Excellent points about being denied bail. Once again we see the horrible government system at work. We see the double standard. Can you imagine if this were black students arrested for, well, I'm not sure we're allowed to arrest people with dark skin any more. But certainly, the ACLU's position is clear: it IS a felony to utter the words, "God hates fags." A FELONY.

If this girl was an ILLEGAL immigrant she would have been released and the court would have given her cab fare to get home.

Congress would give her amnesty and she would only have to pay a fine...

Petition to stop amnesty

When kids act out like these two did, there are usually reasons behind it. For reasons we at BC are not privy to, the judge decided one girl's home situation was untenable, & even JV hall was preferential. SOME kind of fairly hefty info must have been available to him; I doubt he did it just because he is a left-wing loonie. Very few judges are that poor. As for house arrest for the other, consider that what's being said by the Court is simply, 'keep a closer eye on who your kid hangs out with'. She's not wearing an ankle bracelet as far as I can tell from the article. She's just being confined to the proximity of parents & home - where she belongs at that age, BTW - not at the mall or getting in trouble elsewhere.

There isn't enough information in this article or the original reports to indicate why these girls were treated this way. I suggest we not second-guess a judge who has far more accesss to pertinent (& undisclosed due to their ages) information than reporters or blogcritics.

The other girl is wearing an ankle bracelet, a media report does confirm that.

I will second guess a judge because these girls were arrested Thursday and his ruling was handed down yesterday. I guarantee you that no home visit was performed, DCFS was not involved, and no social service agency was doing interviews. This judge looked at a few documents and made a decision in 5 minutes, that's how arraignment hearings work for anyone who's ever seen one.

If here home environment is dangerous, that's what we have DCFS for and those courts for. They'll take an at-risk child and put them in a foster home not in prison. The bail system is not designed so that a judge can invade a home and start making custody decisions in a case so minor that there is only a maximum of 30 days in juvie at stake here.

I don't know what his politics are or his motivations, he could be a law & order right wing nut for all I know. What I do know is that this kid is going to spend the better part of a year in juvie waiting for trial where she faces a maximum sentence of maybe 10% of the time she's ALREADY spent in jail. And I do know that murders right now are making bail and we're locking away 16 year olds for using Photoshop.

There is no defense for this.

"The ACLU, predictably, said it indicates the struggle between protecting targeted groups and free speech, which apparently means hate speech directed at whites, Christians, or men is a-ok in the ACLU's book."

Misrepresenting the ACLU as usual, John. The statement you indirectly quote is from the Illinois branch of the ACLU, whose spokesman, Ed Yohnka, was at pains to point out that their position differs from the national organization's unequivocal support of hate speech laws. Mr Yohnka made it very clear that the Illinois ACLU has serious misgivings about these charges.

As usual, John distorts and exaggerates for gratuitous effect, because us PC-lovin' ACLU-ers have it out for pitifully beleagured and victimized straight white Christian men [and teenage girls?].

According to both the Fox News report John cites and the AP story about this case, the girl in custody will be tried "next week," with a potential sentence of "up to" 30 days. It's the home-detention girl whose trial may be further off.

A brief quote from the AP:
"The victim of the alleged hate crime is a neighbor of one girl, according to court testimony.

One girl has been ordered to remain in juvenile custody until her trial later this month. Judge Michael Chmiel noted that the girl has had about 12 other brushes with police in recent years.

'I'm very nervous about your daughter being home without supervision,' Chmiel told the girl's mother in court Tuesday.

The mother responded, 'We've had rough spots - lots of them.'"

The juvenile justice system and the system for adults have two different goals:protecting the juvenile and changing behavior for the first vs. punishment for the latter. Most juvenile cases are not even adjudicated as being "guilty" or "not guilty" of anything.

This article is a rant of bias, prejudging, and unwarranted conclusions. The girl is only a poor persecuted "mischievious teenager"--with about 12 other problems with the police!

Did the author try to control his righteous indignation long enough to think that maybe, because of her homelife and personality problems, the judge is trying to protect her within a more stable and structured environment until she can get the help she needs? Couldn't that be as likely as the writer's over-emotive concoctions?

I think yelling "hate crime" here, is largely irrelevant to the main issue--helping this kid.

Juvenile cases are closed to the public, so you can't just sit in. I have attended cases there and seen teenagers in deperate need of someone to protect them and straighten them out. I have seen judges trying anything that might work to do that for them.

Again, murders get bail except in the most extreme circumstance. I know of cases where people get in dozens of fistfights, get arrested, and they still get bail.

The "12 brushes with the law" were things like curfew violations and having cigarrettes, that's not exactly a threat to the very fabric of the Republic.

And this judge has no business standing in judgment of this girl's homelife. We have DCFS and the family courts that deal with those situations only after actually having an investigation. And even then, a child is put in *foster care* not jail if their home environment is of concern.

Johns right on this, the judge seems to be over reacting quite a bit. The punishment is supposed to fit the crime right? Putting a kid on house arrest and one in juvenile detention is a punishment -- it sure isn't a trip to Holiday World. There appears to be no standard set for these types of "offenses" -- which I don't believe should even be a legal offense. John points out the arbitrary decision making by a judge; you have to ask yourself why the judge is throwing the books at these girls? The bad things these girls have done in the past will probably be something they grow out of -- I've done plenty of stupid things growing up, now I barely speed. It's just called maturing.

Is this a scared straight situation? For posting fliers? What behavior are we trying to fix? Activism? Or much more likely: this judge has a problem with the content of the speech.

Any time speech is regulating by the courts, there is risk of an even narrower interpretation of what "Free Speech" means. How is putting up a flier a "hate crime?" I suppose we should put the entire state of Mississippi under house arrest for their state flag.

Huh. There are a lot of ifs and probablys in the article and the comments. John, I'm normally a fan, but this one doesn't seem well-researched.

It's hard to know what's true here...it would also be helpful (in some ways) to know if the kids being made fun of in the flier are actually homosexual...kind of changes the scope of the situation, doesn't it?

It seems like a situation that the school should hav disciplined the kids for, but a felony is a pretty heavy weight for being obnoxious. I also don't think that if these girls harbor any genuine feelings of violence or ill-will towards homosexuals that imprisoning them is going to make them stop...sounds like they need some therapy...

I can't wait for your next article, "Apples and Oranges".

I don't agree with what the girl says, in fact its pretty rediculous, but I will fight tooth and nail to defend her right to say it.

Hate crime leads to thought crime, which will in turn enslave everyone on this planet. Instead of imprisoning people for their bigotry, how about educating them and giving them the tools to feel more confident about themselves, then things like biotry and racism will disappear naturally.

I'm not sure what ifs and probablys we're talking about... We could debate the hate crime thing, sure, but being denied bail for a minor who's only alleged offense is putting up flyers (and I don't think the kid was gay, but that is an assumption) is excessive no matter what the circumstances are.

Take your standard murder, rapist, drug dealer, or hell, even an addict. A judge doesn't evaluate their "home environment" before sending them home.

Wait a second. So God doesn't hate fags?

What's a fag? I thought they were cigarettes?

"What's a fag?"

Not sure but in some movie I heard Alec Baldwin is the head of them.

"Misrepresenting the ACLU as usual, John."

Nah he had it dead on Dreadful.

Every time there is plain evidence of the bias that exists at the ACLu that even a syphillis ridden monkey with a head injury could understand some moonbat like you has to come along and lecture the rest of us on the virtues of the ACLU.

It's kinda sad that you actually believe the bullshit you spew.

