• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Criminalize racist and bigoted words?

Should racist and bigoted words be outlawed?


  • Total voters
    90
If an institution, such as a school, can claim jurisdiction over a client's life when that client is not on the institution's property, and not under that institution's supervision or control, then what jurisdiction can that institution not claim?

I just do not see any rational basis for allowing such an institution such broad authority over things that happen outside of its own territory.

That's because you are viewing the school from the perspective of a governmental entity claiming broad authority whose jurisdiction and power need to be constrained. Whereas I am just viewing it as a means to an end (i.e. educating a child in the best way that it can).
 
That's because you are viewing the school from the perspective of a governmental entity claiming broad authority whose jurisdiction and power need to be constrained. Whereas I am just viewing it as a means to an end (i.e. educating a child in the best way that it can).

Exercising that kind of control over a child's life, outside of the property and jurisdiction of the school, does nothing to further the school's legitimate task of educating a child. AT best, it is a completely unwarranted intrusion upon the authority of that child's parents, and upon that child's own sovereignty.

And no, the ends most certainly do not justify the means in this case. They don't even come close.
 
It's called freedom of speech. You know...that principle where people have the right to voice their opinion about something. Oh wait! You only cared about freedom of speech when it related to students being allowed to use racial epithets, not when it is used to inform school officials of how those epithets affected people who read them.

Students free to say what they want to say even if I don't agree with it...... Check.

Parents trying to censor students right to free speech by looking for any way to get them in trouble with the school when the incident occurred outside of school........ Not so kosher.

This is what happens in the "PC" world.
 
Exercising that kind of control over a child's life, outside of the property and jurisdiction of the school, does nothing to further the school's legitimate task of educating a child.

If students are bullying each other off-campus (whether with racist words or any other way), that can affect their ability to learn. And in any case, learning not to be a dick to other people is itself a valid form of education IMO.

AT best, it is a completely unwarranted intrusion upon the authority of that child's parents, and upon that child's own sovereignty.

The parents are often not aware of how their children are treating other students, or they don't care.
 
And yet the limitation on free speech didn't come from the government, but from the students themselves. Assuming the students had gone to a public school, when they signed the conduct pledge in order to participate in the sports activities they constrained their own rights to speak freely. They accepted the role as public representatives of their school and the responsibilities that came with it. They had the choice to not sign that pledge and even to take the school to court if they felt it somehow violated their rights, but they chose of their own free will to comply and have only themselves to blame for their poor choice in how they practiced their free speech.

You don't have a clue whether they accepted a pledge or not....

I do recall the article from the other thread that brought this issue into light mentioned that PARENTS were CALLING to SEE IF they COULD FIND A WAY to PUNISH these TEENS for WHAT THEY SAID by CHECKING to see if there was some form of CONTRACT.

Adults were trying to get these kids in trouble with the school for stuff they did outside of school WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE of whether there was an agreement with the school or not.

THAT is pathetic.
 
the nerfball society is strong with this thread. keep it up, as if we werent being outcompeted already.
 
If an institution, such as a school, can claim jurisdiction over a client's life when that client is not on the institution's property, and not under that institution's supervision or control, then what jurisdiction can that institution not claim?

I just do not see any rational basis for allowing such an institution such broad authority over things that happen outside of its own territory.

What Kandahar is saying is that a subject of the public school system shall not be entitled to liberty beyond its control.
 
What Kandahar is saying is that a subject of the public school system shall not be entitled to liberty beyond its control.
AKA "You will comply".
 
On another thread it has been brought up that some schools are taking punitive actions students they discover use the "N" word on the Internet. If young people should be punished for using racist or bigoted words, obviously adults should.

Should racist and bigoted words and expressions be outlawed?

Wow - criminalizing words.
That's so - so - communistic.

But schools have always treated them AS curse words - if they wrote '**** you, you ****ing ****hole ****face ****licker' they'd get in trouble too - what they said wasn't the only issue being addressed.

So really - what people are wanting is for peopel to consider racial epithets to be like curse words.
Well - they are, really. The majority of people don't go around saying them :shrug: they're bleeped out and censored more than curse words are, really.
 
Wow - criminalizing words.
That's so - so - communistic.

But schools have always treated them AS curse words - if they wrote '**** you, you ****ing ****hole ****face ****licker' they'd get in trouble too - what they said wasn't the only issue being addressed.

So really - what people are wanting is for peopel to consider racial epithets to be like curse words.
Well - they are, really. The majority of people don't go around saying them :shrug: they're bleeped out and censored more than curse words are, really.

Agreed. As I see it, it isn't even so much the racism as the "don't be a dick to other students" aspect of it.
 
