The large “No Kings” protests this weekend were peaceful with the exception of some hot spots in Portland near ICE facilities. There were the usual hot heads carrying guillotines and North Carolina Democrat Rep. Julie von Haefen is under fire for posting a picture of a beheaded Trump. Another protester was arrested for calling for protesters to “firebomb” ICE facilities and personnel. In another scene, children were encouraged to beat a Trump piñata. There was also an assault on a MAGA supporter. These remained happily isolated incidents. However, two school employees in Chicago drew national attention with their violent speeches and offered another test of our free speech standards.
In Chicago, elementary school teacher Lucy Martinez was shown on video mockingly making a gesture akin to being shot in the neck, mimicking how Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
The video went viral, and her school, Nathan Hale Elementary School, had to shut down its website and social media presence.
Martinez’s gesture is disgusting, and frankly, I would not want my children to be taught by such a person. However, she did not identify herself as a teacher when she made this vile statement outside of school during her own time. As such, it is, in my view, protected speech.
Then there is the controversy surrounding Wilbur Wright College Adult Education Manager Moises Bernal, who screamed to a crowd that “ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out.” Bernal told the crowd, “You gotta grab a gun!” and “We gotta turn around the guns on this fascist system!”
In 2017, Bernal was sentenced to 12 months probation in a rare move by the court due to disruptive behavior at a hearing for Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke who was charged with murder.
The question is whether calling for the killing of ICE officers crosses the line for an educator. After all, there are ICE officers who come to campuses in their official capacity or as students. There are also students who want to join law enforcement, including ICE.
Violent speech is admittedly a difficult area for such line drawing. Faculty have made similarly disturbing comments in the past, including “detonating white people,” abolish white people, denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island).
Even school board members referring to taking faculty “to the slaughterhouse” for questioning DEI policies is considering protected speech.
However, the specificity of Bernal’s call to violence could trigger repercussions for him. If Bernal had proclaimed that people should shoot minorities or women or Jews, there would be little debate that he represented a threatening element on campus. Certainly a student who espoused such violent intentions would not be allowed on campus in most universities.
For the university, it is difficult to see how law enforcement personnel in adult education programs would feel comfortable with an administrator who is encouraging others to murder them. Indeed, most people would not feel comfortable in interacting with someone who wants to kill law enforcement personnel.
Bernal’s comments likely fall short of a criminal threat, though, in New York city, David Cox was arrested after allegedly telling a third person that he had firebombs in his car and would be carrying out an attack. That was a specific threat and alleged plan. Bernal was encouraging violence in general.
However, calling for violence at a protest can cross the line for violent speech under existing precedent. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
In this case, there was no violence despite Bernal’s apparent inclinations. There was no evidence of “imminent lawless action.” As such, it is still likely protected. However, that does not mean that Wilbur Wright College, which is part of the city of Chicago college system, cannot fire or suspend him for calling for the murder of law enforcement.
There is currently no statement from Wilbur Wright College President Dr. Andrés A. Oroz.
The offense does not need to be criminal for the offender to be fired. These “educators” and others are free to express their opinions, and their employers are also free to fire them — for the entirely rational reason that their disgusting and vile remarks attach to and threaten the reputations of their respective institutions.
Private employers, yes. They can fire someone just for saying something the employer doesn’t like. Or for any other reason or non-reason.
With government employers, such as these schools, it’s not so simple. Government entities cannot fire someone for exercising their constitutional rights, unless they can show how what the employee said makes it impossible for him to do his job. With a classroom teacher, that showing could be that there are students who would not feel safe with a teacher who they know wants to kill them. But with an office employee who didn’t threaten their fellow workers, there is no way to fire them for saying even the most disgusting and frightening things.
That doesn’t mean that is the way it should remain.
There was a time when employers could enslave whoever they wanted,
but then some people changed that, and now they can’t.
Yes, free speech on your own time is inalienable. It’s so corrupted a whistle-blower law was written. NDAs?
Free speech on your own time is a right. It is certainly alienable. You can waive it by contract off the job, just as you can on the job.
But you know what else is just as much of a right? The right to hire and fire as you please
Christ is a King Millhouse, he died for your sins. What will you say when you go before him?
No, he isn’t. He met his judgment 2000 years ago.
All of which is why as little as possible should be inside of govenrment.
Education is not a legitimate govenrment function.
Decisions regarding the operations of schools is the domain of the parents of the students attending.
And the power of those parents should be the same as private employers.
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
Thanks be to God that Mother Nature is coming to the rescue.
Winter is coming and this year it appears it is going to be a bitter one.
The lack of an active Hurricane season is the indication that the thermohaline circulation (aka the global ocean conveyor belt)
has slowed down allowing colder polar air to sink in the N.E., and an in a addition kicker it’s a La Niña year.
