Title: School Uniforms
FullMetalOsaka - March 13, 2008 12:40 AM (GMT)
Hm. Haven't made a topic here in a long time.
But, I go to a public school, and unfortunately it has just been officially declared that we will have to wear uniforms next year. They will consist of a polo or a school-related shirt, and black or kaki pants or skirt. I know it could be much worse, but I'm still pretty pissed. So I was wondering of all the people on FES, who here wears uniforms? If you do or if you don't, do you beleive that they infringe on your rights when in public schools, or do they somehow help the school system?
Larry - March 13, 2008 12:57 AM (GMT)
They don't infringe on your rights, since what you wear has nothing to do with rights. Stupid American misunderstanding of your own constitution. :no:
We had a uniform... back in preschool-second grade. Then school switch.
Anyway, I support uniforms since a.) as long as you aren't denying me my hoodie, I don't care what I have to wear, and b.) have you seen the slutty, whore-ish clothes people wear? The guys aren't so bad, aside from showing off their underwear/cracks, but the girls... Sorry, but regardless of which way I'm swinging that day, I still don't want your boobs hanging out of your shirt. :|
More when I have more opinions later.
Hyle - March 13, 2008 01:20 AM (GMT)
I does not go against our rights, but I believe the clothes we wear are the choices of the student and/or their parents.
It is not the choice of the school board.
Technically, according to the U.S. constitution, there is no such Amendment that states we have a right to chose what we wear, but I think it is a little extreme to issue uniforms in a public school.
Unless, of course, there is a decent enough reason, which in some cases, there may be.
Dez384 - March 13, 2008 01:26 AM (GMT)
What Osaka has is not a uniform, but a dress code. There is a difference, although most people don't see it. A uniform is a single set of dress that the students must wear, i.e. a white blouse and a plaid skirt. A Dress code simply gives guidelines that you must comply to. Dress Codes are used to equalize students and remove distractions from the classroom.
I had a dress code from 3rd grade through eighth. I didn't care about it though and thought that the people who fought against it were foolish.
FullMetalOsaka - March 13, 2008 01:38 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 07:57 PM) |
They don't infringe on your rights, since what you wear has nothing to do with rights. Stupid American misunderstanding of your own constitution. :no:
We had a uniform... back in preschool-second grade. Then school switch.
Anyway, I support uniforms since a.) as long as you aren't denying me my hoodie, I don't care what I have to wear, and b.) have you seen the slutty, whore-ish clothes people wear? The guys aren't so bad, aside from showing off their underwear/cracks, but the girls... Sorry, but regardless of which way I'm swinging that day, I still don't want your boobs hanging out of your shirt. :|
More when I have more opinions later. |
I'm sorry, I wasn't saying I think they do, I was wondering if anyone did.
Second, yes, they are denying hoodies, and no, I never wear less than a tshirt and cargos, which are already more covering than what the code requires.
@Dez; People I know are planning on "fighting it", but I also find it annoying. I'm just dissapointed in the decision in the first place. I'm not going to act on it though.
Larry - March 13, 2008 01:38 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Dez384 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:26 PM) |
| I had a dress code from 3rd grade through eighth. I didn't care about it though and thought that the people who fought against it were foolish. |
What, you can show up naked now? o_ô
I dunno. It sounds like a uniform. A loose definition, but still a uniform.
JGatsby - March 13, 2008 01:39 AM (GMT)
I want to see you in your uniform >_>
I'm against it. The way you dress makes you an individual. Making everyone dress the same is unconstitutional.
Larry - March 13, 2008 01:42 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (JGatsby @ Mar 12 2008, 08:39 PM) |
I want to see you in your uniform >_>
I'm against it. The way you dress makes you an individual. Making everyone dress the same is unconstitutional. |
| QUOTE |
Preamble
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.[28]
Amendments
* First Amendment – Establishment clause, freedom of religion (Free Exercise Clause), speech, and press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
* Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
* Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
* Fifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
* Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
* Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. |
The U.S. Bill of RightsTherefore, your claim is wrong.
