<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_22_1447205</id>
	<title>Suspension of Disbelief</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266854520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Frequent Slashdot Contributor <a href="mailto:bennett@peacefire.org">Bennett Haselton</a> writes in <i>"A federal judge rules that a student can seek attorney's fees against a high school principal who suspended her for a Facebook page she made at home.  Good news, but how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place?  Posing the question not rhetorically but seriously.  What is the source of society's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frequent Slashdot Contributor Bennett Haselton writes in " A federal judge rules that a student can seek attorney 's fees against a high school principal who suspended her for a Facebook page she made at home .
Good news , but how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place ?
Posing the question not rhetorically but seriously .
What is the source of society 's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frequent Slashdot Contributor Bennett Haselton writes in "A federal judge rules that a student can seek attorney's fees against a high school principal who suspended her for a Facebook page she made at home.
Good news, but how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place?
Posing the question not rhetorically but seriously.
What is the source of society's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231600</id>
	<title>Re:Some Legal Background</title>
	<author>blankinthefill</author>
	<datestamp>1266863340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the Straight Edge movement has calmed down considerably, for quite a while there were militant aspects of it that were extremely violent.  Much of this occurred in Utah, where the movement was very popular among Mormon youth.  It's not surprising that there would be a strong backlash in a community against a violent movement that very often looked and acted like a hardcore gang in its actions.  Now, that's not to say that the decision was RIGHT, but it gives it a bit more perspective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the Straight Edge movement has calmed down considerably , for quite a while there were militant aspects of it that were extremely violent .
Much of this occurred in Utah , where the movement was very popular among Mormon youth .
It 's not surprising that there would be a strong backlash in a community against a violent movement that very often looked and acted like a hardcore gang in its actions .
Now , that 's not to say that the decision was RIGHT , but it gives it a bit more perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the Straight Edge movement has calmed down considerably, for quite a while there were militant aspects of it that were extremely violent.
Much of this occurred in Utah, where the movement was very popular among Mormon youth.
It's not surprising that there would be a strong backlash in a community against a violent movement that very often looked and acted like a hardcore gang in its actions.
Now, that's not to say that the decision was RIGHT, but it gives it a bit more perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231886</id>
	<title>Relevence...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266864120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Teenagers *are* qualitatively different than adults; look at some of the recent work in circadian rhythms, for instance - there are definite differences.  Of course, 20 year-olds are qualitatively different than 40 year-olds.  The question is whether they are different in a way that is pertinent, and I think we should start by trying to pin down what exactly *that* means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Teenagers * are * qualitatively different than adults ; look at some of the recent work in circadian rhythms , for instance - there are definite differences .
Of course , 20 year-olds are qualitatively different than 40 year-olds .
The question is whether they are different in a way that is pertinent , and I think we should start by trying to pin down what exactly * that * means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teenagers *are* qualitatively different than adults; look at some of the recent work in circadian rhythms, for instance - there are definite differences.
Of course, 20 year-olds are qualitatively different than 40 year-olds.
The question is whether they are different in a way that is pertinent, and I think we should start by trying to pin down what exactly *that* means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1266859980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Answer: it's considered vulgar.  Vulgarity varies from place to place, and community standards set the standards.  Seriously, there is a ton of law about this, have you never heard of it?  From your post, it sounds like you're totally unaware of this and are approaching the subject with a "21st century know-nothing" perspective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Answer : it 's considered vulgar .
Vulgarity varies from place to place , and community standards set the standards .
Seriously , there is a ton of law about this , have you never heard of it ?
From your post , it sounds like you 're totally unaware of this and are approaching the subject with a " 21st century know-nothing " perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Answer: it's considered vulgar.
Vulgarity varies from place to place, and community standards set the standards.
Seriously, there is a ton of law about this, have you never heard of it?
From your post, it sounds like you're totally unaware of this and are approaching the subject with a "21st century know-nothing" perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31237918</id>
	<title>Seriously? It's not about age.</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1266840660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With respect to free speech.</p><p>If they are human, they have the right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With respect to free speech.If they are human , they have the right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With respect to free speech.If they are human, they have the right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231476</id>
	<title>What other avenues were considered?</title>
	<author>getSalled</author>
	<datestamp>1266863100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm reminded of a time in college when I ran a web site that hosted a forum among other things (about 10 years ago).  Someone posted some comments as the president of the university and a couple days later I got a call from his office.  While they would've legally been allowed to do all sorts of things to me, they posed the simplest question: "Will you remove those comments?"  They even prefaced it with "we openly support your and your users' rights to free speech."