Denial of bail has very little to do with the seriousness of the crime and a lot more to do with whether the accused is a flight risk. Clearly they didn't want these girls leaving the state and had some reason for that concern. That would be the primary issue.

The hate crime bill in Illinois is, of course, utterly ridiculous. Nothing you can say should ever be a felony. The girls should be expelled from school, but aside from that nothing they did should even be considered criminal.

Society should shun them as pariahs until they're forced to live on a compound of turnip-faming polygamists, of course.

Dave

Weren't two tony guys shown mouth-to-mouth on the 'Real World' TV series--to some smooching or at least non-essential CPR? How many calls went out then to anyone with surname containing letters 'g' 'o' 'd' ? If they didn't kill anyone, then bail is not applicable anyway.

While their childish prank may seem harmless to some, let's not forget these two young "ladies" (and I am being generous with that term) harassed another kid who had the audacity to kiss another kid.

Granted, I don't want my son kissing other boys, but I sure as hell would be far more distressed that a couple of low-rent pieces of crap were harassing him for expressing himself in the manner in which he felt most inclined.

I understand the issue with the bail and that does seem to go against standard procedure, but forgive me not giving two sh*ts about someone who sees fit to assail another person in an aggressive and unacceptable manner in a school setting.

If there is one thing I hate, it's kids who bully other kids. I hope she enjoys her time in juvvy, and by enjoy, I hope she finds is unnerving -- to be polite about it.

"Clearly they didn't want these girls leaving the state"

And this is a bad thing, why?

Yeah, a kick up the bum does kids like this the world of good. Who cares? Their problem, and I hope they learn from it.

Dave-

I'm not sure what court systems your watching, but bail gets denied when there is a flight risk AND a serious crime involved (i.e. murder) and even then sometimes bail gets assigned. Walk into any courthouse for arraignments and see how many stoners get released on their own recognizance and never get seen again.

John,
Your ideology blinds you to facts, which we certainly don't have all of in this story.

It is more likely the case that the judge was acting to protect an out-of-control minor from herself and others and steer her onto a new path, than that some liberal judicial/commie/ACLU-hatched nefarious scheme to erode free speech in schools and further erase God from our heathen nation has been loosed.

Do you really feel qualified to second guess the arresting officers, judge, defense counsel, legal system in general, & school administators, and, in effect, declare your expertise in adolescent psychology and the juvenile justice system?

Lee-

Yes I do feel qualified and the qualification comes from the fact I'm a citizen of this nation. Power comes from me and others like me and it's part of my God given right to challenge authority instead of simply shrugging me shoulders and saying "well I guess they know what they're doing because the government knows best."

Right now **murderers** are getting bail but this "out-of-control" minor, who's worst offense before this was having week, has to be denied bail because *she's* a threat to society? I'm not saying what she did is right, hell, let's even skip past charging with a hate crime, let's even skip past the fact she'll do time... the point of this article was denying this girl bail. I could find any commenter in this thread, murder them in there sleep and *I* would get bail (not that I would ever do such a thing)... all this girl did was misuse photoshop.

It boggles my mind that this is even a debate. Serial convicts get bail all the time, if you've ever been in a courtroom (as I have) you'd know that. Sure, prior record goes into how much bail should be set at, sure, but curfew would never even hit the radar in any criminal case.

Murders right now are being let out on bail, even those who have prior records that include real crimes.

Why should this girl, who is a minor, be denied bail? How is that even justifiable in comparison?

Every time there is plain evidence of the bias that exists at the ACLU

Of course they're biased, Arch. Every organization is. In the ACLU's case, the bias is in favor of the Bill of Rights. The fact that more often than not, this involves opposing the activities of "Christian" conservatives intent on imposing their dubious theology in the public arena is a reflection of where most attempted rights abuses come from these days.

I don't need to remind you that Rush Limbaugh is one of the many right-wing luminaries who has benefited from the ACLU's aid, do I? Oh wait... no, that's "cherry-picking". Sigh.

I confess to being a little hazy as to what a moonbat is, but they must have blue faces - because that's the color many of ours tend to turn in our efforts to explain the above to you.

When I was a little boy I was to that "sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never hurt you". I was told that by my parents as a way to deflect an occasional jab by my peers at my apparent chubbiness. Nobody ever mentioned damaging one's self-esteem in those days (1950's) and basically approached taunting as just words.

Well, in spite of my trials as a youth, I turned out OK and still believe the previously stated motto should be applied today. If someone can be charged with a felony for simply expressing something and it carries the same weight as physically harming an individual then we have truly lost our way.

Our interpretation free speech is tends to focus on what speech suits our own agendas and hate speech, although vile and disgusting, has never harmed an otherwise healthy person.

"The fact that more often than not, this involves opposing the activities of 'Christian' conservatives intent on imposing their dubious theology in the public arena"

Christian morals are no more arbitrary or taxing on non-believers than those of say socialists, enviro-nazis, or other groups on the left. The ACLU's limited effort to oppose the latter exhibits their bias.

Do you really believe your life will change more if the christians get restrictions placed on abortion than if global warming alarmists pass legislation restricting and taxing carbon usage?

#26:
I've already answered your question, but I'll explain it again:
Because the juvenile justice system has different goals and uses different methods from the adult justice system. The girl is a juvenile, so automatically she is treated differently than an adult offender might be. That's the way the system is supposed to work.

I don't know why the judge made this decision and neither do you--right?

BTW, you are very mistaken that murderers get to make bail in the vast numbers you imagine.

NO Dreadful ...the ACLU is biased in favor of advancing an extremist leftist agenda.

"Christian morals are no more arbitrary or taxing on non-believers than those of say socialists, enviro-nazis, or other groups on the left. The ACLU's limited effort to oppose the latter exhibits their bias.

Do you really believe your life will change more if the christians get restrictions placed on abortion than if global warming alarmists pass legislation restricting and taxing carbon usage?"

Bravo to you Doug. I couldn't have said it better myself. According to leftists Christians espousing thier views on abortion, which only a small portion of our society will ever actually have first hand experience with, is more threatening to this nation than socialist leftists that want to tax us all to death, tell us we all must drive Al Gore approved vehichles while he globe trots in a private jet,and enact speech codes in the workplace and the school that prohibit free and honest speech.

The bottom line is, that since juvenile hearings are CLOSED to the public (that includes the media AND Bambanek) we DON'T have the info to judge on this case, John's contention to the opposite regardless - unless he did sit in on the case & is leaking sealed info, in which case he should be getting his own bail funds together for violating court privacy records.

Lee-

I've been in courtrooms, I've seen arraignments... and I've shaken my head when suspects get bail with everyone in that courtroom knowing as soon as they walk out of the courthouse they're going into hiding. I've pointed to cases where infamous criminals got bail. And those were for actual crimes.

Now what this girl did wasn't right, but it certainly isn't a serious crime and she's being treated worse.

If the juv. justice system has different goals that allow for guilt until proven innocent and for radical bail assignments, then I posit it's time to burn down that unjust system.

And yes I do know some of why the judge decided the way he did, and I know why he didn't decide it. For instance, I know there wasn't a home investigation, psych profile of the child and parent(s), and DCFS wasn't involved. No way in that time frame. This judge sat in his courtroom look at her priors and thought that some who broke **curfew** needed to spend much more time in juvy than the law actually allows and he denied bail. (And the mother indicates that there were no legal run-ins for a year before this).

