DamascusTerp2 Wrote:admit what?
nate, perhaps you should contact the attorney general for the state of maryland, because If I am wrong, so is he, and my guess is he understands all of this better then you , t-money, or I....

btw, I would like to know the dookies feelings on this 12 year-old kid who was suspended from school for briniging in the swimsuit edition...seems to me that you would be supporting the school's decision...

Check the lounge...

nate jonesacc Wrote:

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:have you ever been to one of these "bench burnings"?

I have. They are not dangerous... There are fire trucks in the area, it is controlled and in a specific area. They even have a freakin fire permit for it.

Next?

If they "supposedly" have everything so under control...how do you explain the burned students?

Next?

kaisersayzo Wrote:If they "supposedly" have everything so under control...how do you explain the burned students?

Next?

I already said they try and jump the fires. And occasionally a drunk student may get too close. Can someone show me the article where it talks about students getting burned. I'd like to read it myself.

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:admit what?
nate, perhaps you should contact the attorney general for the state of maryland, because If I am wrong, so is he, and my guess is he understands all of this better then you , t-money, or I....

btw, I would like to know the dookies feelings on this 12 year-old kid who was suspended from school for briniging in the swimsuit edition...seems to me that you would be supporting the school's decision...

DAMASCUS... You brought up this supreme court case... and even a Terp is disagreeing with you! T-Monay handed you your *** on a plate... Just take it and be done with it.

My school, when I lived in Maryland, had a dress code. I can guaran-damn-tee you that if I wore a shirt that said "**** you, [any teacher's name]", they would send me home.

They can refuse admittance to ANYONE, public or private.

I will say it again, the attorney general from the state of maryland has cited this case in response to people saying that something must be done, take your crusade to his doorstep, he's obviously wrong and you and t-money are correct, WHO THE HELL APPOINTED THAT GUY ANYWAY! :rolleyes:

and just so you recognize that t-money didn't hand me anything, he totally ignored the fact the this case did not end with the decision of the Court of Appeal of California, which is what he has cited...that's the whole freakin' point!

next time read the entire opinion of the Court, written by Justice Harlan, concerning this case...not just the first few graphs where he highlights what has happenned prior to the court's decision...

some interesting highlights from his opinion...

"Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the State might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest. Of course, the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense. While this Court has recognized that government may properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue, we have at the same time consistently stressed that 'we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech.'"

"The rationale of the California court is plainly untenable. At most it reflects an 'undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance [which] is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.' We have been shown no evidence that substantial numbers of citizens are standing ready to strike out physically at whoever may assault their sensibilities with execrations like that uttered by Cohen. There may be some persons about with such lawless and violent proclivities, but that is an insufficient base upon which to erect, consistently with constitutional values, a governmental power to force persons who wish to ventilate their dissident views into avoiding particular forms of expression."

"Equally important to our conclusion is the constitutional backdrop against which our decision must be made. The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests"

and the most important word in the entire opinion...

"REVERSED"

my plate is full.

nate?
you were reading this topic, but no repsonse?

Seeing as it took you 5 days to respond to the other... You should be a little leniant...

I'm not going to discuss the finer points of that supreme court case... That's between you and T-Monay....

However, I would still like for you to reconcile the fact that public universities and public high schools CAN enforce a dress code with your so called "you can't have a dress code to public university sporting events" nonsense.

nate jonesacc Wrote:I'm not going to discuss the finer points of that supreme court case... That's between you and T-Monay....

oh, I see how it is, you can try to badass and say how t-money handed me my *** on a plate and call me out numerous times on this thread, but when I throw it right back in your face that you and your boy are dead wrong, you can't discuss the details of the case...way to really backtrack, real stand up move lil buddy....

I don't know where I said that there can't be a dresscode at the sporting event, but I stand by everything I have said in this thread, and I point you to the case that I referenced to back it up...they will not risk a lawsuit over some stupid t-shirts, call it a "dresscode" if you will, and spin it however you want, but if you can't discuss the "finer" points of the case, I don't know what you are going to say at this point...

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:I'm not going to discuss the finer points of that supreme court case... That's between you and T-Monay....

oh, I see how it is, you can try to badass and say how t-money handed me my *** on a plate and call me out numerous times on this thread, but when I throw it right back in your face that you and your boy are dead wrong, you can't discuss the details of the case...way to really backtrack, real stand up move lil buddy....

I don't know where I said that there can't be a dresscode at the sporting event, but I stand by everything I have said in this thread, and I point you to the case that I referenced to back it up...they will not risk a lawsuit over some stupid t-shirts, call it a "dresscode" if you will, and spin it however you want, but if you can't discuss the "finer" points of the case, I don't know what you are going to say at this point...

1) I've never said I know a damned thing about the case. I HAVE said that he handed your *** to you because you failed to respond after almost a week AND a fellow terp even disagreed with you.

2) So if a dresscode CAN be enforced at a public sporting event, what the hell is keeping the Maryland athletics department from doing it?

1) hmmm, so you think it is smart to say that someone has had there *** handed to them, when you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the subject matter at hand? Ever consider that the reason that I didn't reply to t-money was because of he totally mangled the facts of the case and didn't even deserve a response, and until your cocky little *** started blabbering about affairs that you now want to say are between t-money and I, I wasn't even going to reply....hmmmmm (and what does it matter that a terp agreed with me, that is the same guy who you argue with more than me, but all the sudden he is a reliable source?) :rolleyes:

2) why do you continually disregard the facts that I lay out before you...read the case nate, you will then have your answer as to why they will not enforce a "dresscode", as you insist on calling it...if you are too lazy to read the case, then I don't know what to tell you...if you are so interested on why public schools are allowed to enforce a dresscode for their students, while it clearly infringes upon their first amendment rights, you should read more law books and find out for yourself...

I have laid my argument out with facts and direct quotes from a supreme court decision, yet you still want to argue with hypothetical questions and talk of "dresscodes" :rolleyes:

In the case of Cohen v California, the Court held that the Los Angeles Statute did infringe upon the petitioner Cohen

waiting

still waiting...

waiting for what...since when is the phrase '**** duke' directed toward one person, last time I checked it was an entire university, an institution, just like 'the draft' that was on Mr Cohen's shirt...

don't call me out when your arguement sucks, and you still haven't admitted the fact that you toally fouled-up on your initial reading of the cohen case....