And I'd like to see FMO in a uniform too.
Dez384 - March 13, 2008 01:54 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 09:38 PM) |
| QUOTE (Dez384 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:26 PM) | | I had a dress code from 3rd grade through eighth. I didn't care about it though and thought that the people who fought against it were foolish. |
What, you can show up naked now? o_ô
I dunno. It sounds like a uniform. A loose definition, but still a uniform.
|
Sorry for being unclear. I had a stricter dress code akin to what FMO has during those time. Everyplace has a dress code, just some are more strict than others.
Everyone, remember, this is Intelligent Discussion so stay on topic.
Ilyana - March 13, 2008 01:54 AM (GMT)
The way I see it, there are plenty of ways to be creative and individualistic that have nothing to do with your clothing. I don't think you have to rely on the way you dress to make a statement. Oftentimes, if you do use your looks to make a statement, that statement is "I'm really vain." Not saying this is always true, but people take fashion to extremes.
I favor dress codes. They're not as uniform as... uniforms, and allow for some variance, but they do standardize the outifits in such a way that people don't judge other people based on clothing, and by extension, income. No hoodies, though, seems really harsh to me.
I may just feel this way because I've been forced into a dress code for 100% of my school life thusfar. Although it has been frustrating at time, I think it was for the best.
Sety - March 13, 2008 02:04 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 05:57 PM) |
They don't infringe on your rights, since what you wear has nothing to do with rights. Stupid American misunderstanding of your own constitution. :no:
We had a uniform... back in preschool-second grade. Then school switch.
Anyway, I support uniforms since a.) as long as you aren't denying me my hoodie, I don't care what I have to wear, and b.) have you seen the slutty, whore-ish clothes people wear? The guys aren't so bad, aside from showing off their underwear/cracks, but the girls... Sorry, but regardless of which way I'm swinging that day, I still don't want your boobs hanging out of your shirt. :|
More when I have more opinions later. |
It goes under freedom of speech.
Dez384 - March 13, 2008 02:14 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Sety @ Mar 12 2008, 10:04 PM) |
| QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 05:57 PM) | They don't infringe on your rights, since what you wear has nothing to do with rights. Stupid American misunderstanding of your own constitution. :no:
We had a uniform... back in preschool-second grade. Then school switch.
Anyway, I support uniforms since a.) as long as you aren't denying me my hoodie, I don't care what I have to wear, and b.) have you seen the slutty, whore-ish clothes people wear? The guys aren't so bad, aside from showing off their underwear/cracks, but the girls... Sorry, but regardless of which way I'm swinging that day, I still don't want your boobs hanging out of your shirt. :|
More when I have more opinions later. |
It goes under freedom of speech.
|
I think it was Tinker Vs Des Moines? Students wore black armbands in protest of a war, methinks. It was protected under the First Amendment as Free speech.
Larry - March 13, 2008 02:24 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Dez384 @ Mar 12 2008, 09:14 PM) |
| QUOTE (Sety @ Mar 12 2008, 10:04 PM) | | QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 05:57 PM) | They don't infringe on your rights, since what you wear has nothing to do with rights. Stupid American misunderstanding of your own constitution. :no:
We had a uniform... back in preschool-second grade. Then school switch.
Anyway, I support uniforms since a.) as long as you aren't denying me my hoodie, I don't care what I have to wear, and b.) have you seen the slutty, whore-ish clothes people wear? The guys aren't so bad, aside from showing off their underwear/cracks, but the girls... Sorry, but regardless of which way I'm swinging that day, I still don't want your boobs hanging out of your shirt. :|
More when I have more opinions later. |
It goes under freedom of speech.
|
I think it was Tinker Vs Des Moines? Students wore black armbands in protest of a war, methinks. It was protected under the First Amendment as Free speech.
|
That's entirely different.
protesting a war =/= dressing like a slut
| QUOTE |
* First Amendment – Establishment clause, freedom of religion (Free Exercise Clause), speech, and press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
Where's expression? Nowhere. If you're protesting something by wearing an armband, yeah, it's supported by:
| QUOTE |
| the right of the people peaceably to assemble |
Ergo, protesting.