I'm curious if they even asked her to take it down with the trade-off from the school being that they will audit the teacher to verify the allegations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reminded of a time in college when I ran a web site that hosted a forum among other things ( about 10 years ago ) .
Someone posted some comments as the president of the university and a couple days later I got a call from his office .
While they would 've legally been allowed to do all sorts of things to me , they posed the simplest question : " Will you remove those comments ?
" They even prefaced it with " we openly support your and your users ' rights to free speech .
" I 'm curious if they even asked her to take it down with the trade-off from the school being that they will audit the teacher to verify the allegations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reminded of a time in college when I ran a web site that hosted a forum among other things (about 10 years ago).
Someone posted some comments as the president of the university and a couple days later I got a call from his office.
While they would've legally been allowed to do all sorts of things to me, they posed the simplest question: "Will you remove those comments?
"  They even prefaced it with "we openly support your and your users' rights to free speech.
"

I'm curious if they even asked her to take it down with the trade-off from the school being that they will audit the teacher to verify the allegations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232690</id>
	<title>Re:Some Legal Background</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1266866580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Whatever was going on in Utah needs to be looked at though. That story was downright disturbing. 'Curbing the straight edge movement' was one of their school's stated goals?!"</p><p>You know that's from 11 years ago, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Whatever was going on in Utah needs to be looked at though .
That story was downright disturbing .
'Curbing the straight edge movement ' was one of their school 's stated goals ? !
" You know that 's from 11 years ago , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Whatever was going on in Utah needs to be looked at though.
That story was downright disturbing.
'Curbing the straight edge movement' was one of their school's stated goals?!
"You know that's from 11 years ago, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230398</id>
	<title>No lese majeste</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1266860040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People, organisations, religions, philosophies, all of these should be used to the idea that they can be insulted by others without being able to stop them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People , organisations , religions , philosophies , all of these should be used to the idea that they can be insulted by others without being able to stop them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People, organisations, religions, philosophies, all of these should be used to the idea that they can be insulted by others without being able to stop them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31243026</id>
	<title>Re:Some Legal Background</title>
	<author>martinX</author>
	<datestamp>1266930600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's some weird shit on that site...</p><p> <a href="http://libertarianrock.com/1999/08/va-judge-strikes-down-dancing-restriction/" title="libertarianrock.com">VA judge strikes down dancing restriction</a> [libertarianrock.com] &ldquo;There&rsquo;s bound to be trouble when you mix drinking, country music and dancing,&rdquo; said Danny Stanley, the only member of the five-person Council who would consent to an interview.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's some weird shit on that site... VA judge strikes down dancing restriction [ libertarianrock.com ]    There    s bound to be trouble when you mix drinking , country music and dancing ,    said Danny Stanley , the only member of the five-person Council who would consent to an interview .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's some weird shit on that site... VA judge strikes down dancing restriction [libertarianrock.com] “There’s bound to be trouble when you mix drinking, country music and dancing,” said Danny Stanley, the only member of the five-person Council who would consent to an interview.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230362</id>
	<title>Undermining authority</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266859920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty simple, really. In an authoritarian environment, if you undermine authority, authority will come down on you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty simple , really .
In an authoritarian environment , if you undermine authority , authority will come down on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty simple, really.
In an authoritarian environment, if you undermine authority, authority will come down on you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231294</id>
	<title>We teach them they are free but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266862620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We teach them in history and every other class that they are free, and then treat them like they aren't.  No chewing gum.  You are free but you can't chew gum.  Are you kidding me?  Tuck in your shirt, wear this uniform, don't talk, don't stop in the halls, bring me your blue slip or get detention.</p><p>It's no wonder so many in our society is so ready to accept the loss of fundamental rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We teach them in history and every other class that they are free , and then treat them like they are n't .
No chewing gum .
You are free but you ca n't chew gum .
Are you kidding me ?
Tuck in your shirt , wear this uniform , do n't talk , do n't stop in the halls , bring me your blue slip or get detention.It 's no wonder so many in our society is so ready to accept the loss of fundamental rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We teach them in history and every other class that they are free, and then treat them like they aren't.
