally and figuratively...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy

eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 10:31am

Re:
I believe about 1% of the US population serves in the military. About 95% eat meat that used to be a living animal. How can it be more appropriate to allow clothing that promotes the military, but completely ban "the imminent slaughter" of animals?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Davey, 8 Oct 2013 @ 10:31am

Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
The bogus "right to bear arms" as interpreted by congressional corporate shills has everything to do with the above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 10:32am

Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
Promoting is the operative word. Promoting to children is the issue. Promoting guns to children. The kids can't ignore the promotion. If they see it, it has been promoted. Parents have no choice. Teachers have no choice.

Promoting a tool designed to kill people.
How the fuck is that not like promoting murder ?
Even hunting is murdering animals... no?

My mind is based in reality. A scary place is where you are oblivious and willfully ignorant to the manipulation of perception of your kids... Just because they cry "free speech" and tell you it is a literal concept even when factually it is not.
BTW... "Literal free speech" is also a nasty concept. There are some things that people shouldn't be allowed to freely say.

Meh... think whatever you want, it's not my kids being brainwashed by the NRA promotion to kids.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JBDragon, 8 Oct 2013 @ 10:35am

Re: Although it is an obscenity
Zero NRA members have gone on Shooting spree's!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 10:35am

Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
This shirt promotes hunting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 8 Oct 2013 @ 10:38am

Censoring
Sounds like a great reason to pull their federal funding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
P., 8 Oct 2013 @ 10:42am

Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
They have been detained... In my state, when Obama came to visit, the FBI did show up at a few locations and questioned a few people. No arrests were made, but there was investigations to some people who made 'certain threats'.

People have not been arrested for making death threats against GW Bush... Even when caught on Television. Google it.

Wearing an NRA T-Shirt isn't promoting any violence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
P., 8 Oct 2013 @ 11:04am

Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
Here is a little reality.

A friend of mine was closing a restaurant. She and two other were left in the store. The other two left after finishing up their tasks, but my friend had some book-keeping to finish. When she finished, she left the restaurant, and headed to her car. There she saw a guy start to follow her. She asked him (at a distance) what he wanted, and he didn't answer but started to move towards her. She pulled out a hand gun (she has a CC permit) and said "I have a gun". The guy decided to turn around and run. She got in her car and drove off.

The next day there was a news article of a rape that took place in that neighborhood. The person they caught matched the description of the person following my friend.

You say a gun only kills... but a gun protected my friend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brazilian Guy, 8 Oct 2013 @ 11:11am

Re: Re:
"who is the mustache meant to offend?"

Gillete, and Brazilian women, suposeddly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sharp as a marble, 8 Oct 2013 @ 11:21am

the kid should wear a shirt that has a picture of one of the many national flags that has an ak47 on it. imagine them justifying banning the wearing of Mozambique's flag because showing solidarity with another country is offensive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 11:28am

Speech has consequences
Could probably argue this topic all night...btw

"Literal free speech" as an ideology as "your right to" requires no consequence, for that to exist in harmony with people... that is the point.

"Literal free speech" requires no consequence of speech
Sure literal free speech exists but the consequences are real. You will get beat up if you go into a bar and start mouthing off at everyone. You will get arrested if you threaten someone.

As an ideology of "people should have the right to say whatever they want wherever they are", it isn't realistic. It completely ignores that words have consequences.

A) Hit me
B) No
A) Hit me you pussy
B) No
A) Hit me or I will shoot your parents
B) WHACK... *punches A*

So in the "free speech" utopia (A) is 100% innocent and (B) just committed assault.

For (B)... "Defending his parents" is not even a valid defence as (A) is allowed to say whatever he wants.
Words have no consequence because of the ideological premise that ignores the reality that words do have a consequence.

"Free speech" applied literally is disastrous for society. There needs to be a boundary.
There always has been a boundary since humans first communicated.
There will always be a boundary.
Words do have consequences. Ignore those consequences if you want.

The real question is that of the boundaries and the consequences you can control. "Political speech" should not have consequences of law. Someone "threatening to kill you" ... yeah, the law should get involved. I don't want someone threatening to kill you. If they then, did kill you and I did nothing... then I have failed you and Society agrees. Words have consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 11:45am

Re: Speech has consequences
So in the "free speech" utopia (A) is 100% innocent and (B) just committed assault.

I believe that under US law right now (certainly not a free speech utopia), that is accurate.

It might take a judge to determine if "hit me, you pussy" constitutes "fighting words" or not -- I don't think they are, though. If they are, that would simply mean that both people are innocent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 11:52am

Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
Promoting a tool designed to kill animals.
FTFY
Hunting/killing animals is... life. If you eat meat, you have to kill the animal one way or another. Some tools make it easier than other tools. How can you say that some tools are OK, but others are not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:00pm

Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
An NRA shirt promotes the NRA, an organization who's original charter was to promote MARKSMANSHIP. In other words, the NRA is all about the skills necessary to be a soldier. The point of the NRA is to have more people qualified to be US Marines.