Welcome to Israel, John. You're getting a look at how a capricious "justice" system works. It sucks, doesn't it? Get used to it. For as long as the US will be a sovereign nation, that is what you should expect - and worse...

TIMBERRRR!!!!!

John

This kid had several other run ins with the law.

If she had passed out a paper saying "God hates niggers" at my child's school, I would want her put in juvenile, especially if she had a habit of disregarding the law. She needs to be stopped. She was accosting other students. School is a place for learning and this kid passed out papers that were inflammatory, targeting specific students. You remember how easy it was in high school for someone to be the brunt. They would be beat up in the locker room, ostracized and treated inhumanely. This kid was pushing for that to happen to gay KIDS (someone's kid). Your son is still small, if he ends up feeling as if he's gay, would you want him to go to school in that type of environment?

So where does this leave us? From reading multiple sources, and using some deductive reasoning, it appears at first blush that the girls actions, while not being condoned by me, amounts to protected free speech. Why would most of the folks upset about this care, anyway? Many of them don't believe in God anyway.

How or why have we concluded that expressing one's opinion about what God's will is, has now become a hate crime? On one hand we want to keep church and state seperate, on the other, we want to prosecute individuals and deny them the basic right of reasonable bail for expression of an opinion regarding a religious issue. When one says "God hates fags" is that not a religious argument? I may not agree with the argument, but I cannot see how it becomes a non-bailable felony. I defy anyone to make a logical argument to the contrary.

Nancy-

If you believe I'm fabricating facts, you should take it to the BC editors (I'd obviously recuse myself from that issue). If you believe the Associated Press, the Daily Herald, and others are fabricating facts, you should also take it to them. Specifically the characterization of the judge's decision came from somewhere, I don't think it was journalistic fiction. And the information isn't sealed, it's redacted, there's a difference.

Zedd-

I'm not saying if she committed a crime, she shouldn't do time. I'm saying that denying bail, something that rarely happens in real criminal cases is beyond extreme. If she's a problem in school with accosting people, she can be suspended or expelled (and she was). There are ways of handling these flyers without bring the full force and fury of the American justice system down by throwing her in jail **before trial**, denying bail, and then leaving her to rot. I'm not saying that she didn't do anything wrong, I'm saying denying bail while at this very moment murders and rapists are bailing out, is absurd.

owned

since i know who this is rofl

It's amazing that this stunt landed them in jail/house arrest. In the past anything of this caliber would have been major amounts of detention, community service, suspension or being expelled from school, not jail. Interested? Read what Christopher Ruddy has to say.

Whites and especially white Christians are the cause of a lot of the world's problems, so why not allow some hate speech to go their way. (I'm a white, but luckily not a religious lunatic)

"When one says "God hates fags" is that not a religious argument? I may not agree with the argument, but I cannot see how it becomes a non-bailable felony. I defy anyone to make a logical argument to the contrary."

If they had used a racial epithet instead of "fags" would it still have been religious in your view? Your logic is off the mark.

Remember, this was in a school situation where gay and lesbian students rarely feel safe. This wasn't about religion, it was a call to attack.

Get arrested for a flyer?! What's with the freedom of speech? I can understand getting suspended, which they should, but arrested is undemocratic.

No, it wasn't a call to attack, not even the prosecutor believes that (or he would have charged her with that also).

It simply had two boys kissing and said "God Hates Fags". Harassment, yes, Inciting violence, not so much.

A sign and display like that can only spell Westboro baptist. I'm glad someone finally shut them up.

The Westboro Baptist "Church" are beaming with pride. New recruits !

Whomever handed the girls these flyers should be in jail, but not for free speech, but for child abuse. Any parent who uses their children to push an adult agenda is a horrible parent and should have a psychological evaluation.

I believe this entire article is flawed in light of the fact that juveniles are not given bail when charged as a juvenile as opposed to an adult. They're detained on a charge, then the judge has sole discretion as to whether the child can be released to some form of supervision or must remain detained, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. Should the girls have been distributing such material? - probably not, distasteful and uncalled for. Is it protected free speech - I believe so, applying the hate crimes law here goes a bit overboard. Should the girl be detained for this particular charge? - don't think so.

Bambenek, you're letting your neuroses get to you. No one accused you of fabricating anything, so calm down. But I DID wonder how you arrived at the info you did (or how your sources did) since juvie hearings are closed. Perhaps the families or the girls themselves are leakers, for all I know; in any event, the information is suspect IMO just for that basic reason & no other, including you. So relax.

"Within the past year, the girl has been charged for marijuana possession, driving without a license, consumption of alcohol by a minor, possession of tobacco by a minor, trespassing and three curfew violations" - 'nuff said.

More Christians supporting hate. How sad.

311kevin-

I'm not saying that there isn't some legal reason the judge is relying on, I'm saying it's absurd that just because someone is a minor they can be locked up without bail or put on house arrest simply because they've been, and this is the important word here, accused of a crime.

How does it make any sense that murders and rapists get bail and kids don't? Why do they get treated far worse in the courts than adults?

My issue with the author of this article is quite simple. You make many claims and act to know every specific of this case when that is obviously far from the truth. There are numerous reasons as to why a judge could and should do what this judge has chosen to do. For instance, the childs mother obviously recognizes that there is an issue with the girls behavior and maybe she openly can do absolutely nothing about it. You don't know anything about the case aside from what has been published and seeing as this is a minor I'm positive there are many facts to this case that you are completely un-aware of. This being said I think that it is quite ignorant and generally rude for you to make so many blatant assumptions and un-founded theories. A very simple rule would have kept you in check I might add.....get all of the facts before making assumptions and accusations.

Hi John,

Good points; however, the process and outcome between the two systems differ vastly. I'm not sure that the absence of bail for kids is being "treated far worse." Keep in mind that children are never found guilty of a crime; they're found to be delinquent. When one refers to their charges as Class A, B, or C midemeanors and felonies, that's only the case in the adult system. They don't really exist in the juvenile system - the terms are used simply as a point of reference. Essentially, as far as records go, they don't stick - they don't really even matter, some kids figure this out, others don't.

In regard to the bail issue, again these are kids - what kid can afford bail? In the end, the parent would be fitting the bill and that basically defeats the purpose of bail. Further, I wonder if there are contractual issues to consider, since bail is somewhat of a contract: I pay X ammount of $ to get out of jail now, pending the court process, I show up to my hearings, I get some $ back - you can't have a legal contract with a minor.

Why the judge didn't opt to go with the least restrictive means of detention in this case - it's hard telling - if she was already on probation or had priors then those can be taken into account as well even on this new, unique charge.

All in all, kids in the juvenile justice system have the advantage as compared to the adult system. The 1 issue you've identified that points to the contrary is the difference in bail. It's funny, I hear kids say all the time they wished they'd been charged as an adult and sent to jail so they could bond out. Like kids do; however, they fail to see the bigger picture in that they go to jail, they're charged as an adult and risk facing years of their lives in prison while typically, in the juvenile system, the most they'll spend locked up for anything short of rape or murder is a few months.

To prison with the religious nuts!

Didn't like the article, the author injected too much of his own stance on this.

"In fact, the judge likely only spent a few moments looking at court documents..." You can't say "in fact" and "likely" in the same sentence. Otherwise you are "likely" full of shit.


"...for an obnoxious high school prank." Really? I thought pranks were funny.

"They are guilty until proven innocent." Didn't the flyers themselves prove that?

God hates you, dude.

i say, let them distribute their hate propaganda at home! We dont need it in public school, and its great they make an exapmle out of them, let em think about what they've done!