Firefly_43 - March 13, 2008 03:13 AM (GMT)
I think people should be able to choose what they wear, restricted, of course, by dress codes to keep things under control. However, if people continue to abuse that right by doing things like wearing far too little clothing, it shouldn't be a right anymore. It's a shame, and I don't like it, but it's the fault of the people who took their freedom too far.
Oh, and don't try the U.S. constitution argument on me. I'm Canadian; it wont work. :rose:
Hyle - March 13, 2008 03:14 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:13 PM) |
| Oh, and don't try the U.S. constitution argument on me. I'm Canadian; it wont work. :rose: |
The U.S. constitution says nothing about clothes.
So I think Canadian or not, it won't work. XD
Sety - March 13, 2008 03:24 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 07:24 PM) |
| QUOTE (Dez384 @ Mar 12 2008, 09:14 PM) | | QUOTE (Sety @ Mar 12 2008, 10:04 PM) | | QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 05:57 PM) | They don't infringe on your rights, since what you wear has nothing to do with rights. Stupid American misunderstanding of your own constitution. :no:
We had a uniform... back in preschool-second grade. Then school switch.
Anyway, I support uniforms since a.) as long as you aren't denying me my hoodie, I don't care what I have to wear, and b.) have you seen the slutty, whore-ish clothes people wear? The guys aren't so bad, aside from showing off their underwear/cracks, but the girls... Sorry, but regardless of which way I'm swinging that day, I still don't want your boobs hanging out of your shirt. :|
More when I have more opinions later. |
It goes under freedom of speech.
|
I think it was Tinker Vs Des Moines? Students wore black armbands in protest of a war, methinks. It was protected under the First Amendment as Free speech.
|
That's entirely different.
protesting a war =/= dressing like a slut
| QUOTE | * First Amendment – Establishment clause, freedom of religion (Free Exercise Clause), speech, and press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
Where's expression? Nowhere. If you're protesting something by wearing an armband, yeah, it's supported by:
| QUOTE | | the right of the people peaceably to assemble |
Ergo, protesting.
|
I fail to see how just because it doesn't say "freedom to wear whatever the hell you want to" means that you can't wear whatever the hell you want to. Freedom of speech = freedom of expression, which equals the right to wear whatever the hell you want.
Hyle - March 13, 2008 03:28 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Sety @ Mar 12 2008, 08:24 PM) |
| QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 07:24 PM) | | QUOTE (Dez384 @ Mar 12 2008, 09:14 PM) | | QUOTE (Sety @ Mar 12 2008, 10:04 PM) | | QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 05:57 PM) | They don't infringe on your rights, since what you wear has nothing to do with rights. Stupid American misunderstanding of your own constitution. :no:
We had a uniform... back in preschool-second grade. Then school switch.
Anyway, I support uniforms since a.) as long as you aren't denying me my hoodie, I don't care what I have to wear, and b.) have you seen the slutty, whore-ish clothes people wear? The guys aren't so bad, aside from showing off their underwear/cracks, but the girls... Sorry, but regardless of which way I'm swinging that day, I still don't want your boobs hanging out of your shirt. :|
More when I have more opinions later. |
It goes under freedom of speech.
|
I think it was Tinker Vs Des Moines? Students wore black armbands in protest of a war, methinks. It was protected under the First Amendment as Free speech.
|
That's entirely different.
protesting a war =/= dressing like a slut
| QUOTE | * First Amendment – Establishment clause, freedom of religion (Free Exercise Clause), speech, and press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
Where's expression? Nowhere. If you're protesting something by wearing an armband, yeah, it's supported by:
| QUOTE | | the right of the people peaceably to assemble |
Ergo, protesting.
|
I fail to see how just because it doesn't say "freedom to wear whatever the hell you want to" means that you can't wear whatever the hell you want to. Freedom of speech = freedom of expression, which equals the right to wear whatever the hell you want.
|
Yes, but the Constitution is very precise.