So dry Hell Fire in the Californian West Coast and Freezing Blizzards in the mid West and East, with Wet Parades in the South.
Putting the Big Chill on the Democratic Governors of the Mega City States (L.A., Chicago, N.Y., …), squelching the uproar.
Hallelujah!
Beans in the teens! $$
Government-owned or not, any employer/educational institution should be able to fire any employee/faculty member who makes any statement/gesture that threatens any of their potential customers/students – period!
That should be obvious to any reasonable person, but likely not those who put speech under a microscope and argue about what the definition of “is” is to justify their wrongdoings.
The best we can hope for in all of these cases is that those POS protestors who advocate murder are fired and can’t get a job in their chosen profession for the rest of their lives, with the internet being, thankfully, forever.
I’d hate to say what I’d likely do if I found one of these people had been teaching a child of mine.
“Government-owned or not, any employer/educational institution should be able to fire any employee/faculty member who makes any statement/gesture that threatens any of their potential customers/students – period!”
Going in the right direction there, but… No education institution should be owned by government. The Constitution forbids (i.e., does not authorize) this for the Federal government, and common sense, if not legality, should prevent it at the State level. Further, in private employment, the “at will” doctrine should universally prevail, and any employer should be entitled to fire any employee (and any employee should be entitled to quit) for any reason whatsoever, subject to any existing, in-force, contracts that were voluntarily executed by both parties.
“and any employer should be entitled to fire any employee (and any employee should be entitled to quit) for any reason whatsoever, subject to any existing, in-force, contracts that were voluntarily executed by both parties.”
Well, that’s pretty purist libertarian. I suppose if we’re willing to see employees with 10, 20, etc years summarily fired because a new owner/board of directors has decided they will not have employees who voted Republican one time before they were employed, or want to cull employees who adopt religious beliefs in middle age, then we can go along with that. And if they can fire you, certainly they can search any cellphone that you bring to work for any evidence of what they don’t want from their employees.
Just like you don’t have to go to work for them if you don’t like the position you can be summarily fired, you don’t have to bring your cellphone to work unless you’re willing to allow them to search it on demand..
I’m not comfortable with that Constitutional purism. Particularly when it seems to confict with multiple amendments in the Bill of Rights.
While they believe they defend democratic norms and reject authoritarianism, the “No Kings” marchers likely do not realize they have been maneuvered to accept a delusion and with-it risk falling under the thumb of their very own unaccountable ruler of another kind. As their organization advances its quest for a collectivized authority to ensure equality of outcome for the masses, they are not given to understand just how such an authority will itself become the absolute master and threat to democracy.
It is inevitable that under socialism, even a kind that claims to be democratic, a central planner must be crowned supreme sovereign in order for the whole of the collective not to shatter and fragment. What then might we all expect of such a king whom they are falsely led to believe will somehow be answerable to a democratic majority? The 20th Century taught us well that socialism regardless of any flavor of the month always leads to totalitarian tyranny and a thorough rejection of freedom.
So Jonathan, Lucy Martinez mimicking Charlie Kirk’s assassination, in your opinion, is protected free speech because Martinez did not identify herself as a teacher. Perhaps. But should her employer, Nathan Hale Elementary in Chicago, retain her? You don’t say. Then, with reference to Martinez, you state: “I would not want my children to be taught by such a person.” So what would you do, as a parent, if Martinez were teaching your children? Would you demand her firing? her censure? Would you pull your children from Nathan Hale? Or would you willingly and deliberately keep your children in Martinez’s classroom, sacrificing them on the altar of Martinez’s right to “free speech”?
Jack Brewster posted: “Would you pull your children from Nathan Hale? Or would you willingly and deliberately keep your children in Martinez’s classroom, sacrificing them on the altar of Martinez’s right to “free speech”?
Well framed challenge to Professor Turley’s view and nuance of what he chooses to define as protected free speech. Of course, it is an almost rhetorical question because Professor Turley is like the Sphinx after posting his lectures: he never visits the comments section or adds additional information for clarification.
I would add: would Professor Turley sacrifice his children in Martinez’s classroom if she was handing out NAMBLA pamphlets out on the weekends as the president of the local NAMBLA chapter?
Would Professor Turley sacrifice his children in Martinez’s classroom if she was handing out CAIR pamphlets on the weekends as the chair of those unindicted terrorist felons as chair of their local chapter or another neo-Nazi genocidal anti-Semitic organization?
Well… we shall never know, will we?
It often appears that the professor adopts a purist view of the First Amendment and stays away from pragmatic questions concerning his purism as though that would be touching the third rail on his First Amendment train.