You know that "well regulated militia"?

Well the NRA represents the closest thing to that ideal in modern America.

Your fear of scary guns doesn't really alter that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
P., 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
Promoting a tool designed to hurl tiny bits of metal very fast.

FTFY.

I've fired a gun a few times in my life. It was always at targets. Was that misuse of the tool?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:02pm

You don't get it do you?
> I understand the NRA once used the phrase "recreational hand grenade".

These are blue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
> Even hunting is murdering animals... no?

No, it's not.

"Murder" is a specific legal term, with a specific legal definition, which is: the unlawful killing of a human being.

Since animals are not human beings, they cannot be murdered, by definition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
> There are some thing that people shouldn't
> be allowed to freely say

And let me guess who gets to decide what those things are... you?

Thankfully we don't have to live based on your dictatorial whims. Nor is our childrens' right to speak dependent on the whims and political preferences of whomever happens to be running their school at any given moment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
Threatening the President of the United States is a Class D felony under 18 U.S.C. � 871, punishable by 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service.

Wearing an NRA T-Shirt in school is promoting a tool that is designed to kill people, to children. The children have no choice but to be subjected to this promotion. The parents of the children have no choice either.

It's a valid disagreement we have.
You won't change my mind on thinking that it's a bad thing and it shouldn't be protected under free speech. Free speech is a convenient excuse to get away with lots of things. NRA promotion in a school? nah...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:23pm

Re:
It's interesting to note that the school's own logo is a Comanche Indian carrying a rifle, so their claim that the image of a gun is prohibited in school is bullshit. They just don't like the NRA's politics and are trying to suppress a political point of view, which is a bright-line 1st Amendment no-no for a government entity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
> Free speech *HAS* been used in court on
> threats of killing somebody... that's why we
> have to find if the threats are creditable.
> People have made death threats to both Bush
> and Obama... they still walk free because
> those threats aren't creditable.

The threats were certainly creditable. They may not have been credible, however.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:27pm

Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
> Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater
> "The most stringent protection of free speech
> would not protect a man in falsely shouting
> fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The
> question in every case is whether the words
> used are used in such circumstances and are
> of such a nature as to create a clear and
> present danger."
> 1919 U.S. Supreme Court written by Justice Oliver
> Wendell Holmes Jr.

That case was overruled by Brandeburg vs. Ohio, genius.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Promoting guns to kids is IMPOSING the promoters
> morality of "guns are good" on others.

So should kids be prohibited from wearing clothing that promotes *any* politicial or social issue, or just the issues you don't particularly agree with?

Should pro-gay rights t-shirts be treated the same way you believe NRA t-shirts should be treated? How about global warming (pro or con)? Or illegal immigration? Or abortion? Or even just candidates during an election?

Do we strip kids of the right to express *all* political and social opinions or just the ones you don't like?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:35pm

Re: Speech has consequences
> "Literal free speech" as an ideology as "your
> right to" requires no consequence

Not under American law. In the context of American law free speech does not mean speech without consequence. It means speech free from government interference and censorship. You still have to deal with the consequences of saying incendiary things (losing your job, social exclusion, etc.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re: Speech has consequences
Yeah... the U.S isn't a "Literal free speech" utopia. You wouldn't want it either. The results would be disastrous.
Coca-Cola $1 but it's really not Coca-Cola "free speech"
Good secure house for sale $200,000...but it's really structurally condemned "free speech"
You are a pedophile...but no evidence "free speech"

In the "Literal Free speech" utopia the threat and request to be hit is irrelevant. (B) commits assault. (A) is 100% innocent.
That is a scary society to live in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:40pm

Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
> a military logo shows the military units,
> Patriotism, the Country, protection, apple pie,
> hero's.. and so on. NRA shirt promotes GUNS.

> it's also an NRA T-Shirt, not his own speech,
> it's not his speech to be free. the NRA shirt
> expresses the speech of the NRA, if he has of
> made his own shirt with "NRA is great" then
> that is his own free speech or freedom of
> expression.

This has to be the most uninformed, illogical, insipid, and flat-out wrong analysis of 1st Amendment law I've seen in quite a while.

Well done!

(Please tell me you're not a product of the public schools, otherwise I'll weep for the future of the nation.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
I called that calibration, or practice. I agree, some guns are made only for that purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 12:45pm

Re: Re: Speech has consequences
Yeah I know, am arguing that point too.

I am debating against the ideology of literal free speech. The idea that people should be free to say whatever they want, whenever they want.

A lot of people expect that "free speech" is and should be a literal right without exceptions. Reality doesn't agree because of the consequences of speech which as you say are very real.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 1:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple... It's all promotion.

You send your kids to school to learn.
Not to have some corporation promote their wares. Not to have some politician promote their ideology. Not to have some religion promote their belief.

