Student Charged for Writing Violent Essay

Originally Posted by Vegas

Listen as someone whom deals with psychology (I am not going to give the extent to which I do) I understand the need to catch things this early into it.

Your credibility just went out the window. If you hadn't claimed some association with that wicked worldly philosophy (psychology), I might have a different opinion. I agree that there is a need to address potential problems early on - before they become problems - but the way they should have done it was to go to the parents and let the parents get whatever "help" they felt was appropriate.

The student that shot and killed 32 other students at VT had been brought to a counseling center because of his writing.

Obviously the counseling didn't do him any good. Maybe the real issue there wasn't some sort of "mental illness" but, instead, evil. Humans are evil by nature. Jesus went so far as to say that there is none good but God.

The issue I see is that the student DID violate the safety and rights of others by his writing.

Nonsense! There is no constitutional right to be protected from the writings of others and there is nothing unsafe about the written word. Now, if this kid had acted on his strange views then that's an entirely different matter.

The point I would like to make is that if he were to fight the appeal it would end up in a supreme court case, where they would err on the side of safety.

I'm not sure the present Supreme Court would err on the side of safety but I agree with the person who said more than two hundred years ago that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little security don't deserve to have either one.

The fact of the matter is the Supreme Court has the authoritative right to interpret what the first amendment of the constitution means when it says the right to freedom of speech. Here is where that is found:

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."

This is not the authority to interpret the Constitution or any of its amendments.

The first amendment is a granted freedom and as a preacher I do know this amendment by heart:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No, it is not a granted freedom, it's a prohibition against the government.

Which if you ask me is not at hand here... the amendment states that congress (later extended to the states as well) shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech... they did not say this person could not say the things he said the issue was the things he said were deemed to cause a situation where it seemed to infringe upon others safety.

The issue here is the abridging of the freedom of speech. The written word does not infringe on other people's safety and, even if it does, the first amendment specifically states that freedom of speech is not to be abridged.