Speech that would not trigger government enforcement [most speech] could nonetheless legitimately trigger an employer’s response.
Call it the ” I don’t want profane a**holes working for me and setting a despicable tone for my establishment” cut out.
Basically it is choosing the decor for your place and for your students or customers.
A teacher [or anyone else] has the right to say pretty much whatever she wants and I have the right not to expose my children to lunatic scum.
Lately it seems like universities and schools are recruiting homeless crazies and intellectual lepers for faculty.
No, most faculty is recruited from a pool of candidates mostly incompetent to be successful in a productive job elsewhere in society. Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach. Those who can do neither, administrate.
In another scene, children were encouraged to beat a Trump piñata.
How is that not a form of child abuse? Destroying their innocence, inculcating a mindset of violence, depriving them of positive spiritual formation. It’s of a piece with the groomers who use drag-queen story hour to indoctrinate. Demonic in every way.
Some years ago, I bought a Sponge Bob piñata at a local Mexican grocery store and took it to Boston for a child’s birthday party. For some reason, it was the first piece of luggage off the plane and everyone laughed as I picked it up. I felt slightly sheepish to have made a market for such a blatant intellectual property ripoff and taken it along the San José-Boston axis.
On the plane trip back I told the story to the guy sitting next to me. It turned out that he worked at ILM (a Silicon Valley firm that does Hollywood special effects) and bought the same piñata at the same store, spray-painted it green to look like Shrek, and took it to a party at work. I don’t know whether they beat its guts out like the kids did.
Creekan posted “I felt slightly sheepish to have made a market for such a blatant intellectual property ripoff and taken it along the San José-Boston axis.”
Creekan’s Democrat White Guilt savaged his mind when he realized he had committed the Democrat crime of Cultural Appropriation. Intersectionality in all it’s forms!
Meanwhile, the Democrats who Creekan votes for regularly engage in the very same Cultural Appropriation in the public eye. How often did DEI Hire Harris, an East Indian/Jamaican adopt the argot of an inner city black American on the campaign trail while attempting to sell herself.
How many have the Democrats’ college New Hitler Youth Brigade warriors (overwhelmingly Rich White Privilege kids who sent them to Harvard and elsewhere) adopted the dress terrorist keffiyeh of the Arab Hamas terrorists?
Creekan should feel a lot less guilt in realizing that his White Privilege led him into arrogantly engaging in Cultural Appropriation that his criminal Illegal Aliens from south of the border could find offensive.
However, Martinez did not identify herself as a teacher when she made this vile statement outside of school during her own time. As such, it is, in my view, protected speech.
Explore what First Amendment rights are protected, Professor Turley.
What if Martinez is known to be one of the leadership of a local Nazi group in that town? Would the community agree that is protected association outside of work?
What if Martinez hands out pamphlets that support and advocate for NAMBLA in the business district of the city? Would the community agree that is protected freedom of speech as well?
Two examples: does Martinez also get to keep her job in those examples because that is also protected First Amendment activity?
The community doesn’t get a say in the matter. The constitution says that speech is protected, and no government entity may punish her for it.
However, it may be that it’s now impossible for her to do her job. If it becomes known what she said, and parents pull their kids from her class, the school can say you’re no longer capable of doing your job, and it’s your own fault, so you’re out with no disability, just as if you had deliberately crippled yourself so as to become incapable of working.
The employer determines what THEY would find as cause for dismissal under their morality and ethics clause in their employment contract.
Are you going to place Christ under citizens arrest when you go before him Millhouse?
The employer is the government, and is therefore bound by the constitution, which tells it that it MAY NOT fire someone merely for expressing an opinion it doesn’t approve of, no matter how offensive. And it doesn’t matter what the community thinks about it.
“It is not ok to silence conservatives, but it is ok to silence liberals.” – The Turley blog in a nutshell.
““It is not ok to silence conservatives, but it is ok to silence liberals.” – The Turley blog in a nutshell.”
This is the intellectual capabilities left on display after Furry Tranny kids survive years of their mother giving them the kitchen toaster and her hair dryer for their monthly bath.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows a person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing them as the thoughts and actions of someone else who they despise and hate instead.
You must be a graduate of the Chicago system as you are obviously semi-literate at best
Wrong as usual. No one is stopping the left making fools of themselves
Point out to someone calling for liberals to be silenced on the good professor’s blog. I do not want you silenced. I want you to state your opinions openly for all use to see exactly how unhinged you really are. Like claiming we are silencing you. These two people whom the good professor is highlighting, they are exercising their 1stA rights. And we are glad for it. They are showing us exactly the kind of unhinged people they really are. We are not calling for them to be silenced. We just would, as the good professor says, not want them teaching our children.
And the one guy has a history of violence. Would any of us be surprised if he actually committed a act of violence against ICE?
