Talk:Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Contents |
[edit] First Amendment
You realize that all of those Supreme Court cases you cited relate to the rights of minors in grade and high schools, right? - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 19:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- FIRE is also opposed to some anti-bullying codes in high schools, so my choice of cases is entirely relevant. Wykked Wytch (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- You are in favour of limitations on non-threatening speech? FIRE has defended the rights of leftists and conservatives equally, and is really, just in favour of the right to think freely. Remember that time when the University of Georgia censored pro-life students with threats of suspension and expulsion? Are you in favour of that kind of control over the thoughts of students? брэндэн (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- FIRE is also opposed to some anti-bullying codes in high schools, so my choice of cases is entirely relevant. Wykked Wytch (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] "conservative agenda"
They take cases on behalf of conservative causes, because it is the conservative causes that are often being marginalized on grounds of "offense". They have also taken liberal causes, on the rarer occasion it is a liberal cause being silenced. брэндэн (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- So you admit that they are a conservative group? Typhoon (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- They have conservative backers, which is unsurprising. However, they take on liberal cases with just the same vigour, so, I don't see how they as a group are part of a "conservative agenda". Furthermore, the number of conservative causes they back makes sense - statistics show an overwhelming number of students on campus are liberal, and university policies tend to reflect those progressive attitudes, marginalizing conservative viewpoints. брэндэн (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] The wingnuts are deeply aggrieved
Patrick Popehat got the wingnuts and Gamergaters roused. Can we fact-check, polish up and extend this one? - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really see why we need to bother; no matter what we do with it, Clark and Patrick (and probably Ken) will still poo-poo it because of fan-boyism. --Castaigne (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Because it'd be nice to have an obviously good article when idiots like that go off at it - David Gerard (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Hey, sugartits...
Because apparently some asshole shouting "Hey, sugartits!" at a female classmate is just as worthy of First Amendment protection as students peacefully protesting their college's choice of commencement speaker. Actually, the point of First Amendment law is to keep the power to keep that kind of value judgment out of the hands of officialdom at every level. (And let's not confuse First Amendment law with the broader topic of freedom of speech, either.) - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 00:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)