If the Constitution meant, "Freedom of All Expressions" it would say "Freedom of All Expressions".
Don't get me wrong, I'm against uniforms.
But the Constitution says what it means to say.
Just because freedom of speech is a type of expression does not make clothing a guaranteed right, as speech is.
Myke - March 13, 2008 03:29 AM (GMT)
We have uniforms as standard over here, but it's pretty loose.
The actual paperwork defines it as School Shirt, School Pants/Skirt, White Socks, Black Dress Shoes and School Hat and Jumper as optional; but everyone just wears the shirt (which is pretty cool anyway) and whatever else they feel like.
My high school had this neat maroon and white polo, I quite liked it. I still wear it today, three years after finishing.
Firefly_43 - March 13, 2008 03:30 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Hyle @ Mar 12 2008, 09:14 PM) |
| QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:13 PM) | | Oh, and don't try the U.S. constitution argument on me. I'm Canadian; it wont work. :rose: |
The U.S. constitution says nothing about clothes.
So I think Canadian or not, it won't work. XD
|
Just because it isn't correct, doesn't mean you couldn't argue for it. ^~^
Hyle - March 13, 2008 03:37 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:30 PM) |
| QUOTE (Hyle @ Mar 12 2008, 09:14 PM) | | QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:13 PM) | | Oh, and don't try the U.S. constitution argument on me. I'm Canadian; it wont work. :rose: |
The U.S. constitution says nothing about clothes.
So I think Canadian or not, it won't work. XD
|
Just because it isn't correct, doesn't mean you couldn't argue for it. ^~^
|
Argue for something that isn't even there?
lol
Firefly_43 - March 13, 2008 03:41 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Hyle @ Mar 12 2008, 09:37 PM) |
| QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:30 PM) | | QUOTE (Hyle @ Mar 12 2008, 09:14 PM) | | QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:13 PM) | | Oh, and don't try the U.S. constitution argument on me. I'm Canadian; it wont work. :rose: |
The U.S. constitution says nothing about clothes.
So I think Canadian or not, it won't work. XD
|
Just because it isn't correct, doesn't mean you couldn't argue for it. ^~^
|
Argue for something that isn't even there?
lol
|
You cound find a way. In this case, misinterpretation would work very well.
Theoretically, of course. I'm not saying anything about this debate; I haven't been paying enough attention to the parts relating to the U.S. constitution to comment on that.
Hyle - March 13, 2008 03:46 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:41 PM) |
| QUOTE (Hyle @ Mar 12 2008, 09:37 PM) | | QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:30 PM) | | QUOTE (Hyle @ Mar 12 2008, 09:14 PM) | | QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:13 PM) | | Oh, and don't try the U.S. constitution argument on me. I'm Canadian; it wont work. :rose: |
The U.S. constitution says nothing about clothes.
So I think Canadian or not, it won't work. XD
|
Just because it isn't correct, doesn't mean you couldn't argue for it. ^~^
|
Argue for something that isn't even there?
lol
|
You cound find a way. In this case, misinterpretation would work very well.
Theoretically, of course. I'm not saying anything about this debate; I haven't been paying enough attention to the parts relating to the U.S. constitution to comment on that.
|
Misinterpretation will ultimately provide a counter-argument for the opponent in the Debate.
Example:
Statement: "Clothes are part of our constitution. It even says so, and it's freedom of expression"
Immediate Response: "No. The Constitution says nothing about clothes."
Response: " :twitch: Well, screw you."