” I do not want you silenced. ”
I don’t want them to be “silenced” (active verb) either. On the gripping hand, I would be quite happy of they would voluntarily STFU and disappear…
I didn’t want you silenced Mr. Bond
I want you to die…
What Professor Turley actually has said is that the speech of these protesters is protected speech.
On occasion there is a right wing nut job that no one knows who calls for the murder of liberals. The people on the left who are advocating violence toward conservatives are both well known Democratic politicians and Hollywood actors. You Anonymous are so blinded by your love of your genitalia that you continually create false equivalency not only day after day but our after our. You are so afraid that there will be nothing left in your life if you can no longer play the poor victim card. You’re still saying, but mom, my brother gets more than I do and thats not fare. The eternal child posts here as Anonymous anonymously who’s been twelve years old stamping her feet for many many years and will be for many years to come. A little self reflection about how everyone is against me is recommended but is certainly not expected.
On occasion there is a right wing nut job that no one knows who calls for the murder of liberals.
Sounds like false-flag to me.
Hilarious how CCP and useful idiot commies everywhere come here and post hoping for a little traction for their ‘hidden’ agenda.
Socialists worldwide are being consumed by the wave of individuals who can reason for themselves and have heard enough.
It really just took one determined man to get it started and now personal freedoms cannot be taken by the communists without a fight.
All they have left really is sadness, their anger is a cover-up emotion to avoid feeling helpless and sad. It’s a stage of grief, loss.
But the losing is just beginning. Expect to see a revolution in freedom originating from America and illuminating the dark communist hives with the truth.
Sorry commie!
I pointed this out last night -the part about Moises Bernal – and Professor Benson refused to believe it because it was reported by Fox News. His preferred news sources didn’t carry the story so I guess it didn’t happen.
OldManFromKS,
Yes, I saw that. I have noticed MSM will not report some news if it paints their narrative badly. Or, like CNN, puts a slant on it that is totally preposterous, like fiery but mostly peaceful protest.
And then you have people like Benson who would totally ignore news if it did not come from his preferred news source.
Upstate, in the 60s and 70s the Soviet allies would “spike” stories that were harmful to the cause and Bernard Goldberg, a former CBS newsman actually wrote a book called Spiked.
The MSM will not report on stories that harm their agenda and people are finally seeing it thanks to X and a few other places.
Upstate – I just looked and saw he acknowledged the second source I provided. Apparently I had turned my attention to other matters by the time he posted his response. However, his refusal to look through my first telescope was based on a weak foundation – that the parent corporation of the news outlet was an entertainment company.
I honestly don’t believe Moises Bernal Puentes – is, as appears, “Moises Bernal” Hispanic? – could retain his position as manager or educator on the basis of free speech protections. Because his statements calling for the murder of others is harmful, and would be harmful, to the institution and those who attend, regardless of whom or what demographic they were directed against. That aside, imagine if any called for the murder of teachers? Say, for example, in a Facebook post? How long would it be before the FBI was knocking on their door? And what of Puentes? He has not now invited both scrutiny AND investigation?
What we’re talking about here is crossing the line into prosecutable speech. In my mind, this line should not be defined by Judges and court cases. It should be defined by Juries. It takes common sense to sort out the intentions of the accused, and one person (Judge), or even a panel of 3 judges (appellate) or even 9 Justices (SC) should not be making the law. Courts only exist to apply the law to cases and controversies.
Let our legislative bodies write the law defining where the line is crossed, and then let Juries apply it to the particulars of each case.
And, let’s create a transition zone short of prosecution but open to civil lawsuit, and again, allow Juries to decide.
In this way, we give the People through their representatives on the Jury the power to make fine-grade decisions about what is acceptable and what is not. This is a natural power held by The People in a free society to uphold standards of public conduct.
@Anon,
If you have a jury trial, then you will get verdict based on the law… however it can be overturned if the Jury is ‘out for blood’ and their verdict is not in alignment with the law. (Meaning that everything points to innocence but they want to blame someone and find the person guilty because they want them to be guilty.
However, its really up to the Prosecutor to determine if in fact that a crime had been committed and that they could then go to a GJ to seek an indictment.
-G
No, you can’t have legislators drawing the line, because it’s a constitutional right. The whole point of the constitution is to say what legislators CAN’T do. Legislators might like to make advocating murder a crime. The public would probably support such a law. But the constitution tells both the legislators and the people that I don’t care what you want, you can’t have such a law. You have no right to make it. I don’t care of 90% of the voters want it, they can’t have it, because it’s wrong.
