You can see the Leftist's malicious attempt to conflate state mandated periods of instruction by government agents as "freedom of expression"; as well as attempting to conflate "viewpoint discrimination" with "obscenity restriction". You'll also notice her other tactic of claiming that there was no policy that teachers were given to instruct students on these materials, despite the fact that they were made available in the library.
Let's go over each of these:
The state doesn't have a right to free expression.
That's not how free expression works. The government is a coercive entity that we allow to resolve property disputes and stop grievous violations of society. Teachers have no right to freedom of expression during school hours, or during periods of instruction. You didn't like it when they prayed in class, so now you will accept that you can shut your fucking mouth and recognize that as a state agent you don't have a right to speak.
"Free Speech" and "Free Expression" is a colloquialism referring to what is considered "an expressed lack of viewpoint discrimination".
"Free Speech" and "Free Expression" has never meant, at any time in history, in any situation, nor in any environment "doing or saying whatever I want no matter what." The government is barred from regulating viewpoints, as this level of regulation was well understood to be an easy and direct threat against the general public by the government as the government would inevitably use it to regulate political thought and dissent. "Viewpoint discrimination" is what the government is banned from doing. Obscenity and pornography are not viewpoints.
Please note that Leftists already support the suppression of viewpoints in the form of "Hate Speech".
"What about violent imagery?"
Violent imagery is not regulated by the state, nor should it be. Frankly, violent imagery is so gross to the sensibilities of most people that it is privately restricted (possibly to a degree that it perhaps shouldn't be. I have larger arguments involving the old subreddit "Watch People Die" and the value it actually gives to see gore and horror occasionally).
Please note that Leftists regularly engage in explicit glorification of violence, incitement to violence, advocation of violence, and horrific imagery so long as thier political enemies are being targeted.
"There was no policy"
Whether or not a teacher violated their professional standards to teach children how to hook-up for sexual encounters with adults on Grinder is secondary to the level of violation that is actually taking place. Again, teachers do not have the same rights as normal people because they are state agents and need to follow instructional guidelines and limitations. However, even if the teachers themselves were not explicitly engaged in grooming children for online sex acts; the fact that the material was made available to children via the library is still unacceptable.
Please note that the Library industry is wildly fucking Leftist; and Librarians made up the majority of all employers for small donors to the Joe Biden campaign. If your curious, Trump's majority employer for small donors was "United States Marine Corps"
I think you, and Tim (who, being a fence sitter, is at most half right), fell into her rhetorical trap.
This conversation around porn in schools has nothing to do with freedom of expression, or lack thereof, because they're children. They don't have the freedom of expression; they're minors. They have no right to be exposed to any speech beyond what their parents decide is appropriate.
This is purely an issue of parental rights. It is not censorship to prevent your 5yo frpm watching Human Centipede, or reading Che, or even watching the news. It's simply protecting them from what you think could harm your kids, which is up to you, not the state.
I'm actually not against these books being in public libraries, even though they're disgusting, so long as parents are working with their kids to ensure they're safety and so long as they can't be checked out with a kids' card.
There's no argument here based on "freedom of expression"; if adults want to read filth, it's not up to the government to pass judgement. If you don't like reading it, don't, if you don't like your tax dollars being spent on it, take it up with your local library committee.
But parents are responsible for their kids and the government has no right to expose kids to sexual (or violent) content.
They don't have the freedom of expression; they're minors. They have no right to be exposed to any speech beyond what their parents decide is appropriate.
You've got this all backwards and wrong-way around.
Tinker v. Illinois already addressed that: yes, minors have a right to Freedom of Expression, even in public schools. In fact, minors are particularly protected from government viewpoint discrimination because their parents aren't there as an intermediary, and the minor's speech is being directly regulated by the state. The fact that students are additionally compelled to attend school, and can be seized by the police in order to do so, is such a major infringement that you have to allow students in particular a right to free expression (or: to not be targeted by government viewpoint discrimination).
A public school is already such a massive infringement on an individual's rights and liberties by the state, that the right to resist further infringements is absolutely needed.
He and I aren't addressing the free speech rights of minors because it's a settled issue.
The second part you've got off is that Freedom of Expression isn't relevant. First of all, the children aren't expressing themselves by reading, that's not how any of that works. But the other part is that the state doesn't have a right to expression at all. Reading isn't expression one one side, and on the other: the state doesn't have a right to it anyway.
A teacher in private, outside the performance of their duties does, but again, that's not the issue here. School instruction is not free speech of teachers. The presence of books in classrooms isn't the free political expression of a school library, or librarians.