Simply "being a teenager" does not include 13 separate run ins with the law, driving without a license. You are cherry picking facts to try to prove your point.

Hmm.

Most of the posters here and John are making judgments based on information that they don't have. How fascinating.

Let's supposed that the judge's information said that this teenager remained unsupervised 12 hours per day.

If you were the judge, what would you do with her?

In Italy the director of the school would have sent a note to the parents, no judges involved.
Doing it once would make them so unpopular they would`nt do it again! I would be too tasteless. No law, just good taste! But but americans notoriously lack of it, so they need laws....even for silly occasions.

CBT, that's how it would have been here a few years ago too, but our schools have continued an ongoing slide into incompetence and spinelessness and removing authority from teachers and administrators, and this is the result.

Dave

The ACLU, predictably, said it indicates the struggle between protecting targeted groups and free speech, which apparently means hate speech directed at whites, Christians, or men is a-ok in the ACLU's book.

I love inherent bias in reporting. God hates bias.

Wes

It is only a hate crime if there is a crime being committed imo. What crime did they commit? Oh disorderly conduct? So they have a disorderly conduct hate crime?

Some people believe homosexuality is criminal whether the law says so or not. While I don't agree with this it should be their right to voice their displeasure of such, even in hand-out flyers.

Again in my opinion an individual should have the right to call a gay man a "fag", a black man a "nigger", or a white person a "cracka". Those things are not right, but the government should not tell us how we should think or talk in those circumstances. Let the people decide. Government in this country was not created to take care of the people.

And its happening under George Bush.
If it was Clinton you'd blame him(or her) but why aren't you blaming Republican George Bush?
This injustice is happening under a conservative Christian leadership.

i don't care about god but i hate fagots. and this is bullshit! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

get the fuck out of the USA fags!!!

John M

Extending your logic, where does government involvement begin?

If I beat you up, is that something the government should get involved in?
How about if I keep you from getting a job?
How about if I burn a cross on your front lawn? (Nobody got hurt did they?)

Think about it.

The hate crime bills that are currently being discussed don't cover this type of action. They are supposed to allow the federal government to prosecute VIOLENT crimes that can be tied directly to hate or prejudice as hate crimes. Although what these two girls did was ridiculous and insensitive the girls should have been suspended from school and that should have been the end of it. This is only giving bad publicity to a law that was meant to protect targeted groups of people from violent crimes. From everything that I have read, this is an unprecedented use of hate crimes legislation and makes me question our right to free speech. I think these girls are despicable, but they should have never been arrested in the first place...so denying them bail etc. makes a mockery of the justice system.

God hates. Think on that.

John M-

Well, let's see...

Beating someone up is assault.

We have laws to protect people from discrimination in the workplace.

Burning a cross in my front lawn is at the very least trespassing.

I disagree with what they said, but let's not toss out the idea of free speech.

Oh, and I'll exercise some free speech here... stop being a pussy and grow a pair. If you really care what people say, then try to change their minds, or ignore them. If something someone says bothers you that much, see a shrink about your insecurities and work on that instead.

Have a nice day.

blah, blah, blah, blah.

Woops, meant to address that to Bill Clinton :p

It's not under George Bush because this girl is being charged under *State* laws, which mean George Bush has precisely 0 influence.

This is being done under Rod Blagojevich, and he's a Chicago Democrat.

And surprise, he's also apparently corrupt.

You stupid fucking Americans, we are living in the Twentieth Century, and those girls should go to jail. You backward country of hicks.

Unfortunately this girl learned her hatred somewhere. More than likely her church and her family. Using Religion as an excuse for hatred is pathetic. If she actually read her bible, she would realize that Jesus hung out prostitutes, tax collectors... So is her religion/church saying that HER savior LOVES WHORES but hates "fags"

Sad that this girl will be growing up to hate more and more people who arent like her, and claim its her religion

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says ,"What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom."

So I guess he kinda does hate them? So is God a felon to??

:)

Here's the important part:

"Officials say the fliers targeted a male classmate, who is also a neighbor of the girls. The two girls had apparently been feuding with the boy."

LIBEL IS NOT PROTECTED FREE SPEECH. There is NOTHING about what these girls did that is okay. If they didn't target a specific person with an anti-gay message, that would be one thing - but they were trying to defame a specific person which is flat-out illegal.

I am not sure if god hates fags or fags hate god but I think any judge that ignores all precendent to "send a message" should be put under review. This is the court system not judge judy, vatos.

Hell, everybody hates white males. Even a lot of white males. Poor babies.
MLL- White Male

It all comes down to defending some jerk that yells FIRE! in a crowded theater. The judge had to weigh the damage the word caused, vs the 1st amendment right to yell it.

Many adults use children to commit crimes (hate or otherwise) because they know as juveniles they'll get lighter sentences.

No on one was sitting in that judge's seat, nor can they judge how unrepentant the girls were or how "justified" they thought they were.

If a kid is truly sorry for their actions, a light sentence, if they acted like they were going to go out and spread more flyers the moment the exited the building, or brag about their "Street cred" for doing something that led them to court, I'd have thrown the book at them too.

I could stand in the lobby of a crowded highschool and pick a kid at random and say he's gay. Whethere he was or not, the lable would not only stick, but do irreparable damage.

We're talking about impressionalbe youngsters here, not seasoned adults.

A similar action happened near Akron a few years ago, it was followed with a giant "KILL A QUEER FOR CHRIST" spray painted across the front of the school.

I think that the judge knows how to do his job a little better than whoever posted this.
If he didn't have reason to carry out these judgments, then chances are he would not have been allowed to do so. I think that this is just a bunch of speculation and not enough fact. Until there are actual facts released from the courtroom itself I chose to have no opinion on the matter.

I am sympathetic to the concerns this author raises, but it is a fact that the juvenile justice system is completely different and separate from the adult criminal justice system.

In Re Gault blurred the boundaries between these two justice systems somewhat, but the fact remains that juveniles do not possess the same due process rights as adults.

This is one of those (innumerable) instances where the overall law makes sense, but the manner in which the law is used in a specific case makes absolutely no sense...

"This judge looked at a few documents and made a decision in 5 minutes, that's how arraignment hearings work for anyone who's ever seen one."

Thank you.

This ain't "Law & Order" folks. The real Criminal Justice system (for most offenders, or alleged offenders) works without much input from defense attorneys/public defenders. And the juvenile justice system is even less concerned about such "trivial" due process rights. Juveniles don't even have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers!

"If someone can be charged with a felony for simply expressing something and it carries the same weight as physically harming an individual then we have truly lost our way."

Yep. "Hate crime" laws are utter and complete bullshit. They only serve to create what are really "thought" crimes, and therefore all decent people should all oppose this Stalinist nonsense.

And writing that "GOD" "hates" "fags" is obnoxious and insulting, but it's arguably a valid opinion, at least if one actually reads the Bible...

John is right. Period. People should have the right to hate anyone they choose. And they should not end up being arrested for it - as long as they don't act on their beliefs by physical force.

...and no matter what, the Judge, no matter how wrong, will ever be arrested for doing this to someone. ...and no amount of posting on the net will change that!

What is next I ask you!?! Will this inbred bimbo put a sculpture of Reverand Gene Robinson in a bottle of piss and call it art? The horror...

welcome to the peoples republic of IL

These girls are being denied their right to free speech. They are acting as though it is a crime to criticize perverts.

Homosexuals spread AIDS and anyone who opposes them is doing the work of the almighty creator.

