Do you really think courts will take libel cases between 14-15 year old kids? Really?
You have to be somewhat known to be able to claim damages from libel. You have to be like Sandmann, or someone who got smeared as a rapist in a national newspaper.
The courts will not waste their time policing kids spreading rumors about each other.
Fair enough. Not sure I agree since I tend to favor reducing restrictions over more in generally all cases. Schools make it even more so. I've worked at schools and of course went to them and the administration of a school is about the most power hungry group second to politicians.
I will have to figure out how to find the Supreme Court cases, as if Thomas rejected it I'd like to read his dissent.
Adult men are more equipped (mostly) to cope with the sadistic tactics employed by feminists. Young boys aren't and the sadism in girls starts earlier and earlier.
You can't rely on the teachers to protect them because they're most likely on the same side. You can't rely on the administration to protect them because bad press for "attacking the speech of women and girls".
The law must step in where nothing else can to protect the vulnerable targets of this level of hatred.
To me, it seems like the ruling only takes away powers from teachers/administration and has no effect on legal system. Meaning that if it had been sadistic tactics towards young boys, the law can't do anything beyond what already exists (e.g. harassment, stalking, libel) no matter how the case would have gone.
I'm all for taking powers away from school administrations. Teachers and admins are group ripe with hate, favoritism, self-importance, and a sense they have to do a fake justice to everything. If a young boy had been the victim of sadistic girls, I'd expect the school to turn it around on the boy myself. I'd prefer the law be there that the school can't do shit to any parties for outside of school things. It may not stop the boys from harassment, but it will stop the school from being a party to it, at least legally.
I read Thomas' dissent as well, it's mostly having to do with precedent. It's not a horrible argument he puts together, if you believe in the precedent that schools are the kids parents when they are there. "In loco parentis" is the term he uses.
That's exactly what. They can now spread malicious rumors about whoever they want, without any possible recourse for the target.
This case should have clarified that schools do have the right to police non-political speech if it attacks their institution or other students.
Libel only works for public figures.
Uh...no? It's harder to make a libel claim as a public figure, private persons have a much easier time suing someone for libel.
Do you really think courts will take libel cases between 14-15 year old kids? Really?
You have to be somewhat known to be able to claim damages from libel. You have to be like Sandmann, or someone who got smeared as a rapist in a national newspaper.
The courts will not waste their time policing kids spreading rumors about each other.
Fair enough. Not sure I agree since I tend to favor reducing restrictions over more in generally all cases. Schools make it even more so. I've worked at schools and of course went to them and the administration of a school is about the most power hungry group second to politicians.
I will have to figure out how to find the Supreme Court cases, as if Thomas rejected it I'd like to read his dissent.
Adult men are more equipped (mostly) to cope with the sadistic tactics employed by feminists. Young boys aren't and the sadism in girls starts earlier and earlier.
You can't rely on the teachers to protect them because they're most likely on the same side. You can't rely on the administration to protect them because bad press for "attacking the speech of women and girls".
The law must step in where nothing else can to protect the vulnerable targets of this level of hatred.
To me, it seems like the ruling only takes away powers from teachers/administration and has no effect on legal system. Meaning that if it had been sadistic tactics towards young boys, the law can't do anything beyond what already exists (e.g. harassment, stalking, libel) no matter how the case would have gone.
I'm all for taking powers away from school administrations. Teachers and admins are group ripe with hate, favoritism, self-importance, and a sense they have to do a fake justice to everything. If a young boy had been the victim of sadistic girls, I'd expect the school to turn it around on the boy myself. I'd prefer the law be there that the school can't do shit to any parties for outside of school things. It may not stop the boys from harassment, but it will stop the school from being a party to it, at least legally.
I read Thomas' dissent as well, it's mostly having to do with precedent. It's not a horrible argument he puts together, if you believe in the precedent that schools are the kids parents when they are there. "In loco parentis" is the term he uses.
This is a more intelligent take than your earlier "plaintiff should have lost because she is female".
Fundamentally, it's the same take.
It's just that girls are known for pulling this kind of shit, while boys usually use physical bullying.