And the ONLY body authorized to interpret what existing law says, including the constitution, is the judicial branch. The constitution says that explicitly. No legislature can say what a law means. It can change a law so that it now means what it wants it to, but it can’t say what it meant until then. And Congress can’t change the constitution without 38 state legislatures agreeing. So the line-drawing can ONLY be done by the courts.
The fact that elementary school teacher Lucy Martinez displayed her disgusting jesture would cause responsible parents NOT to want such a person teaching their children is enough, in my mind, to terminate her services with the public school system. NOT for her speech but for the fact she has discredited herself and brought discredit to the school system. It is a fine line, I agree. Either that or parents should pull their children out of that school system.
O darn. they lied.
Watch MSNBC air a FAKE CROWD for NO KINGS!
Wrong year fools.
Jezzz
DustOff,
I saw that too. Of course their non-thinking, lower elevator level IQ viewers dont know they have been duped by MSNBC.
No, they did not lie. This time. The footage was real. The Boston rally really did attract a large crowd, and the rumors that MSNBC’s footage was from 2017 are wrong.
Last week, Professor Turley highlighted the recent Sixth Circuit case affirming a Michigan high school’s decision to ban “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts as “profane” and “vulgar.”
There, the only profanity or vulgarity was the political content of the message, at least to the ears of the far left progressives who dominate our education and legal systems. A better word for it is blasphemy in the progressive church.
Today, we have three shocking examples of far left lunatic “legislators” and “educators” who escaped the asylum over the weekend to celebrate actual physical violence against Donald Trump and conservatives.
Severed heads, guillotines, celebrating assassinations, calling for the killing of ICE agents. And somehow this allegedly falls under the rubric of “free speech?” These are the people that represent us in Congress and teach our children. for crying out loud.
We pretend that speech is protected by sophisticated “time, place and manner” rules. The lodestar of these rules was that the restrictions were to be “content neutral.”
You know what? Our educational and legal systems have completely lost the plot.
Content has become the new lodestar. The decision as to what is to be celebrated or censored is obscured by complicated legal rules, with decisions handed down by learned progressives and by high priests in robes.
Another way to put it? Content neutral, my ass. How profane, they will say. But it’s the truth. Even if it is blasphemy.
The law and legal system on the topic of political speech has been captured by the left. It is past time for fundamental reform.
Yes, let Juries decide all borderline cases. Our founders put that power in the hands of 12 randomly selected community members. If all 12 can agree, then that’s good enough. Much better than Judges deciding. Beware the judicial elites (lawyers and Judges) — they are systematically commandeering the power away from Juries.
No, you cannot put it in a jury’s hands, because the constitution forbids punishing protected speech no matter HOW many people want to. The jury reflects public opinion, and the whole point of the constitution is to tell the public what laws it can’t have no matter how much it wants them.
Whether someone’s speech is protected is a matter of interpreting the first amendment, and the constitution explicitly says that the judicial function, i.e. saying what the law is, belongs only and exclusively to Article III courts.
There, the only profanity or vulgarity was the political content of the message,
No, it was not. The courts upheld the school’s decision because it was completely viewpoint neutral, and based solely and entirely on the fact that the student’s shirt alluded to the word “eff you see kay”. The Supreme Court has explicitly endorsed the view that in the classroom the Tinkers’ armbands are protected, but Cohen’s jacket is not. Courthouses can’t ban vulgar language, but schools can. The Sixth circuit had no choice but to follow that ruling.
But outside school Cohen’s jacket is indeed protected. And so is the advocacy of anything at all, including murder, assassination, and the violent overthrow of the government.
Prof. Turley – the consitutitonal complexities in most of the incidents you cite arise from the fact that our schools are either completely govenrment owned or govenrment funded.
Correct that and the problems go away.
Private employers can fire these people for their speech or not – their choice.
You noted that the speech of one teacher did not identify herself as a teacher or identify her employer and therefore was likely protected.
But then you said that you would not want your child educated by this person.
This is precisely why we want as little as possible within the domain of government.
If you do not want this person teaching your kids – she should not be
Eliminating government involvement in schools would be a mistake and could lead to disaster. Relying solely on the free market to regulate behavior and interests in education is fundamentally flawed. Who would enforce civil rights violations, and how would that enforcement occur? This approach would also create significant disparities in the quality and accessibility of education nationwide, resulting in exclusive classes of individuals deemed “entitled” to education based on wealth and social status.
Both left- and right-leaning politicians would likely influence the curriculum of private schools, which would function primarily as profit-driven businesses focused on shareholders. If corporations enter the education sector, they would be regulated like any other business by state authorities. However, this raises the question: how would these schools be held accountable? Parents may lack the power to hold schools accountable, especially if a few companies dominate the education landscape in a region. Low-income families often lack the resources to pursue legal action or find better alternatives.