The first amendment doesn't cover anything that may be regarded as a criminal action, and never has. This stuff is now regarded under law (and by the courts) as "hate speech". You can believe what you like, and vote accordingly, but you can't publicly do this stuff any more without the risk of landing yourself in court. While some courts may dismiss such charges, others won't be so quick so there's no guarantee now.

The US is also a signatory to an international UN human rights agreement (of which it was a prime mover) that prohibits such actions and/or speech and is obligated under the terms of the treaty to uphold it, which means prosecutions. Them's the rules, and not liking it won't change it. The fomenting of "hate", whether you agree with this premise or not, is now regarded as a serious issue in the United States - the theory being that while free speech should be forever regarded as a guaranteed and fundamental right, it can't override another person's rights not to be vilified and treated with contempt (which is also laid down as a protection in the US constitution).

This is just wrong to begin with.

Opinions and ideas MUST NOT BE CRIMINALIZED.

It's a shame, that this girl has such hateful, discriminatory ideas in her head. But THAT DOES NOT makes it right to take away her first amendment rights.

Sean: Those rights never existed under the first amendment. People just misguidedly thought they did. The first amendment has never guaranteed absolute free-speech rights in which you could slander, vilify, or defame. Rightly or wrongly, it's not a get-out-of-jail free card to say whatever you like, and wasn't designed to be so. That's also why the 9th amendment exists, so that the constitution won't be a) misread, and b) misused in that way.

In order to end hatred and discrimination towards anybody, somebody must first be made an example of. If you're ignorant and do express such hate for any given race, religion, or sexual orientation, so be it, but to spread propaganda in a school where young minds can still be mended is a crime which must be made example of.

I commend this judge, and although he will be ridiculed for this decision, ultimately, it was the right thing to do.

This is a horrible injustice. Absolute insanity. That judge needs to be yanked off of his bench.

And a side not - those girls shouldn't be accused of hate speech because they never said that they hated anyone, they were saying that god did. give god an ankle bracelet.

#35 If my child were "feeling" gay I would instruct him not to kiss other boys while at school. (I would homeschool him if he couldn't restrain himself) I would teach him that our society is divided over homosexuality and flagrant displays of public affection, which I would discourage in my straight child as well, are generally not tolerated well. While I find hate speech unkind, in general I disagree with laws against it since it is only ever going to be able to be enforced arbitrarily. Eventually just having a moral objection to homosexuality will land one in jail...or worse.

Unless you have unfeathered access to this child's records, yes, I think that the people that have been appointed to make this decisions that DO have access to their records do have a much better view then you do. How do you know who all was involved, and I would be willing to bet that they have done a home inspection sometime in the process of the 12 other run-ins with the police. Get a clue man

John

If you have a dog and when encountering a person, walking down the street you say to your dog "sick'em". Is that covered under free speech?

I must agree with the judge on this one on some level. He had information about one girl to deny bail such as possession as well as drinking. A 16 year old doesn't belong doing any of these actions.

What I see in this whole article, is me questioning what are the parents doing or not doing enough of? If I was the parent of the girl that was on house arrest, I would be thanking the judge for pointing out what the other girl has done and changing what my daughter would be doing.

is it the teenagers responsibility of parents responsibility for their actions that is also what I would ask myself today.

For those of you that keep siding with the Judge...what is your thinking about refusing bail? A gang member would not bother to make up signs - they would just beat the crap out of anyone that offends them (or worse). And they would get bail. How can you justify some teenager with a sign being denied bail?

Wow, John, your latest piece of "journalism" is almost as popular as American Idol. Perhaps someday you will actually use facts without distortion or eye-roll-inducing sensationalism to write something that is worth reading. I haven't seen this happen yet, but I suppose it's possible.

Handy, if he did that the it wouldn't be nearly as inflammatory and therefore would not become such a big, popular hit.

What do you want, accuracy or action? Get yer priorities straight, man.

Dave

Wow.....all of the liberals on this post condemning this girl and applauding the judge just adds more eveidence to the already bountiful amount of it proving that most liberals are hypocrites when it comes ot free speech, only advocating and defending free speech that they agree with and attacking all that runs contrary to anything and everything that they believe.

I cannot think of a better example for comparison and contrast than that of the ACLU and leftists sticking up for NAMBLA's right to free speech while demonizing this girl. NAMBLA is a vile organization that advocates grown men having sex with young boys. They have a website and distribute literature aimed at advancing thier views. One of their members, Charles Jaynes, was even convicted of murdering and raping (in that order) 10 year old Jeffrey Curley in Masachusetts in 1997. The ACLU then provided legal representation for the Boston NAMBLA office. Yet liberals love the ACLU for it's free speech defense of NAMBLA and hate this girl who although, should be criticized and reprimanded for her actions, could never in her wildest dreams harm our society as much as the ACLU and NAMBLA have already.

Anyone who summarily dimisses what happened to Jeffrey Curley and applauds the ACLU defense of NAMBLA"s free speech rights while painting this young girl as one of the gravest threats to our society who must face extreme punishment is quite simple scum who doesn't even deserve to breathe the same air as the rest of us.

God hates Arch Conservative!

Now Christopher, remember-The ACLU defends Arch's right to express himself... you wouldn't what to piss them off now would you?

Chris,

But have you noticed that Arch's comments have become better written and less hysterical lately?

Arch,

Did you hire a ghostwriter?

He knows he's on the losing side and he's being careful that's all. Anyone that defends Bush nowadays risks making themselves look like a fool, not that he hasn't already repeatedly.

But that's the nature of the beast!!

"God hates Arch Conservative!"

That's funny, until you're charged with a felony 'hate' crime and denied bail. The whole concept of writing a three word sentence and having it constitute a felony shows how hysterically PC our local police state has become. This is a sad and disgusting day in our history yet most of the sheeple are too stupid to understand how or why.

Doug-perhaps you're too stupid tu understand that if such a law had been enforced in Nazi Germany, hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't have been sent to concentration camps because they were CALLED jews, even though they weren't by bastards who just wanted to get rid of someone they didn't like!

In that state if you were called one, you were one whether you were or not.

The same applies to being called a Fag nowadays. A sign saying God Hates Fags is justification for someone to "Kill a Queer for Christ" in god's name too.

That's great. I didn't say anything about Bush in my post or ANY of my recent posts but somehow Jet managed to throw it in and also mention how the ACLU stands up for free speech of everyone save the young girl in this article.

Jet's comments along with the other posts following mine completely ignore the example of the Jeffery Curley murder and the ACLU support of NAMBLA that I offered as a contrast to the free speech concerns of this young girl and her flyers. Wether you think it is not a suitable comparison or not......no one even bothered to address it at all.

And I'm the one who never has anything relevant, on topic, or substantive to offer? MMMMM hmmmmm....

Oh well Arch, if the ACLU supports NAMBLA, and I'm gay amd so I must always go chase little boys, so I must be a pervert if I defend the ACLU who who constantly chases little boys, so you're absolutely right in what you've said.

I'll go hide in a corner now
I'm so ashamed?

By the way how old are you?

JIC,

First, Germany had laws against speech inciting violence before and after Hitler took office.

Second, it wasn't 16 year old girls with fliers that slaughtered the Jews it was an out of control police state. Hitler is a perfect example of why you don't hand over excessive authority for 'security' over to the government. He used just those sorts of laws to seize and legitimate his authority as dictator.