No chewing gum.
You are free but you can't chew gum.
Are you kidding me?
Tuck in your shirt, wear this uniform, don't talk, don't stop in the halls, bring me your blue slip or get detention.It's no wonder so many in our society is so ready to accept the loss of fundamental rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231312</id>
	<title>Not just wiretapping a minor, wiretapping a home</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1266862680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These bozos aren't just wiretapping a student, they're wiretapping the entire home.  That laptop could be anyplace in the house.</p><p>Even though the lawsuits could come from the students; there would be much stronger weight to them if the homeowners filed them, not on the behalf of their children, but on their own behalf as well.</p><p>The difference is how people react when a 16 year old says "How could you do this to me?"  as opposed to an adults scream: "How dare you do this to my children!" It might be even more interesting if both the students, and the parents files separate lawsuits.</p><p>And why haven't these wiretapping jokers be arrested yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These bozos are n't just wiretapping a student , they 're wiretapping the entire home .
That laptop could be anyplace in the house.Even though the lawsuits could come from the students ; there would be much stronger weight to them if the homeowners filed them , not on the behalf of their children , but on their own behalf as well.The difference is how people react when a 16 year old says " How could you do this to me ?
" as opposed to an adults scream : " How dare you do this to my children !
" It might be even more interesting if both the students , and the parents files separate lawsuits.And why have n't these wiretapping jokers be arrested yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These bozos aren't just wiretapping a student, they're wiretapping the entire home.
That laptop could be anyplace in the house.Even though the lawsuits could come from the students; there would be much stronger weight to them if the homeowners filed them, not on the behalf of their children, but on their own behalf as well.The difference is how people react when a 16 year old says "How could you do this to me?
"  as opposed to an adults scream: "How dare you do this to my children!
" It might be even more interesting if both the students, and the parents files separate lawsuits.And why haven't these wiretapping jokers be arrested yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231642</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266863460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not turned on by boobs are you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not turned on by boobs are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not turned on by boobs are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231564</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>naasking</author>
	<datestamp>1266863280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then the question becomes, how can you justify encoding social notions of vulgarity in the law which is supposed to be culturally impartial and exists to protect the <em>rights</em> of its citizens, not their sense of decency?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then the question becomes , how can you justify encoding social notions of vulgarity in the law which is supposed to be culturally impartial and exists to protect the rights of its citizens , not their sense of decency ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then the question becomes, how can you justify encoding social notions of vulgarity in the law which is supposed to be culturally impartial and exists to protect the rights of its citizens, not their sense of decency?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231764</id>
	<title>Re:How did we get here?</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1266863820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is what happens when you have socialized education</i></p><p>If only we could remove the prohibition against private schools, people could choose to send their kids to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when you have socialized educationIf only we could remove the prohibition against private schools , people could choose to send their kids to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when you have socialized educationIf only we could remove the prohibition against private schools, people could choose to send their kids to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230660</id>
	<title>Government is doing it</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1266861000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this were a private school, you'd be right.  The student is free to go elsewhere.  However, this is a public school, paid for with tax dollars, and numerous court rulings have found that such are at least in some respects agents of state.  This is why school prayer, for example, is not allowed.  Accordingly, this is a punitive <b>government</b> action taken against a <b>citizen</b>, without due process, for expressing an unfavorable view of a government functionary in a public forum.  You could even mount a reasonable argument that publishing on Facebook is equivalent, in context, to "the press."</p><p>Blink.</p><p>How is the principal's action any better than Richard Nixon's enemy's list?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this were a private school , you 'd be right .
The student is free to go elsewhere .
However , this is a public school , paid for with tax dollars , and numerous court rulings have found that such are at least in some respects agents of state .
This is why school prayer , for example , is not allowed .
Accordingly , this is a punitive government action taken against a citizen , without due process , for expressing an unfavorable view of a government functionary in a public forum .
You could even mount a reasonable argument that publishing on Facebook is equivalent , in context , to " the press .
" Blink.How is the principal 's action any better than Richard Nixon 's enemy 's list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this were a private school, you'd be right.
The student is free to go elsewhere.
However, this is a public school, paid for with tax dollars, and numerous court rulings have found that such are at least in some respects agents of state.
This is why school prayer, for example, is not allowed.
Accordingly, this is a punitive government action taken against a citizen, without due process, for expressing an unfavorable view of a government functionary in a public forum.