Firefly_43 - March 13, 2008 03:52 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Hyle @ Mar 12 2008, 09:46 PM) |
| QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:41 PM) | | QUOTE (Hyle @ Mar 12 2008, 09:37 PM) | | QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:30 PM) | | QUOTE (Hyle @ Mar 12 2008, 09:14 PM) | | QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:13 PM) | | Oh, and don't try the U.S. constitution argument on me. I'm Canadian; it wont work. :rose: |
The U.S. constitution says nothing about clothes.
So I think Canadian or not, it won't work. XD
|
Just because it isn't correct, doesn't mean you couldn't argue for it. ^~^
|
Argue for something that isn't even there?
lol
|
You cound find a way. In this case, misinterpretation would work very well.
Theoretically, of course. I'm not saying anything about this debate; I haven't been paying enough attention to the parts relating to the U.S. constitution to comment on that.
|
Misinterpretation will ultimately provide a counter-argument for the opponent in the Debate.
Example:
Statement: "Clothes are part of our constitution. It even says so, and it's freedom of expression"
Immediate Response: "No. The Constitution says nothing about clothes."
Response: " :twitch: Well, screw you."
|
I only said try in the first place.
...Did I almost get sucked into a debate? D:
Hyle - March 13, 2008 03:56 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 08:52 PM) |
| ...Did I almost get sucked into a debate? D: |
Ah, crap.
*Hyle was caught red-handed.
Firefly_43 - March 13, 2008 04:08 AM (GMT)
In my books, starting an unnecessary debate with me is punishable by death. I'm feeling generous though, so I'll let you off with a warning this time. <_< >_>
Hyle - March 13, 2008 04:11 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Firefly_43 @ Mar 12 2008, 09:08 PM) |
| In my books, starting an unnecessary debate with me is punishable by death. I'm feeling generous though, so I'll let you off with a warning this time. <_< >_> |
..I'll be sure to keep that in mind. lol
Firefly_43 - March 13, 2008 04:17 AM (GMT)
I saw what you did in that other thread. Don't push it. Or else. >:]
I just really wanted an excuse to use that smilie...
Xenx-Zona - March 13, 2008 03:10 PM (GMT)
i do belive Uniforms shouldnt be present in public schools, I dont really think it matters in private schools but thats besides the point.
A DRESS CODE is not always neccissery but a good thing to have as long as it isnt too strict, which mine is "/, but uniforms are too much. They may stop kids from the "slutty" look but even with them girls can still turn a uniform slutty.
all in all, Dress code: yes. Uniforms: no.
Black_Knight_456 - March 13, 2008 08:16 PM (GMT)
Well my school has a dress code, which really isn't enforced. So it really isn't an issue.
As for uniforms, I'm completely against the idea. It reminds me of this book I'm reading right now(Brave New World by Aldous Huxley) but on an extremely lower scale. Everything becomes bland, controlled and just downright boring. You're trying to make everyone equal by making them look very similar, but they aren't. It suppresses individuality among people, which I disagree with.
Larry - March 13, 2008 09:15 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Sety @ Mar 12 2008, 10:24 PM) |
| QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 07:24 PM) | | QUOTE (Dez384 @ Mar 12 2008, 09:14 PM) | | QUOTE (Sety @ Mar 12 2008, 10:04 PM) | | QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 05:57 PM) | They don't infringe on your rights, since what you wear has nothing to do with rights. Stupid American misunderstanding of your own constitution. :no:
We had a uniform... back in preschool-second grade. Then school switch.