This is precisely why public schools were established: to ensure consistent, equal access to education free from ideological influences and profit motives.
Getting rid of government in schools will put us at a huge disadvantage over other nations that focus on consistency and quality thru government regulation. We can see this happening in China and other countries where public education is seen as a national imperative to ensure a highly productive society.
Getting government out education would not only severly impact our society negatively it would also affect our ability to retain an effective military.
“Getting government out education would not only severly impact our society negatively it would also affect our ability to retain an effective military.”
Hi, Randi Weingarten, thanks for posting that :-/
What a maroon. Governments have no more business running schools than they do running shoe stores.
Trent34 launched a false flag attack as he channeled his inner Randi WeingartenBoth left- and right-leaning politicians would likely influence the curriculum of private schools, which would function primarily as profit-driven businesses focused on shareholders.
But they already are: the Democrat party, and their unionized teachers are doing exactly that right now. Chicago’s charter schools are somehow actually worse today than their unionized public schools? How about parochial schools of any religion? Are they worse then public schools for political interference as well
You’ve got quit a bit of projection going on there in defense of the existing Democrat-Teachers Union Indoctrination Complex. And you’re doing it in hopes of building a strawman that you can then successfully attack and defeat.
If that is actually happening as you claim as the result of getting government out of controlling schools and infecting them with unionized government employee teachers, I have a simple, basic question:
Why are the Democrats and their teachers’ unions fighting fang and claw to, if not prohibit all non-public schools, then at least limit as much as possible the number existing and their ability to accept students?
And you claim that if there are civil rights violations i.e. a private school owned by the Clinton Foundation puts up a sign saying “No Darkies accepted here”, that civil rights violation will still fly?
You need to dial the hysteria and fearmongering back if you want to sell your position as a legitimate argument rather than a false flag defense of public schools continuing to be Democrat indoctrination centers.
You can have some federal government i.e. OSHA and regulations regarding safety. But Democrats continuing to run schools as failed academic institutions, but successful indoctrination centers, is a model that needs to be crushed.
We await your further defense of what you posted.
Anonymous – OSHA is not the hill I wish to die on – but the FACT is that no govenrment regulation anywhere ever has show any alteration in pre-existing Trends.
We were told that ACA would save millions of lives, that getting rid of it would result in millions of deaths.
Yet look at US mortality trends – you can not find any evidence that the ACA or any other regulation has EVER made any change in existing trends.
That is just one example but there are an infinite number.
That is not to say that private actors do not respond to our concerns – of course they do.
There are few if any recylcing laws that apply to Businesses in the US – why ?
Because no business needs encouraged to recycle.
The US had a blip where long term trends of improving environment briefly worsened.
Why ? Because all kinds of prior values went out the window to win WWII.
But normally the laws of economics drive free markets.
One of the laws of supply and demand is that “supply creates its own demand”.
In the 17th century in big cities excrement was a product – people made a living buying and selling it.
People in cities who could not afford wood or coal burned dung for heat.
Today 99% of the chick that goes into a tyson factory comes out as a product.
While the chicken that a mexican farmer cooks for dinner for his family is more than 50% waste.
Why ? Because the very best thing any business can do with waste is to find a way to turn it into a product.
What you can sell – even at a small loss, you do not have to dispose of at significant cost.
In most of the US today – OSHA is useless – nto because businesses routinely do bad things to workers – but because of the exact opposite. When something bad happens to a worker in a highly developed country like the US with a highly paid highly skilled workforce – the costs of the loss however brief of that worker ot the disruption of production is enormous. Businesses are increasingly safety conscious because it is in their interest.
Not because they give a schiff about OSHA.
“Who would enforce civil rights violations, and how would that enforcement occur?”
How does that occur with respect to your grocer or anywhere else in the free market ?
You seem to be under the delusion that the myriads of laws that govenment passes that are attemtps to tell us all how to live actually accomplish anything ?
All the good the left thinks it has done ever has actually been accomplished by the free market.
In the south the passed the jim crow laws – because without FORCE aka government business just did not discriminate enough to suit democrats.
The human conditions dramatically accelerated its rate of improvement as free markets and free trade becaome more and more the norm.
Most every significant improvement – in the environment, in polution, in work conditions in healthcare, in diversity in discrimination, in … began BEFORE laws intend to FORCE those things and continued not only after but beyond anything required by those laws.
Government is a necescary evil with a very limited legitimate domain,
Within that domain – 150,000 years of efforts have not found a better way.
Outside that domain – pretty much everything works better, but most certainly free markets do.
” This approach would also create significant disparities in the quality and accessibility of education nationwide, resulting in exclusive classes of individuals deemed “entitled” to education based on wealth and social status.”
ROFL – name ANYTHING in which that has actually happened ?