You could even mount a reasonable argument that publishing on Facebook is equivalent, in context, to "the press.
"Blink.How is the principal's action any better than Richard Nixon's enemy's list?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342</id>
	<title>This isn't that different from the adult world.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266859800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I called my boss "the worst boss I've ever met" in a public forum, then I'd likely be fired, and no one would raise an eyebrow.  The forum to make these kinds of complaints is not a public facebook page, but the principal's office, and failing that, the school board.  If that fails, then it's time to go public - and at that point, facebook still isn't the right medium - you need to go to the press.  That is, of course, assuming she has a real complaint, other than a vague "she's a terrible teacher".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I called my boss " the worst boss I 've ever met " in a public forum , then I 'd likely be fired , and no one would raise an eyebrow .
The forum to make these kinds of complaints is not a public facebook page , but the principal 's office , and failing that , the school board .
If that fails , then it 's time to go public - and at that point , facebook still is n't the right medium - you need to go to the press .
That is , of course , assuming she has a real complaint , other than a vague " she 's a terrible teacher " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I called my boss "the worst boss I've ever met" in a public forum, then I'd likely be fired, and no one would raise an eyebrow.
The forum to make these kinds of complaints is not a public facebook page, but the principal's office, and failing that, the school board.
If that fails, then it's time to go public - and at that point, facebook still isn't the right medium - you need to go to the press.
That is, of course, assuming she has a real complaint, other than a vague "she's a terrible teacher".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230766</id>
	<title>This is a big deal?</title>
	<author>Eggbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1266861300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same thing happened to my friend recently and he was suspended for a week. No one ever thought about challenging it and my friend just took it as a free holiday. <br>

At the time I considered that it was outside of the schools jurisdiction and they should have informed the police instead but obviously for the student a week off school is far better than police involvement. <br>

If they had asked politely I'm sure he would have taken the page down but instead they choose to blow it out of proportion and suspend him for a week which can only make him more hostile towards them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing happened to my friend recently and he was suspended for a week .
No one ever thought about challenging it and my friend just took it as a free holiday .
At the time I considered that it was outside of the schools jurisdiction and they should have informed the police instead but obviously for the student a week off school is far better than police involvement .
If they had asked politely I 'm sure he would have taken the page down but instead they choose to blow it out of proportion and suspend him for a week which can only make him more hostile towards them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing happened to my friend recently and he was suspended for a week.
No one ever thought about challenging it and my friend just took it as a free holiday.
At the time I considered that it was outside of the schools jurisdiction and they should have informed the police instead but obviously for the student a week off school is far better than police involvement.
If they had asked politely I'm sure he would have taken the page down but instead they choose to blow it out of proportion and suspend him for a week which can only make him more hostile towards them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230588</id>
	<title>"Teenager" is a 20th century invention</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea of a teenager didn't even exist until the 20th century. Before that, you were either a child or an adult. There wasn't this artificial in-between state. I have no idea why the concept seemed to pop out of nowhere, but I would love to know.</p><p>In any case, the concept of the teenager has been very damaging to our society. Since we have allowed adults to act like children...no, worse, expected and told them to act like children, many adults decide to continue acting like children even as they get older. People in their 20s and even 30s continue to seek out childish pleasures, simple thrills with no meaningful purpose requiring no significant degree of work or even, *gasp*, responsibility. And why shouldn't they act like this? They became adults, but learned they could still act like children. If they could act that way at 15, 16, 17, why can't they continue it to 25, 26, 27? So they do.</p><p>So even worse than denying young adults a role in society, we're teaching them that it's OK to continue to have no role in society even as they grow older. Denying adults under 18 their proper rights and appropriate respect harms us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of a teenager did n't even exist until the 20th century .
Before that , you were either a child or an adult .
There was n't this artificial in-between state .
I have no idea why the concept seemed to pop out of nowhere , but I would love to know.In any case , the concept of the teenager has been very damaging to our society .
Since we have allowed adults to act like children...no , worse , expected and told them to act like children , many adults decide to continue acting like children even as they get older .
People in their 20s and even 30s continue to seek out childish pleasures , simple thrills with no meaningful purpose requiring no significant degree of work or even , * gasp * , responsibility .
And why should n't they act like this ?
They became adults , but learned they could still act like children .