Anyway, I support uniforms since a.) as long as you aren't denying me my hoodie, I don't care what I have to wear, and b.) have you seen the slutty, whore-ish clothes people wear? The guys aren't so bad, aside from showing off their underwear/cracks, but the girls... Sorry, but regardless of which way I'm swinging that day, I still don't want your boobs hanging out of your shirt. :|
More when I have more opinions later. |
It goes under freedom of speech.
|
I think it was Tinker Vs Des Moines? Students wore black armbands in protest of a war, methinks. It was protected under the First Amendment as Free speech.
|
That's entirely different.
protesting a war =/= dressing like a slut
| QUOTE | * First Amendment – Establishment clause, freedom of religion (Free Exercise Clause), speech, and press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
Where's expression? Nowhere. If you're protesting something by wearing an armband, yeah, it's supported by:
| QUOTE | | the right of the people peaceably to assemble |
Ergo, protesting.
|
I fail to see how just because it doesn't say "freedom to wear whatever the hell you want to" means that you can't wear whatever the hell you want to. Freedom of speech = freedom of expression, which equals the right to wear whatever the hell you want.
|
Um... Why do you fail to understand it? It's not listed as a right, so it isn't a right. :duh:
ex·pres·sion /ɪkˈsprɛʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ik-spresh-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of expressing or setting forth in words: the free expression of political opinions.
speech /spitʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[speech] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture: Losing her speech made her feel isolated from humanity.
speech = expression
expression =/= speech
So, by these definitions, speech is a type of expression. But they are not equal. We have free speech, not free expression.
Your turn ^_^
Dez384 - March 13, 2008 09:42 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| setting forth in words |
Those things cannot be equal?
Larry - March 13, 2008 09:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Dez384 @ Mar 13 2008, 04:42 PM) |
| QUOTE | | setting forth in words |
Those things cannot be equal? |
Like I said;
speech = expression
expression =/= speech
Speech is expression, but expression isn't always speech.
Sety - March 14, 2008 01:38 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 13 2008, 02:15 PM) |
| QUOTE (Sety @ Mar 12 2008, 10:24 PM) | | QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 07:24 PM) | | QUOTE (Dez384 @ Mar 12 2008, 09:14 PM) | | QUOTE (Sety @ Mar 12 2008, 10:04 PM) | | QUOTE (Larry @ Mar 12 2008, 05:57 PM) | They don't infringe on your rights, since what you wear has nothing to do with rights. Stupid American misunderstanding of your own constitution. :no:
We had a uniform... back in preschool-second grade. Then school switch.
Anyway, I support uniforms since a.) as long as you aren't denying me my hoodie, I don't care what I have to wear, and b.) have you seen the slutty, whore-ish clothes people wear? The guys aren't so bad, aside from showing off their underwear/cracks, but the girls... Sorry, but regardless of which way I'm swinging that day, I still don't want your boobs hanging out of your shirt. :|
More when I have more opinions later. |
It goes under freedom of speech.
|
I think it was Tinker Vs Des Moines? Students wore black armbands in protest of a war, methinks. It was protected under the First Amendment as Free speech.
|
That's entirely different.
protesting a war =/= dressing like a slut
| QUOTE | * First Amendment – Establishment clause, freedom of religion (Free Exercise Clause), speech, and press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
Where's expression? Nowhere. If you're protesting something by wearing an armband, yeah, it's supported by:
| QUOTE | | the right of the people peaceably to assemble |
Ergo, protesting.
|
I fail to see how just because it doesn't say "freedom to wear whatever the hell you want to" means that you can't wear whatever the hell you want to. Freedom of speech = freedom of expression, which equals the right to wear whatever the hell you want.
|
Um... Why do you fail to understand it? It's not listed as a right, so it isn't a right. :duh:
ex·pres·sion /ɪkˈsprɛʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ik-spresh-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of expressing or setting forth in words: the free expression of political opinions.
speech /spitʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[speech] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture: Losing her speech made her feel isolated from humanity.
speech = expression
expression =/= speech
So, by these definitions, speech is a type of expression. But they are not equal. We have free speech, not free expression.
Your turn ^_^
|
Well, when you look at it as anally as you possibly could, I could see how this conclusion is drawn.
They're synonyms, are they not? Sounds good to me.