Reach into your pocket. Inside you have a smart phone that is more powerful than anything available to humans only a few decades ago. And 60% of the worlds population has that power TODAY,
Probably 100% of those in the united states have that power. Young kids have that power.
Are cell phones some tool limited only to the elite that has increased inequality ?
Cell phones are far from the only example.
I have a tenant right now dancing on the edge of eviction. He is barely above homeless in the world today.
He has a smart phone, a gaming computer, multiple TV’s including a 65″ one – he has far more creature comforts than I did in 1990 and certainly in 1965
We are all better off BECAUSE of free markets – NOT despite them.
Look arround you ? Look at most of the problems we are fighting over ?
Nearly all are the result of Government F#$K ups – not failures of private citizens of free markets.
“Both left- and right-leaning politicians would likely influence the curriculum of private schools”
ROFL – the POINT of free markets is to DISEMPOWER govenrment and politicians.
Absolutely all kinds of groups and individuals would SEEK power over schools.
But like EVERY business in existance – management is answerable to SHAREHOLDERS
And Shareholders place profits over politics, and that means that what the expect of management is that they make the consumers as happy as possible.
The consumers of education – are PARENTS.
“which would function primarily as profit-driven businesses focused on shareholders.”
Absolutely
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”
Adam Smith
In the real world – your life is made better – because other people can profit from doing so.
“If corporations enter the education sector, they would be regulated like any other business by state authorities. ”
According to the constitution – the state and federal govenrment have NO BUSINESS in private contractual relations – see the contracts clause int he constitution.
Regardless, there is no evidence that govenrment regulation of business has EVER delivered any real benefit to people.
“However, this raises the question: how would these schools be held accountable?”
The same way that every business is held accountable in the free market.
Shareholders demand profits, and consumers demand quality products at the lowest possible cost.
“Parents may lack the power to hold schools accountable”
Because you say so ? We ALREADY see many parents leaving traditional public schools seeking better.
My kids were cyber chartered – technically that is a public alternative to brick and mortar schools.
Most of the students in their schools were from failing poor public schools.
Most of the students had poorly educated single parents who did not want their kids to suffer fromt he $hitty public education they got.
You do not think parents would have enough power ?
You are a complete moron who has learned absolutely nothing from the REAL WORLD arround you.
“especially if a few companies dominate the education landscape in a region”
Unlikely – but so what ? Big or little – absent government interferances ALL businesses are answerable to the market place.
Only one of the top 10 largest companies in the world is still in the top 10 today.
The life of businesses – including big businesses is significantly shorter than that of humans.
Why is that so ? Because unlike delusional people like you beleive – the POWER in the free market is with free people – consumers.
“Low-income families often lack the resources to pursue legal action or find better alternatives.”
Typcial left wing nut – you want to sue somebody over everything.
Look arround today there are decent private schools with tutition under 2000/yr.
While average govenrment spending per student in the us today is 17000/yr
Many of the very best private schools cost less.
Will parents have a choice ? Of course they will have a choice. Do you have choices in the cloths you wear, the food you eat, the cars you drive ? The only places that you do not have choices are those dominated by govenrment.
Government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate choices.
“This is precisely why public schools were established: to ensure consistent, equal access to education free from ideological influences and profit motives.”
No actually it is not why public schools exist.
But if those were the actual purposes of public schools – they have been a complete failure.
You clearly are a left wing nut with no clue how the world improves.
Mother Theresa was devoid of any “profit motive” – yet Bill gates – even entirely excluding his charitable work has done more to improve the lives of people throughout the world than Mother Therasea ever did.
The world is made better – better for the least well off in the world – not by charity or govenrment, but people seeking to PROFIT.
You profit off of others by providing something they value more than what money they have
Free exchange is one of the few Win-win non zero sum things in the entire world, and it is the engine of human improvement.
“Getting rid of government in schools will put us at a huge disadvantage over other nations that focus on consistency and quality thru government regulation. ”
NO – not getting rid of public schools would put any nation at a disadvantage to those who do.
In most of the nordic social democracies that the left loves – most education is actually private – the base education is paid for by government, but the actual education is delivered by private for profit schools.
“We can see this happening in China and other countries where public education is seen as a national imperative to ensure a highly productive society.”
Just as Public education was seen as a national imperative in late 19th century germany in other to ensure an endless upply of competent cannon fodder for the war machine.
“Getting government out education would not only severly impact our society negatively it would also affect our ability to retain an effective military.”
Because you say so ?
Trent34
You post a long speculative diatribe – but there is not a single ACTUAL argument supported by facts and evidence – as opposed to ideological speculation.
Please name any instance anywhere ever where government has gotten out of anything and in the course of a few years things were not dramatically better ?