If they could act that way at 15 , 16 , 17 , why ca n't they continue it to 25 , 26 , 27 ?
So they do.So even worse than denying young adults a role in society , we 're teaching them that it 's OK to continue to have no role in society even as they grow older .
Denying adults under 18 their proper rights and appropriate respect harms us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of a teenager didn't even exist until the 20th century.
Before that, you were either a child or an adult.
There wasn't this artificial in-between state.
I have no idea why the concept seemed to pop out of nowhere, but I would love to know.In any case, the concept of the teenager has been very damaging to our society.
Since we have allowed adults to act like children...no, worse, expected and told them to act like children, many adults decide to continue acting like children even as they get older.
People in their 20s and even 30s continue to seek out childish pleasures, simple thrills with no meaningful purpose requiring no significant degree of work or even, *gasp*, responsibility.
And why shouldn't they act like this?
They became adults, but learned they could still act like children.
If they could act that way at 15, 16, 17, why can't they continue it to 25, 26, 27?
So they do.So even worse than denying young adults a role in society, we're teaching them that it's OK to continue to have no role in society even as they grow older.
Denying adults under 18 their proper rights and appropriate respect harms us all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31240992</id>
	<title>The school has one purpose</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1266862860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The purpose of the school is to educate.

They are not there to police behavior during the student's free time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The purpose of the school is to educate .
They are not there to police behavior during the student 's free time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The purpose of the school is to educate.
They are not there to police behavior during the student's free time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31239254</id>
	<title>Re:Another rambling mess from Mr. Haselton</title>
	<author>garutnivore</author>
	<datestamp>1266848460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for taking time to post your analysis.  I found it insightful (but alas I have no mod points).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for taking time to post your analysis .
I found it insightful ( but alas I have no mod points ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for taking time to post your analysis.
I found it insightful (but alas I have no mod points).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234694</id>
	<title>Re:The age of majority is NOT arbitrary.</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1266829920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your body doesn't finish developing until your 20s. Should we propose that no one should exercise until the age of 22?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your body does n't finish developing until your 20s .
Should we propose that no one should exercise until the age of 22 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your body doesn't finish developing until your 20s.
Should we propose that no one should exercise until the age of 22?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230254</id>
	<title>ugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266859380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There is a temptation to think that there is some consistent reasoning behind the different courts' rulings -- say, that the student who created a vulgar page mocking his principal (the student was identified in papers only as "J.S.") went too far and crossed a line, while Katie Evans's page complaining about her teacher was clean enough to stay on the safe side of the line, and make her eligible for damages in a First Amendment suit. This, I think, is nonsense, an attempt to put a consistent theory on top of a legal system that does not follow consistent rules from one court ruling to the next. </i>
<br>
<br>If you read the opinion, you can easily see it's distinguishable from the J.S. case.  I do not know why a non-lawyer has become slashdot's quasi-official legal analyst.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a temptation to think that there is some consistent reasoning behind the different courts ' rulings -- say , that the student who created a vulgar page mocking his principal ( the student was identified in papers only as " J.S .
" ) went too far and crossed a line , while Katie Evans 's page complaining about her teacher was clean enough to stay on the safe side of the line , and make her eligible for damages in a First Amendment suit .
This , I think , is nonsense , an attempt to put a consistent theory on top of a legal system that does not follow consistent rules from one court ruling to the next .
If you read the opinion , you can easily see it 's distinguishable from the J.S .
case. I do not know why a non-lawyer has become slashdot 's quasi-official legal analyst .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a temptation to think that there is some consistent reasoning behind the different courts' rulings -- say, that the student who created a vulgar page mocking his principal (the student was identified in papers only as "J.S.
") went too far and crossed a line, while Katie Evans's page complaining about her teacher was clean enough to stay on the safe side of the line, and make her eligible for damages in a First Amendment suit.
This, I think, is nonsense, an attempt to put a consistent theory on top of a legal system that does not follow consistent rules from one court ruling to the next.
If you read the opinion, you can easily see it's distinguishable from the J.S.
case.  I do not know why a non-lawyer has become slashdot's quasi-official legal analyst.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231894</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266864120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How cute, you provided an answer to a question that wasn't asked, and then call the poster's perspective 'know nothing'. I'm fairly certain the poster understands vulgarity, but that's immaterial, as social standards are not by themselves capable of objectively defining virtue. (Where objective means based on a real causal understanding of harms and the avoidance of bias and bigotry.)<br> <br>
If you read the Old Testament, you'll find that social standards determined that women were unclean when menstruating, and contact with them was a sin. Further that women who gave birth to boys were unclean for a week, and those who gave birth to girls were unclean for two weeks. Community standards can be complete bullshit.