The justice system is designed to divine black and white, guilty and innocent, not to uncover and punish inner thoughts and motivations. When you give it such a broad, undefinable range of authority you create a dangerous loophole just waiting to be exploited by those with malicious intent.

". When you give it such a broad, undefinable range of authority you create a dangerous loophole just waiting to be exploited by those with malicious intent."

Yeah like teenaged brats handing out fliers to inspire their fellow students to hate anyone different from them based on a book writen centuries ago, and misinterpreted by supersticious fools.

And I said enforced laws in Nazi Germany

"Oh well Arch, if the ACLU supports NAMBLA, and I'm gay amd so I must always go chase little boys, so I must be a pervert if I defend the ACLU who who constantly chases little boys, so you're absolutely right in what you've said."


Jet.....would you mind coming down to planet earth with the rest of us for a moment?

First of all where in my earlier posts did I mention anything about anybody being gay? Maybe you might point that out for me because I don't recall saying anything about anyone being gay lety alone implying that gay people are all pedophiles.

Second the point of my use of the Jeffrey Curley murder/ NAMBLA legal defense was to illustrate that the ACLU is in fact very selective in who they decide voice their support for. Based on these two incidents alone it seems as if the ACLU believes a single 16 year old girl should not have the right to handout flyers that say "god hate fags," because it is harmful speech but that an entire organization whose sole purpose for existing is to encourage sexual relationships between adult men and young boys and who has been linked to the murder of a ten year old boy should have the right to free speech.

To me that seems a little warped Jet. But please, feel free to make another post in which you totally ignore the things that I have actually said and then proceed to attribute to me words and sentiments I haven't expressed.

No Arch, what's warped is that you referred to National Man Boy Love Association-that's how you brought the perverted gay subject into the conversation.

[Personal attack deleted] you couldn't find a logical argument, so you injected the "yuck" factor by mentioning NAMBLA infering that the only thing the ACLU does is defend men who go after little boys, and that the only people that support the ACLU's efforts are men who go after little boys-after all why mention them when they hadn't been before until YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

YOU BROUGHT IT UP
[Personal attack deleted]

Whether you agree with this 16 year old girls position on homosexuality or not, she has a right to her opinion and to express that opinion. If she were handing out pro-homosexual pamphlets at school we would not even be having this debate.

Additionally, it dose not matter how many scraps with the law she has had. This is about free speech and the exercise of and nothing more.

If the school does in fact have specific campus laws prohibiting students from handing out anti or pro positions on highly debated matters such as this, or abortion, or the war, then I would think the schools would have had the right to suspender her as long as they suspended pro-homosesexual student handing their pamphlets outs on campus as well.

But having the law and the government taking hold of her or her friend over this specific issue and matter shows us all a clear and present danger is now moving upon us and our free speech. That is the issue at hand and if the pro-homosexuals can not stand up for this girl and her rights then there is something drasticly wrong with them.

And no, I do not think yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theather falls under free speech.

This absolutely doesn't fall under free speech according to the law. What you think your 1st amendment rights are and what the laws (federal or state) thinks they are - and has always thought they were, in various guises - are two different things. As has been pointed out above, the 1st amendment was never meant to offer carte-blanche protection against (broadly) such things as defamation, slander, vilification, incitement and libel (the latter having an onus of proof of actual malice, making it hard to stand up but actionable nevertheless). An issue in this case under US law for the girls may revolve around statement of values vs allegation of fact. One's permissable, the other's not. You be the judge here as to what they were doing. Having these opinions and perhaps stating them to a friend is different to publicly airing them in a situation such as this that might cause hurt and offence to another person.

The other issue is that having driven other countries to uphold human rights values and signing UN declarations to that effect, the US - which did make some changes applying only to itself in deference to 1st amedment concerns - is obligated to act upon the "hate speech" provisions, and many other provisions, contained therein.

This is not a 1st amendment issue, however - it's a criminal/civil issue, and most likely would also falls under consideration in regard to the written terms of other amendments to the constitution. That would include the 9th, which is implicit in its explanation that the Constitution should not be read as the whole law of the land - one way or the other - and possibly also the 14th, which deals explicitly with personal and civil rights and has a built-in anti-discrimination principle.

The First Amendment Center carries the following summation of a Supreme Court ruling dating back to 1942 (Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire) "The following is a notable passage from Justice Murphy's opinion: "Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances ... There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem ... These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace ... It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality ... 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument'."

The law is the law, and there's no getting around it. Whether you think these kids were right or wrong, the law says they were (allegedly, of course) wrong ... and that's the beginning and end of it. In the interim, not granting bail to one of these girls may well have something to do with her personal or family situation rather than any concern that she a) won't appear, or b) break the conditions of her bail.

I do agree, though, addressing the gist of John's post in regards to the granting of bail - at first glance, not to do so seems excessive in the extreme.

"The judge, in commenting on denying bail, said that the girl's home situation was unacceptable. It's unclear how a judge can legally take a child out of their home simply because the child shows up in the courtroom for an obnoxious high school prank."

Irony is: Making sweeping judgements about people making sweeping judgements....

Mayhaps this judge was the same judge that has passed judgement on this kid before? In a small county this would be VERY likely.

STM is on track with this, IMHO. To put it as plainly as I can:

Your First Amendment rights entitle you to say anything antisocial you want, including "Fire!", "God hates [insert desired persecutable social group here]!" or "Death to [insert name of politician wished rubbed out here]!"

Again, you can say it. Just don't expect not to face the negative consequences of saying it.

Sorry folks, in school you are not allowed to express anything of the sort without the permission of the school authorities. You may not even wear a t-shirt with a message.

Also free speech does not protect inflammatory speech. If you have a dog and say "sick em" that is simply speech, however the dog will or may react to your mutterings and injure an individual. Inflammatory speech is dangerous and can and does incite. That is what hate crime legislation protects us against.

Doc: I feel like a naughty boy discussing US law with Americans, but it's interesting how many people in the US wrongly think the first amendment means they can say whatever they like without fear or favour. While it obviously does proffer some rights that don't exist in some other Western countries, numerous judgments of the courts clearly indicate it is not the case that it overrides all other aspects of the laws relating to speech. It's also interesting that in discussing many of these issues, many Americans either forget about the "silent" 9th amendment completely or misread its intent (which is discussed at considerable length by the founding fathers).

It too quite clearly states that the Constitution, as worded, should never be regarded as the only law of the land, and indeed was placed there as a safeguard for that very reason. On the plus side of that, the 9th amendment is a bit like the usual legal interpretations of English Common Law and is certainly a nod to American common law - that you might have rights you don't even know about, for instance so-called "natural rights", either now or in the future, depending on what other laws are passed or have been passed, or have always existed. As the founding fathers explained, they were not really offering anything new in the drafting of the Constitition. What was new and ground-breaking was that they set down in words and enumerated once and for all what they believed had always existed under common law.

And since they were used extensively in the colonies prior to the War of Indendence, they also paid homage to Blackstone's treatises - a very conservative interpretation of English law even for the period - in the drafting of it. If you haven't already, Blackstone's works are worth a look if you are interested in American history.

I feel like a naughty boy discussing US law with Americans

That's OK, Stan, I'm not an American either - I just live here. (Still working on that flag, BTW.)

There's so much rhetoric bandied about regarding the Constitution that people do, as you say, tend to forget that it is not the whole law of the land and doesn't pretend to be. It's a set of very general guidelines which relies on legislation to interpret and fill in gaps. If these laws are flawed, provision exists in the courts and legislatures to overturn them.

That's democracy, folks. If you don't like it, you know what to do.