On another thread it has been brought up that some schools are taking punitive actions students they discover use the "N" word on the Internet. If young people should be punished for using racist or bigoted words, obviously adults should.

Should racist and bigoted words and expressions be outlawed?

I voted no of course and you description of the other thread isnt even close lol
 
Got no time for the thought police. I mean really we all have our own bigotry's, why police someone else's. Last time I looked freedom of speech was granted by the Constitution. Anyone who would vote yes needs to take the log out.
 
No. That would be a slippery slope to end all slippery slopes, no matter how retarded the language in question may be.
 
Am I the only that thinks people need to grow the hell up, and that society would be a million times better off if;

1. A white guy could call a black guy a nigger
2. A black guy could call a white guy a honky or cracker
3. They could both call a hispanic a wetback
4. The hispanic could call them nigger and cracker, respectively
5. At some point, a chinc, jap, dego, and a wop enter into this, but I lost track.

And then NOBODY gets offended? they just banter back and forth with each other, and all take it in stride. I guess in my mind, I see it like this;

White guy walking down the street, sees a black guy with his pants below his ankles, and says to him;
"Hey nigger, pull your pants up! you are at least 10 miles from the closest gay bar!"
At which point, the black guy turns around and says;
"You would know where it is, Cracker, you probably run the place!"
And then a latino walks up and says;
"No he doesn't, but this faggot-ty ass wetback does!"


And a laugh is had by all. Seriously, why do people have to get so offended over something so small? When did we become a bunch of whiny brats?
 
Freedom of speech has no boundaries. Got to live with it unlike here you end up behind bars even if racist remarks are made on social networks.
 
Joined here and wanted to vote NO... was preparing to debate as to why "NO" is the correct answer... look at the poll and the comments, decided it was already taken care ;).

Cheers.
 
You don't have a clue whether they accepted a pledge or not....

I do recall the article from the other thread that brought this issue into light mentioned that PARENTS were CALLING to SEE IF they COULD FIND A WAY to PUNISH these TEENS for WHAT THEY SAID by CHECKING to see if there was some form of CONTRACT.

Adults were trying to get these kids in trouble with the school for stuff they did outside of school WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE of whether there was an agreement with the school or not.

THAT is pathetic.

Ah, see that opinion is more reasonable than the "this is a violation of freedom of speech" crap you were onto before. I certainly agree that how the adults did it was pathetic.
 
Freedom of speech is Freedom of Speech. You will never get me to create an exception.

Do you care to test that allegiance to principle in public?
 
LOL! Nobody said "free speech" doesn't have consequences.

ah - but if this "freedom of speech" as you refer to it, is some sort of Holy untouchable human right, then why would there be restrictions or limitations to how it is applied?

Are all human rights restrictive in nature?
 
ah - but if this "freedom of speech" as you refer to it, is some sort of Holy untouchable human right, then why would there be restrictions or limitations to how it is applied?

Are all human rights restrictive in nature?

Yes, I would say they are. The right to freedom of speech simply means that our government can't persecute us or abridge that right. It's not referring to a private citizen. You don't have some pure, unadulterated "right" to free speech.

You don't have freedom of speech here. You don't have it at work. You don't have it on private property. Freedom of speech means freedom from government intervention for exercising your right to free speech. Vito Corleone may take exception to your right at any time.
 
Yes, I would say they are. The right to freedom of speech simply means that our government can't persecute us or abridge that right. It's not referring to a private citizen. You don't have some pure, unadulterated "right" to free speech.

You don't have freedom of speech here. You don't have it at work. You don't have it on private property. Freedom of speech means freedom from government intervention for exercising your right to free speech. Vito Corleone may take exception to your right at any time.

And since 2010 the US Supreme Court bench has provided the Corporate entity with the same rights as US citizens

(although, does it really matter now? THe Patriot Acts and the NDAA have technically suspended the US constitution and US bill of rights - the US is legally a fascist Corporate State now - lock stock and barrel)
 
And since 2010 the US Supreme Court bench has provided the Corporate entity with the same rights as US citizens

(although, does it really matter now? THe Patriot Acts and the NDAA have technically suspended the US constitution and US bill of rights - the US is legally a fascist Corporate State now - lock stock and barrel)

You prefer taxation without representation?
 
You prefer taxation without representation?

taxation = corporate profit

what representation do you have there?

In any case, what objections do you have against taxation?

About 97% of all inventions and/or developments are initially funded by the tax payer - including the Internet and the COmputer.

What about the Space exploration programs? You have something against the Hubble telescope?
 
Last edited:
what was the point of this thread? It's not even controversial.
 
Back
Top Bottom