Student Charged for Writing Violent Essay

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18353425/&GT1=9246

So much for free speech! What's next, charging a student for writing about the "violence" of sinners burning in the lake of fire?

[Trouvere]

my husband read this aloud to me this afternoon.This guy wrote some wierd stuff.

Originally Posted by Trouvere

my husband read this aloud to me this afternoon.This guy wrote some wierd stuff.

I agree that it was some weird stuff but there's nothing unconstitutional about writing weird stuff.

Originally Posted by Chan

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18353425/&GT1=9246

So much for free speech! What's next, charging a student for writing about the "violence" of sinners burning in the lake of fire?

Wow Chan... this doesn't even deserve my sarcasm... are you really siding with this person?

Originally Posted by Vegas

Wow Chan... this doesn't even deserve my sarcasm... are you really siding with this person?

Within the narrow confines of the United States Constitution, I side with the right of this student to write things that are stupid, vile and offensive as much as I side with the right of others to find what the student wrote to be stupid, vile and offensive.

The freedom of speech does not give a person the right "to yell fire in a crowded theatre" and as far as I am concerned a member and a representative this country should not write things that would deem inappropriate to others.

The MCJ is the original Jurisprudence of members of the military not the constitution. This is the same reason it is not against the law for a normal person to commit adultery yet a member of the armed forces will be discharged and spend years in jail for this.

Originally Posted by Vegas

The freedom of speech does not give a person the right "to yell fire in a crowded theatre" and as far as I am concerned a member and a representative this country should not write things that would deem inappropriate to others.

Where is it written in the first amendment that there are limits to the right to free speech? I agree it's irresponsible and potentially dangerous to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but there is nothing in the first amendment that places limits on free speech. As for your belief that an American should not write things that others would deem inappropriate, who gets to decide what "inappropriate" is? Since the majority of Americans are supposedly "Christian" (I don't accept that particular view but let's just go with it for a moment), an atheist writing against the existence of God might be deemed "inappropriate." Should his right to write such nonsense be denied in a country that espouses freedom of speech?

The MCJ is the original Jurisprudence of members of the military not the constitution. This is the same reason it is not against the law for a normal person to commit adultery yet a member of the armed forces will be discharged and spend years in jail for this.

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is irrelevant to the discussion.

A long line of First Amendment cases recognizes that freedom of expression is not absolute. Even where the First Amendment fully applies, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously wrote, no one has the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, the First Amendment does not protect defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, threats or harassment, to cite just a few of the well-established, judicially approved limitations on free speech.

And Yes the UCMJ is very relevant as this person was a member of the military and COULD have been punished much more harshly

Originally Posted by Vegas

A long line of First Amendment cases recognizes that freedom of expression is not absolute. Even where the First Amendment fully applies, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously wrote, no one has the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, the First Amendment does not protect defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, threats or harassment, to cite just a few of the well-established, judicially approved limitations on free speech.

Oh, please, don't give me this Supreme Court nonsense! Court decisions can (and sometimes have been) overturned by successive Supreme Court decisions. Besides, there's nothing in Article III (as amended) that gives the Court the right to "interpret" the Constitution or otherwise impose limits on what is set forth there.

And Yes the UCMJ is very relevant as this person was a member of the military and COULD have been punished much more harshly

Members of the armed forces do, in fact, lose some of their rights by virtue of being in the military. However, this kid hadn't even gone to boot camp yet. I'm not denying the Marine Corps right to release the kid from his contract against his will (though a federal court might), I'm objecting to the school turning the essay over to the police and the police charging the kid with a crime. Further, the article never said what crime the student supposedly committed. It only said that "The charges could result in a $1,500 fine and as many as 30 days in jail if Lee is convicted." Note what also was said in the article: "'The teacher told students: "Be creative; there will be no judgment and no censorship,"' Thomas Loizzo said. 'There was never any warning from the teacher that if she determined the paper to be offensive, she would then pass it along to the authorities.'"

Originally Posted by Chan

Oh, please, don't give me this Supreme Court nonsense! Court decisions can (and sometimes have been) overturned by successive Supreme Court decisions. Besides, there's nothing in Article III (as amended) that gives the Court the right to "interpret" the Constitution or otherwise impose limits on what is set forth there.

Members of the armed forces do, in fact, lose some of their rights by virtue of being in the military. However, this kid hadn't even gone to boot camp yet. I'm not denying the Marine Corps right to release the kid from his contract against his will (though a federal court might), I'm objecting to the school turning the essay over to the police and the police charging the kid with a crime. Further, the article never said what crime the student supposedly committed. It only said that "The charges could result in a $1,500 fine and as many as 30 days in jail if Lee is convicted." Note what also was said in the article: "'The teacher told students: "Be creative; there will be no judgment and no censorship,"' Thomas Loizzo said. 'There was never any warning from the teacher that if she determined the paper to be offensive, she would then pass it along to the authorities.'"

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.

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

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

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.

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..."

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.

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.