Forgot to add - I used to work in a reference library and we had a complete set of Blackstone's scowling down from our groaning shelves in all its judicial glory. It wasn't often asked for (we were a public, not a law library after all), but when it was, we had the devil of a job trying to figure out what volume and page the customer needed. Ah yes, and then there were those timeless blockbusters, Halsbury's Laws and Statutes. You just had to hope the customer actually knew what they were looking for... which more often than not, they didn't. What fun we had.

You ARE a naughty boy, Stan.

Go wax your surfboard. :>)

...or I'll put me titfer on and give ya whatfer like a drill sergeant...

Ah, and there's the other thing. Although most educated Americans will never deny their country is a democracy (as enunciated by FDR himself, and many other Presidents including the current one) I find sometimes that people want to pick over that definition, often to support their own political viewpoint, and say they are not a democracy at all but rather a representative republic.

Well, yes, that hoary old chestnut. Of course, it IS a representative republic. Just like Australia is a representative constitutional monarchy AND a democracy. As is the UK. I think if I lived there, I would go mad with all that earnest stuff, unless of course I lived in Maui (Honolua Bay, to be exact) or a little secret spot in California. Then I could quite easily not give a rat's arse - about anything except the direction of the wind and swell. That, truly, would be heaven.

Lol. I'm contacting Canberra this arvo Clav to see if you can be offered honorary citizenship. As you already have an Army titfer badge with a Crown on it, you are well on the way. Check yer emails BTW old boy. Hat does look pretty schmick, though, I must say.

Putting a classmates face on the flyer is a direct attack against another individual. It is not freedom of speech.

If you look at your first sentence you will see that you said 'depicted a male classmate'. You are trying to just label this as a speech issue over the God Hates Fags comment without discussing that it included a specific individual. That is libel and harassment, not free speech.

Also, your lead-in to this story says 'for the only crime of...' then you go on, within the story to mention her troubled youth.

You briefly mention that the judge did it because her homelife was unacceptable, then go on with wild hypothesis trying to compare her situation to that of murderers. In court, each case should be looked at individually and trying to draw connections there is erroneous.

I haven't been here in a long time John, but I see you are still busy trying to fight for the right to spread hatred.

Thanks Jet for comment #103. Arch Im proud to be in the club of fools with you since I support our President also. GOD BLESS PRESIDENT BUSH and fuck the rest of you.

#125: If you've paid any attention to Arch's previous contributions, you'll know that although he is certainly true to his monniker, he is very far from being an unquestioning Bush-worshipper.

...Oh wait. It's you. How's it going with Michael Moore's underwear, sr?

Arch, I do see that some (though certainly not all) of your recent comments have been deleted, apparently for no particularly good reason. I don't think effing and blinding about it on the threads is a very good way of addressing the problem though. Have you tried e-mailing the comments editor?

Doc, I wear them on my head when I take my daily camel ride. Im proud to look like a Muslim. Giddyup Silver "Away"

Hmmph ...If you'd ever actually ridden a camel you would not voluntarily do so daily. The "ship of the desert" makes horseback riding seem like a cruise on the QM2 by comparison.

#113 -- STM

I concur with you, as do more Americans then you give credit to, that - "the 1st amendment was never meant to offer carte-blanche protection against (broadly) such things as defamation, slander, vilification, incitement and libel."

However I do not share your assertion that - "This absolutely doesn't fall under free speech according to the law."

I assert that you are misquoting law.

In sighting the U.S. Supreme Court case you did, I assert that you are stretching the case doctrine's application in trying to make a case. I repost this very case in proper perspective.

------------------------------------------------

The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1942, in a case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to "fighting words," and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if "by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Say, a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the "fighting words" doctrine for racial harassment.

------------------------------------------------

Even though there was an apparent feud between the girls and this boy, and even though this was directed at both a specific individual, and the homosexula community in general, this was not a "face to face" confrontation of "fighting words" that would inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Over the past 50 years, the Court hasn't found the "fighting words" doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn't meet the narrow criteria stated above. Ignoring that history, the folks who advocate charging these girls with a hate crime are trying to stretch the doctrine's application to fit words or symbols that cause discomfort, offense or emotional pain. But that is not what the law was created to protect nor should it. It is under this light the dividing line rests.

When you say - "Having these opinions and perhaps stating them to a friend is different to publicly airing them in a situation such as this that might cause hurt and offence to another person." - Here is a perfect example of stretching the docturine's application to fit words or symbols that cause discomfort, offense or emotional pain. You are not basing your argument on the law.

To advocate this strethcing of docturine is a hate crime against the 1st Amendment itself. And those ARE fighting words.

In your earlier post #87 you bring up the most importate and most disturbing point of all and it brings my assertion to light.

"While some courts may dismiss such charges, others won't be so quick so there's no guarantee now."

Here in lies the danger. As another poster notes

#108 - Doug Hunter
"The justice system, when you give it such a broad, undefinable range of authority you create a dangerous loophole just waiting to be exploited by those with malicious intent." Malicious meaning a loophole for clear violation of the law of an indiviuals rights under the 1st Amendment.

And with regard to the UN human rigths agreement, no signed aggement exists that superseeds the American peoples rights under the U.S. constitution. When that day tries to come, there will be "face to face" confrontations of fighting words.

I hate the UN!!!

Forget the bail. The law is clearly unconstitutional and the judge should have tossed the case on those grounds. As long as the flier did not promote violence or action, then it is protected speech, whether any of us like it or not. The Constitution is a limit on government not a guideline or suggestion. Please remember what the Constitution is for: protecting every American's Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (as long as it does infringe on someone else's Right).

Sean wrote: "Forget the bail. The law is clearly unconstitutional".

This is not unconstitutional, Sean. Better legal minds than yours and mine have decided that that is the case, and not recently either. I assume you are talking about the 1st amendment - and it has never offered protection in situations such as these.

And Franco, please go back and look at the part of the judgment I quoted. While the case revolved around fighting words, the explanation given by the judge refers also to other aspects of how the law might not protect against certain types of what people perceive to be "free speech" - which is why I quoted it.

Come on guys, please. Don't try to twist this stuff around to your own way of thinking without having a genuine understanding of how it works. And Franco, I suggest you go back and check the agreement that was not only signed by the US, but driven by the US. While some amendments were made in deference to US 1st amendment rights, there are hate speech provisions.

The constitution of the US is NOT the whole of the law in the US, nor the final arbiter of the law, and never has been. American common/criminal law fills in many of the gaps, as do other aspects of the law. I don't understand how you don't have even a basic understanding of how your own law works. It seems to me that before you come on here saying something is unconstitutional, it'd be a good idea to know first whether it actually is unconstitutional, at law. You simply can't have people going around saying whatever they like about people without regard to the consequences. And have a look at the 14th amendment too in relation to this. It's what makes the US different to Nazi Germany.

"As long as the flier did not promote violence or action, then it is protected speech, whether any of us like it or not."

No, it is not protected speech as it directly involved an individual. It clearly states that a classmate was put in the flier. Celebrities sue AND WIN all the time, libel and harassment cases against paparazzi. This is no more protected speech than that is.

Hooray to you, Steve. A voice of reason and knowledge in the wilderness. That IS the factor, of course - the placing of the boy's picture in the flier and the accompany slander/libel/vilification - all actionable under US law, and NOT protected by the Constitution.

It completely involves targeting another specific individual. There is no freedom of speech in that.