I do see your line of questioning. It's a good line....so

Should "kill all blacks" t-shirts be protected as "free speech" ?
Even if worn by the students who are 90% white.

It's school. It's a place for facts. Not a place to promote.
Promoting tools that are designed to kill does make it worse in my eyes. Think it's the part were they are designed to kill that does it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Valkor, 8 Oct 2013 @ 1:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
A gun is less about violence and more about power.

With great power comes great responsibility.
Use it wisely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Valkor, 8 Oct 2013 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re:
Shooting up the school is totally unnecessary.

Pitchforks and torches should do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 1:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
knives were originally designed to assist with killing. guns are a tool that can be used for many things other than killing just like cars. cars kill more people than guns, they should ban them from schools too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 1:39pm

Re: Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
But you still will get arrested for "Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater"

The overruled case clarifies with additional tests, retard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 2:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Not to have some politician promote their
> ideology.

What if it's the kid's own ideology?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 8 Oct 2013 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re: Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
> The overruled case clarifies with additional
> tests

No, Brandenburg *overruled* Schenck, throwing out the clear and present danger test altogether and replacing it with an entirely new test. It didn't clarify or add, it threw out and replaced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 3:53pm

Yes he should have been forced to remove it.

How far do you go in allowing people to wear what they want?

Near here a guy was removed from a movie theatre for wearing a shirt calling for the legalisation of child porn. Very good decision to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 4:02pm

A lot of NRA hate in this article. I guess the author isn't a believer in the 2nd Amendment.

If guns get took away, I suppose crazy people could always build bombs instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 4:21pm

Re:
If guns were taken away, crazy people would use knives instead. Which means people are much less likely to die. Remember the same day as Newtown, a crazy guy in China attacked an elementary school with a knife - 0 dearhs, 22 injured. In Australia in the 2 weeks prior to the school holidays, there were 5 knife attacks at Australian schools (by fellow students, not outsiders) - 0 deaths, 2 hospitalised. Others only sustained minor injuries. The offender gets overpowered easier when he only has a knife, and can do much less damage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:25pm

Re: Re: Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
Your opinion has merit to you. Only to you. Like opinions, everyone has an ass. They always stink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2013 @ 8:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Children still have civil rights. Rights you seem to think you have the right to deny them. Your morals are your own, and I would thank you to not impose them upon my children. Keep your ideals to yourself where myself and my own are concerned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 9 Oct 2013 @ 4:35am

Re: Re:
"We are clearly talking about the promotion of guns."

We are clearly talking about the promotion of hunting. You could easily replace the gun with a crossbow, or a slingshot, and it would not change the message one bit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2013 @ 6:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where's the 'obvious correlation' between ads for erectile dysfunction and depression meds and consumption of opioid pain meds?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2013 @ 6:31am

Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
So in your mind the 2nd amendement either doesn't exist or somehow has nothing to do with guns?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2013 @ 6:37am

Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
You should really know where the quotes you're sourcing come from. That Justic Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. quote? Yeah, that comes from a case where the supreme court made a massive misstep and used the 'fire in a crowded theater' logic to shut down the distribution of anti-draft flyers during WW1. A more textbook case of fallacious logic used to shutdown political speech there isn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2013 @ 6:49am

Re: Re: Re: Speech has consequences
Coca-Cola $1 but it's really not Coca-Cola "free speech"
Good secure house for sale $200,000...but it's really structurally condemned "free speech"

Actually those would be covered under fraud and negligence. In the real world they're crimes not because of the words used but because of the actual actions involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2013 @ 6:50am

Re: Re: Re: Speech has consequences
"I couldn't win a real argument so I made up a straw man to pillory."

At least you're honest I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AntiFish03, 9 Oct 2013 @ 9:37am

Re:
Ragnarredbeard let me help you out as this is what you are getting at.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Voltaire

Also, I have to say there are times I don't agree with the NRA but I am a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and will loudly use my first to protect my 2nd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Oct 2013 @ 9:53am

Re:
"A lot of NRA hate in this article."

Yes, they suck. Specifically they suck because their bullshit undermines their own cause.

"I guess the author isn't a believer in the 2nd Amendment."

Yeah, not even close, chief. I'm a STRONG believer in the 2nd amendment as a matter of personal liberty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2013 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
There isn't anything bogus about the bill of rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2013 @ 1:37pm

Re: Re:
I support the bill of rights. I firmly believe we do our country and grave disservice when we pick and choose which Amendments to support and which ones to push back against.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Oct 2013 @ 1:45pm

Re:
Do you not realize the government is in the process of redefining words?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2013 @ 8:37am

THAT'S IT. USA IS FASCIST.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Oct 2013 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple... It's all promotion.
By that definition, YOU are promoting and should therefore ban yourself from a site that can be seen by children who have no choice but to be promoted at. Please, please do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]