BMX Bandit said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

its because its the STATE that the 1st amendment issues potentially arise that don't come up with your private employer.

---

The tax payer has ZERO OBLIGATION to finance their employees in indoctrination of their children with destabilizing ideologies.

Employees serve their Employers or they stop being Employees.

Just because you walk across a stage in a funny hat doesn't mean you're special.

---

Agree with all three of your statements. Doesn't have anything to do with my post though as 1st amendment applies with the employer is the state.

---

The USSC struck down NCAA policy and opened up NIL saying effectively 'just because you have enjoyed this societal carve out doesn't make it right.'

State employed janitors, police, and DMV clerks don't get absolute free speech while on the clock, so what makes a prof somehow unique? You can still challenge your students to think through the very concepts outlined in this legislation and grapple with the concepts - you just can't champion these things while in official capacity.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Do you have an actual argument about the substance of what I said or do you just want to insult me? I'm especially interested what about my position that the government should not regulate speech, whether it's about affirmative action, or how many genders there are, makes me a leftist.

---

Its the inconsistency. Where is your concern for free speech when the left hits the right. You guys are crickets in those cases.

Quote:

---

he USSC struck down NCAA policy and opened up NIL saying effectively 'just because you have enjoyed this societal carve out doesn't make it right.'

---

thats not what happened at all. and really has nothing to do with free speech or anything on this thread.

ttu_85 said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

Do you have an actual argument about the substance of what I said or do you just want to insult me? I'm especially interested what about my position that the government should not regulate speech, whether it's about affirmative action, or how many genders there are, makes me a leftist.

---

Its the inconsistency. Where is your concern for free speech when the left hits the right. You guys are crickets in those cases.

---

What specific case of the government compelling or restricting speech with a liberal bias have I ignored or sided with the government on?

Interesting article I read today about our schools, their missions and so on. This is mostly about k-12

https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/public-education-drifting-its-founding-ideals-and-public-purpose

Quote:

---

I'll start with an attempt to diagnose the problem, and I'll state it bluntly: Public education is drifting from its founding ideals and becoming increasingly estranged from its stakeholders and its public purpose. Our schools are supposed to be in the business of attaching our children to their country, their community, and civil society. But it sometimes seems they're more interested in attacking them.

---

Quote:

---

Benjamin Rush, one of our first great education theorists, observed that "our strongest prejudices in favor of our country are formed in the first one and twenty years of our lives." In 1786, he wrote that a "general and uniform system of education...will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government."

---

Quote:

---

school culture and curriculum seem nearly to revel in the bad and the broken, suggesting to children that they have suffered the great misfortune to have been born into a country that is racist to its core, whose founding documents were lies when written, and where democracy is hanging by a thread. I dubbed this the "pedagogy of the depressed." The worst part is that it's thought to be a virtue among many professional educators.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think it's untoward or reactionary for parents and stakeholders to say, at some point, "Hold on. What is the permission structure that allows you to do this? To impose political or ideological views on my child? To make decisions unilaterally about what children in our country should know, or about the ideals, beliefs, and behaviors that are praised or condemned in schools that all of us support and pay for?"

---

Quote:

---

when it becomes a form of social justice activism, when it dwells exclusively in the bad and the broken, it tacitly encourages children to see their country as nothing more than a collection of problems to be solved, with none of the virtues and blessings of citizenship.

We want to educate our children to be problem-solvers, but that doesn't mean schools should be problem-spotters or should fetishize America's failures.

---

Quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with thinking that a non-negotiable for public education must be to cultivate in our children a respect and even a reverence for the beliefs, the practices, the institutions, and yes, the virtues that made America the envy of the world.

---

Quote:

---

K12 public school teachers must take to heart that we don't have permission or legal authority to impose our views on a captive audience of our fellow citizens' children. We can't just shut the door and teach what we like.

But please, let's not shy away from controversial topics in schools. Let's lean into them. Not as activists and ideologues, but as serious, thoughtful professionals. I've argued elsewhere that, instead of CRT bans, schools, districts, and states should adopt a code of ethics that encourages teaching contentious issues while valorizing viewpoint diversity.

---

Looks like this judge wants to be a professor. He is wrong. The state has the right to set administrative standards. The judge really has not jurisdiction and if I were DeSantis I would tell him to pound sand. Let him stop the process. Just like speed limits, building standards, etc. The state can set the requirements.

Houstonag said:

---

Looks like this judge wants to be a professor. He is wrong. The state has the right to set administrative standards. The judge really has not jurisdiction and if I were DeSantis I would tell him to pound sand. Let him stop the process. Just like speed limits, building standards, etc. The state can set the requirements.

---

The judge agrees regarding setting administrative standard. He also has jurisdiction to rule on 1st amendment issues.

I disagree with his order, but you post is very odd

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

he USSC struck down NCAA policy and opened up NIL saying effectively 'just because you have enjoyed this societal carve out doesn't make it right.'