Further if there was the slightest merit to your argument – we would all be communists today, and the USSR would rule the world.
The free market is not composed of a variety of businesses of varying sizes because government dictated that.
The structure of businesses in a free market is because that is what works.
Businesses tend to be born small grow and die. Businesses of all types.
Large businesses should be more efficient – and sometimes they are. though not always.
But they are alsosignificantly less flexibale and adaptable.
Every small business owner wants to become Elon Musk, But most wont,
nor is it likely that any of Musks many businesses will survive many decades past him.
Large businesses are far more fragile than smaller ones. That leads them to be cautious, and that gives smaller businesses oportunities. Further even with great caution – large businesses ultimately make mistakes and fail.
But despite the constant failure of businesses in the free market – the creative destruction of free markets documented by Joseph Schumpeter was supposed to be the achilles heel of free markets – but it is its strength.
Businesses fail all the time – but people fail far less frequently.
It should be obvious from the real world that the big winners in free markets are in the long run ALWAYS consumers. The biggest companies in the country – can and will go bankrupt, but the rest of us will survive and thrive.
The Chinese and every other country can make their own choices – and reap the rewards and pay the costs.
Despite the best efforts of left wing nuts in the US – this country still outperforms the world in nearly everything.
Imagine how much better we would do if we only made 1/4 the mistakes the rest of the world does instead of 1/2.
Regardless, like a typical left wing nut you rant abotu hypotheticals that have never happened. While being oblivious to the failures that do happen all arround us all the time.
As Lord Acton noted – “Power corrupts”.
The only actual power is govenrment. And that is precisely why we need government to be as small as is possible.
Because however much power we government government, that is how much corruption we will have.
Disagree respectfully because 1A is inalienable.
Bring in Brandenburg for evidence of a syndicate, concerted effort to overthrow a gov, (sabotage, sedition, treason) by means other than elections both free and fair, and or by violence. Sabotage of existing law is a means…
Yep mostly peaceful
A 38-year-old accountant has been arrested after allegedly opening fire on a MAGA supporter who had a Trump flag in his yard.
Benjamin Michael Campbell is charged with firing shots at the home of Mark Thomas, 62, in Nantahala Gorge, North Carolina, on September 6.
DustOff,
I saw that, watched the video. What a unhinged lunatic! Likely he was inspired by other unhinged leftists rhetoric like Jimmy Kimmel or Robert DeNiro.
Why is the free speech advocate acting like the speech police?
Turley played piano at a whorehouse to pay for college.
Did your Mom like the music?
That would be a fun gig.
He’s not.
Try again
Turley,
There are a couple of issues here.
While you can look at the law and focus strictly on the speech and its legality.
You can then assert that the speech was done outside of the workspace on their own time and thus protected…
Yet… consider the following…
1) Not all speech is protected.
2) Consider roles like first responders…
An off duty police officer is still required to render aid…
As is a doctor. Oh wait, you need immediate attention but its outside my office hours or I’m outside of the ER so I can’t help you…
Or there’s a person trapped in a burning car and you’re a first responder so you just look the other way…
Now rethink your position when considering that when you have a role like a teacher… when does your day end where you are not part of your role?
After hours… out side of school… you’re still an influence on your students and your voice carries weight.
She should and could be terminated for her speech.
Don’t like it? Then don’t become a teacher.
Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should and that actions have consequences.
-Gumby
Another thought, Active Service members, Veterans, first responders and others receive 100% financial perks for their duties across our community. Wouldn’t this make them 100% of their time on the clock as a public servant so to speak? I know these aren’t the typical folks evidencing this type of abhorrent behavior but I would believe that teachers and administrators would also receive these benefits in some form or another. I guess morality clauses went out the window with the Clintons, too bad! I don’t think parents want some blue haired hater advocating violence, death and murder to teach their children.
“Another thought, Active Service members, Veterans, first responders and others receive 100% financial perks for their duties across our community.”
I’m not sure where you’re attempting to arrive at with that. But what veterans receive are not “perks”. That’s called “a pension” and the rest of the benefits they were promised when they agreed to sign up for their years of service. Nor do they have any further obligations to the community. Active service members do not have duty obligations outside of uniform across the community.
In other words, what those veterans receive is no more a “perk” than what a retired federal union employee that worked as a mail room clerk in the Agriculture department gets as their retirement pension and benefits.
(although the unionized clerk in the Agriculture department gets a far more lucrative pension than the veteran will ever see)
In the case of first responders etc it’s a life saving effort and covered by extension to some degree for lawsuit purposes. Teachers aren’t in life saving efforts. They are reporters of child abuse OTH.
My op without any special degree like most common jurors or unless instructed otherwise. I haven’t read Brandenburg.