They put the boys face on a flyer along with hate speech (not the same definition as a hate crime) and then distributed it AMONG THE BOY'S SCHOOL.

Fred Phelps and his Westboro Church who go around picketing their "God Hates Fags" signs, do so on public grounds. They are lawyers and know full well the legalities of things.

This boy might have been outed by the process, he might have to change schools and certainly will be targeted by classmates. Suppose this whole thing was news to his parents and they threw him out of the house? Who knows what happened to this boy due to the actions of vindictive ex-friends.

The school has an obligation to protect him. Nobody has an obligation to protect you from a person standing on the sidewalk holding a hate filled sign.

And courts have proven time and time again you do not have unlimited free speech on school grounds, especially when your speech is proven to be disruptive, anyway.

As for the denied bail? I suggest you look up a program promoted and doted over by conservatives and the right wing and the religious, called Scared Straight. This girl needs help to keep her from a life of crime. Perhaps some time in the slammer is just what she needs. It would be keeping right in line with the ideology that John constantly promotes.

Slander. Nobody is hurt. Where are the damages. If the kids a fag then whats the worry. If he is not it is a joke, prank, whatever. The Judge made a mistake and those that side with the him are going contrary to common sense. It is okay to call a spade a spade. It also okay to denounce a persons behavior if they openly and publicly present themselves as such. If you stole something and I witness it, you are a theif. If you kiss a boy in the public you set yourself up to being called a fag. That's free speach. Plain and simple. It is also free speach to distribute flyers with a picture of Bush as the devil and call him evil. The girls were smart enough to know that stating god hates fags is not the same as saying johnny is a fag. Their is a distinction. But again when I was young fag was pretty much tossed around on notebooks lockers and conversations like spit. Do you not remember being a kid, or where you a pussy.

Yeah, nice bit of reasoned thought there James. When will blokes like you get it through your thick heads that this kind of stuff doesn't constitute free speech according to the law, and never has, either under the Constitution of the United States or anything else - which is what the real issue is here, not whether you think a person's sexual orientation is an issue or not. You'd also be pushing the boundaries with a flyer of George Bush depicted as the devil and labelling him evil. Becuse he's a politician, he'd probably cop it fair on the chin but it doesn't mean it's legal.

And, no ... no one ever called me a fag when I was a kid. If they were game enough, they doubtless would have got a good smack in the mouth. And not neccessarily because I find the term offensive applied to me - more that I don't like dickheads deciding what I am or what I'm not. Still, that's hardly the issue here, is it?

It's about the law, and what does or doesn't constitute free speech. This doesn't. It's a crime. Take your head out of third-grade history class and picture-library lessons on the Constitution. Time to wake up and smell the legislation.

STM-

You obviously have no clue as to how badly the US Constitution has been distorted, twisted and run over by "The Law." Just because there is a law that exists does not make it Constitutional. There are many laws that are unconstitutional but are never overturned because the judges no longer know how to follow the Constitution. I don't give a f--- what the courts' or laws' or judges' say, because when something is unconstitutional it doesn't matter whether they think it is or not, it's not. As much as you would like to think, laws and judges do not determine constitutionality, the Constitution does and more and more lately the courts get it wrong.

Oh, and your reference to celebrities is priceless. That's civil court not criminal court and when the celebs win it's not a criminal case. Maybe you should learn the law and justice system before opening your mouth.

SteveS #124 is correct: in this specific incidence, where a classmate is singled out, it's harrassment & libel (as well as slander), which is illegal & actionable, & may be criminal, depending on ancillary factors such as intent. In any event, obviously these girls were/are out of control, as one set of parents admitted. Hopefully the boy involved & his parents won't take this supinely, but will file torts against those girls. Bullying of all sorts against any kid is no longer tolerable, either by parents or school systems.

BTW, it interests (& appalls) me that someone earlier made a comment shrugging off the fact that one girl at least had at least 12 previous run-ins with the police, including "for smoking". The police don't arrest kids for smoking (unless the parents request them to, & usually not even then), so I'm wondering, what was she smoking? They have better things to do than harrass juveniles, so this girl obviously has been doing things rather more serious than working on her carcinogens. 12 police tags? To me that's not something to be flipped off as typical teen misbehavior, that's major signals of some big-time problems this kid is having. Anyone who considers 12 police run-ins to be nothing to worry about really needs their sense of reality & responsibility adjusted.

Anyone who considers 12 police run-ins to be nothing to worry about really needs their sense of reality & responsibility adjusted.

Or else they simply want to use this case to further their anti-gay agenda and so need to gloss over that part.

It is okay to call a spade a spade.

What a moronic statement. Calling someone gay is not the same as printing their picture on a flyer along with hate speech and distributing it to their classmates. This was not an intent to tell it like it is, it was an attempt to hurt.

Again, as for the jail and no bail, the judge said it wasn't because of this case but because of a history of bad behavior.

It's very telling how the Right screams that sentences aren't tough enough and that people get out of jail too often to go on committing more crimes but then when they incorrectly perceive that their ability to spew hatred is under attack, suddenly jail is a bad thing.

How do we know this story is being twisted to fit an anti-gay agenda? Because the story says this:

"The judge, in commenting on denying bail, said that the girl's home situation was unacceptable."

However the title of the story says the bail denied was for something completely different. The title of this story is erroneous, slanderous and inflammatory, with the knowledge that more people will read that, than will read the story.

And also, it needs to be pointed out that the girls crimes are escalating. She took the time to get a picture, make fliers, print them out, and distribute them, with the intent to harm another person (premediated, anyone?), when her previous crimes were not against other individuals (like smoking). Her crimes have escalated, and that concerns the judge who denied bail in her own best interest (to remove her from her household), and NOT for the reason stated in the false title of this story.

Like you, SteveS, I picked up on that aspect of it right away. That's what clues me in that there's something rather more to all this than just a couple of kids offending some judge's Leftist-ACLU-leaning agenda. That, and that juvie records are sealed, so there's no way at this point to tell. In any event, I'd leave the judging at this point to the JUDGE; that's what he's there for, he has access to the details & prior records, & I/we do not.

Being familiar with the writings of Bambenek is another clue. Just about everything he writes is twisted around to point fingers at the ACLU.

Damn those fighters of civil liberties, how unAmerican they are.

Doc#128, cant argue with that friend. Besides the panties keep falling off my head. Life just sucks in these hot sands of Florida.

Sean: yeah, right. With respect, as I understand you are passionate about this. You know the law better than the people who write it and enact it? Come on mate, it's not as simple as you paint it. If you think it's unconstitutional, you a) understand nothing about your own constitution and b) are totally deluded in regards to what your rights really are and always have been.

I'll agree that the 1st amendment is a very good thing and I wish in my country that the implied understanding that my free speech is a natural right was actually part of codified law rather than common law, but as I keep saying, in the US it doesn't and never has offered carte-blanche protections. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like. This is a classic example. If they were protected, these kinds of prosecutions would never even be mounted. It's worth remembering too when you are talking about the courts that one of the very foundations of American democracy is an independent judiciary and rule of law.

"...one of the very foundations of American democracy is an independent judiciary and rule of law."

...Coupled with the concepts of the accused being presumed innocent and the burden of proof being on the state.

Same in all the anglo countries Clav. That's also why we've all endured these many years, without coups and crises that couldn't be solved the best way of all - at the ballot box, as expressions of the will of the people.

It's what makes us all collectively very different - despite our differences - to those societies that do not attach the same importance to rule of law and democratic, representative government. How are you, BTW. Is your missus on the mend?