---

thats not what happened at all. and really has nothing to do with free speech or anything on this thread.

---

Quote:

---

Kav: "Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate … The NCAA is not above the law."

---

To make the short logic hop: the argument that college professors get limitless reign to say anything they want while in conduct of their duties because of "free speech" and tenure and norms/expectation is found nowhere else in American business.

No one contends professors get limitless reign

That case wasn't about NIL

Kavanaugh'a opinion was a concurrence that no one joined

It still has nothing to do with 1st amendment

If you want to bump the thread on Alston, happy to discuss. Has no relevance here. Stop derailing

Your smug is strong for someone with such arthritic logic.
NCAA restrictions : Only place in society :: Tenure : Unique free speech license

Both college associated cultural artifacts. Both rather unique when compared to the rest of society.

I'm not saying there's any legal crossover - just that they harmonize at a logic level.

You don't know what occurred in either case. How is explaining the facts to you being smug? The first amendment analysis must be done because the state is the employer. That's not an artifact. It's basic law

No offense, but you really aren't making any sense

Naming sense

BigRobSA said:

---

Naming sense

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

"priests of democracy" is from a 1952 case on loyalty oaths being required to be a college professor. Justice Frankfurter wrote:

Quote:

---

To regard teachers -- in our entire educational system, from the primary grades to the university -- as the priests of our democracy is therefore not to indulge in hyperbole. It is the special task of teachers to foster those habits of open-mindedness and critical inquiry which alone make for responsible citizens, who, in turn, make possible an enlightened and effective public opinion. Teachers must fulfill their function by precept and practice, by the very atmosphere which they generate; they must be exemplars of open-mindedness and free inquiry. They cannot carry out their noble task if the conditions for the practice of a responsible and critical mind are denied to them. They must have the freedom of responsible inquiry, by thought and action, into the meaning of social and economic ideas, into the checkered history of social and economic dogma. They must be free to sift evanescent doctrine, qualified by time and circumstance, from that restless, enduring process of extending the bounds of understanding and wisdom, to assure which the freedoms

---

---

Wow.

That is some grade A bloviating right there.

Arthritic logic: stiff, unbending, and the opposite of nimble.

You're on a message board, junior. And you're fixated so far in the legal paradigm that you can't have a human conversation.

But guess what? Law is not penultimate. Regardless how hard lawyers inflate themselves with talk of the infallibility of the Supreme Court, or win precedent expanding cases where the commerce clause is *******ized to negate the 10th amendment - the purpose of law is the service of people (society). Lawyers can twist themselves in pretzels (see any appeal process where decisions waffle) to justify virtually anything, but sometimes a reasonable person needs to come up for air and to orient on real life.

Bottom line: neither the exercise of free speech nor any of the other 4 freedoms in the 1st amendment are violated when a state sets parameters on state-contracted services that happen to be speech heavy.

The principles of free-speech are not violated when the state censors speech. You might wanna go back to the drawing board on that one.

Admiral Adama said:

---

The principles of free-speech are not violated when the state censors sets parameters on the speech that it contracts.

---

FIFY. Nobody has a problem when the state gives parameters to the work performed by an electrocution that it hires. Nobody bats an eye when the state compels their police to give maranda warnings or restricts what they can say (heck - the left has even protested officers for off-duty activities which ARE 1st amendment protected). But you swap out a wire stripper or a badge with a podium and suddenly folks freak out about the state specifying work that is or is not acceptable?

I see little difference between this flavor of anti-CRT legislation and building code. Both are parameters on the application of a trade for the standardization and protection of the constituents who are funding it.

Yep, this is a tough line to walk, the boundary between maximizing free speech while also not setting up pretext for a condition where the same conditions result in a monolithic institutional ideological indoctrination.

Admiral Adama said:

---

Number six is affirmative action. The State of Florida conceded that number six is affirmative action. Whether or not I agree with affirmative action, I strongly disagree with the idea that someone that wants to talk about affirmative action in the University classroom as an advocate is someone that should be fired.

---

what you are failing to grasp is it is OK to advocate for anything in the classroom as long as dissenting discourse is allowed without penalty. Which it clearly is not in many of the "priests of democracy" classrooms. If it was , this law wouldn't be necessary.

This is literally a discussion about the legality of a law and how first amendment applies. Sorry the legal paradigm is relevant. If you don't want to discuss the legal aspects and whether a judge ruled correctly, odd you'd start posting about what the state can or can't do.

Bottom line: what you claim the law is is not actually what it is. Like it or not, there can be first amendment violations when state sets parameters on professors. I don't think it happened here. Sorry to discuss legal paradigms on thread about the law.

sleepybeagle said:

---

How open are they to bringing Bible reading back into schools?

When I was in 1st grade my teacher Miss Morelock would read Bible stories to us during our morning "nap time".

---

Dude, they dont even say the pledge of allegiance anymore.