I'm actually not against these books being in public libraries
School libraries. That's a huge difference. The state is providing material to minors. That material does not meet with the consent of the parents, violates obscenity law, and otherwise violates the taboos of the local community. That's a huge problem for the state to be doing that, when the state already compels the children to attend.
You can see the Leftist's malicious attempt to conflate state mandated periods of instruction by government agents as "freedom of expression"; as well as attempting to conflate "viewpoint discrimination" with "obscenity restriction". You'll also notice her other tactic of claiming that there was no policy that teachers were given to instruct students on these materials, despite the fact that they were made available in the library.
Let's go over each of these:
That's not how free expression works. The government is a coercive entity that we allow to resolve property disputes and stop grievous violations of society. Teachers have no right to freedom of expression during school hours, or during periods of instruction. You didn't like it when they prayed in class, so now you will accept that you can shut your fucking mouth and recognize that as a state agent you don't have a right to speak.
"Free Speech" and "Free Expression" has never meant, at any time in history, in any situation, nor in any environment "doing or saying whatever I want no matter what." The government is barred from regulating viewpoints, as this level of regulation was well understood to be an easy and direct threat against the general public by the government as the government would inevitably use it to regulate political thought and dissent. "Viewpoint discrimination" is what the government is banned from doing. Obscenity and pornography are not viewpoints.
Please note that Leftists already support the suppression of viewpoints in the form of "Hate Speech".
Violent imagery is not regulated by the state, nor should it be. Frankly, violent imagery is so gross to the sensibilities of most people that it is privately restricted (possibly to a degree that it perhaps shouldn't be. I have larger arguments involving the old subreddit "Watch People Die" and the value it actually gives to see gore and horror occasionally).
Please note that Leftists regularly engage in explicit glorification of violence, incitement to violence, advocation of violence, and horrific imagery so long as thier political enemies are being targeted.
Whether or not a teacher violated their professional standards to teach children how to hook-up for sexual encounters with adults on Grinder is secondary to the level of violation that is actually taking place. Again, teachers do not have the same rights as normal people because they are state agents and need to follow instructional guidelines and limitations. However, even if the teachers themselves were not explicitly engaged in grooming children for online sex acts; the fact that the material was made available to children via the library is still unacceptable.
Please note that the Library industry is wildly fucking Leftist; and Librarians made up the majority of all employers for small donors to the Joe Biden campaign. If your curious, Trump's majority employer for small donors was "United States Marine Corps"
Saved for future reference. Bravo, sir.
Thanks!
I think you, and Tim (who, being a fence sitter, is at most half right), fell into her rhetorical trap.
This conversation around porn in schools has nothing to do with freedom of expression, or lack thereof, because they're children. They don't have the freedom of expression; they're minors. They have no right to be exposed to any speech beyond what their parents decide is appropriate.
This is purely an issue of parental rights. It is not censorship to prevent your 5yo frpm watching Human Centipede, or reading Che, or even watching the news. It's simply protecting them from what you think could harm your kids, which is up to you, not the state.
I'm actually not against these books being in public libraries, even though they're disgusting, so long as parents are working with their kids to ensure they're safety and so long as they can't be checked out with a kids' card.
There's no argument here based on "freedom of expression"; if adults want to read filth, it's not up to the government to pass judgement. If you don't like reading it, don't, if you don't like your tax dollars being spent on it, take it up with your local library committee.
But parents are responsible for their kids and the government has no right to expose kids to sexual (or violent) content.
You've got this all backwards and wrong-way around.
Tinker v. Illinois already addressed that: yes, minors have a right to Freedom of Expression, even in public schools. In fact, minors are particularly protected from government viewpoint discrimination because their parents aren't there as an intermediary, and the minor's speech is being directly regulated by the state. The fact that students are additionally compelled to attend school, and can be seized by the police in order to do so, is such a major infringement that you have to allow students in particular a right to free expression (or: to not be targeted by government viewpoint discrimination).
A public school is already such a massive infringement on an individual's rights and liberties by the state, that the right to resist further infringements is absolutely needed.
He and I aren't addressing the free speech rights of minors because it's a settled issue.
The second part you've got off is that Freedom of Expression isn't relevant. First of all, the children aren't expressing themselves by reading, that's not how any of that works. But the other part is that the state doesn't have a right to expression at all. Reading isn't expression one one side, and on the other: the state doesn't have a right to it anyway.
A teacher in private, outside the performance of their duties does, but again, that's not the issue here. School instruction is not free speech of teachers. The presence of books in classrooms isn't the free political expression of a school library, or librarians.
School libraries. That's a huge difference. The state is providing material to minors. That material does not meet with the consent of the parents, violates obscenity law, and otherwise violates the taboos of the local community. That's a huge problem for the state to be doing that, when the state already compels the children to attend.