Is that supposed to be a problem or a counter point or something? It doesn't matter what ideological whims someone is espousing, people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants.
> people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants
That applies to violating the out-of-classroom First Amendment rights of publicly employed teachers by their publicly employed management at the urging of the federal government, too.
"The Court famously opined, 'It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'"
There is… little disagreement on this aspect of the First/Fourth/Fifth/etc., though.
> revoking their visa is not jail
The First Amendment protects you from non-jail government consequences just fine, for obvious reasons - "we're fining you $1M for your speech" would have just as much impact.
The first amendment should only apply to citizens. I understand that current case law says it applies to everyone, but I think that is a misstep that we can & should correct.
Except people are often being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim.
The First Amendment doesn't apply to only citizens.
Is that supposed to be a problem or a counter point or something? It doesn't matter what ideological whims someone is espousing, people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants.
> people who hold discretionary authority backed by government violence ought to keep it in their pants
That applies to violating the out-of-classroom First Amendment rights of publicly employed teachers by their publicly employed management at the urging of the federal government, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe...
"The Court famously opined, 'It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'"
6 replies →
Please cite a single example of someone being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim without any celebratory tone.
https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/22/teacher-aide-files-federal-l...
The post is reproduced in the article, in its apparent entirety. Zero celebration I can detect.
Now what?
4 replies →
Does the second amendment apply to non-citizens?
I'm against the government jailing a visa holder for their speech, but revoking their visa is not jail.
> Does the second amendment apply to non-citizens?
There's some current disagreement on that in the courts after Bruen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pisto...)!
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24...
We'll see.
There is… little disagreement on this aspect of the First/Fourth/Fifth/etc., though.
> revoking their visa is not jail
The First Amendment protects you from non-jail government consequences just fine, for obvious reasons - "we're fining you $1M for your speech" would have just as much impact.
The first amendment should only apply to citizens. I understand that current case law says it applies to everyone, but I think that is a misstep that we can & should correct.
So forced religious conversions for green card holders should be legal?
That's a take, I guess.
1 reply →
Do you think a lot of people in power should be fired then? A lot of the current admin is guilty of behaviour in similarly poor taste.