<br> <br>
Quite frankly, though I am neither a feminist nor female, I think that the aversion to breasts stems from the remnants of patriarchal power jealousy. Where men are concerned they don't like being reminded that they were utterly dependent on their mothers at one point, and where women are concerned I think part of it is internalized patriarchal masculinism (as there have been women who were even against sufferage) and the other part is instinctual jealousy and anxiety over how men will be attracted to the breast-feeder and her fitness as a mother. As none of these are rational, the mind varnishes the feelings with some bullshit about morality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How cute , you provided an answer to a question that was n't asked , and then call the poster 's perspective 'know nothing' .
I 'm fairly certain the poster understands vulgarity , but that 's immaterial , as social standards are not by themselves capable of objectively defining virtue .
( Where objective means based on a real causal understanding of harms and the avoidance of bias and bigotry .
) If you read the Old Testament , you 'll find that social standards determined that women were unclean when menstruating , and contact with them was a sin .
Further that women who gave birth to boys were unclean for a week , and those who gave birth to girls were unclean for two weeks .
Community standards can be complete bullshit .
Quite frankly , though I am neither a feminist nor female , I think that the aversion to breasts stems from the remnants of patriarchal power jealousy .
Where men are concerned they do n't like being reminded that they were utterly dependent on their mothers at one point , and where women are concerned I think part of it is internalized patriarchal masculinism ( as there have been women who were even against sufferage ) and the other part is instinctual jealousy and anxiety over how men will be attracted to the breast-feeder and her fitness as a mother .
As none of these are rational , the mind varnishes the feelings with some bullshit about morality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How cute, you provided an answer to a question that wasn't asked, and then call the poster's perspective 'know nothing'.
I'm fairly certain the poster understands vulgarity, but that's immaterial, as social standards are not by themselves capable of objectively defining virtue.
(Where objective means based on a real causal understanding of harms and the avoidance of bias and bigotry.
) 
If you read the Old Testament, you'll find that social standards determined that women were unclean when menstruating, and contact with them was a sin.
Further that women who gave birth to boys were unclean for a week, and those who gave birth to girls were unclean for two weeks.
Community standards can be complete bullshit.
Quite frankly, though I am neither a feminist nor female, I think that the aversion to breasts stems from the remnants of patriarchal power jealousy.
Where men are concerned they don't like being reminded that they were utterly dependent on their mothers at one point, and where women are concerned I think part of it is internalized patriarchal masculinism (as there have been women who were even against sufferage) and the other part is instinctual jealousy and anxiety over how men will be attracted to the breast-feeder and her fitness as a mother.
As none of these are rational, the mind varnishes the feelings with some bullshit about morality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232134</id>
	<title>Re:Some Legal Background</title>
	<author>AkiraRoberts</author>
	<datestamp>1266864840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is some intersection between veganism and straight-edge. And yes, there is a small straight edge subset that can be violent. And I vaguely recall reading some article about 10 years back, talking about a violent straight edge scene in Utah. So this isn't like a totally random thing.
<br> <br>
That said, the actions actually taken by the school are basically retarded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is some intersection between veganism and straight-edge .
And yes , there is a small straight edge subset that can be violent .
And I vaguely recall reading some article about 10 years back , talking about a violent straight edge scene in Utah .
So this is n't like a totally random thing .
That said , the actions actually taken by the school are basically retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is some intersection between veganism and straight-edge.
And yes, there is a small straight edge subset that can be violent.
And I vaguely recall reading some article about 10 years back, talking about a violent straight edge scene in Utah.
So this isn't like a totally random thing.
That said, the actions actually taken by the school are basically retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231390</id>
	<title>Embedded article link is NSFW!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266862860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The link to the article discussing the implications of photographing the "inappropriate behavior" is hosted at a NSFW site.  That's inappropriate behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The link to the article discussing the implications of photographing the " inappropriate behavior " is hosted at a NSFW site .
That 's inappropriate behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The link to the article discussing the implications of photographing the "inappropriate behavior" is hosted at a NSFW site.
That's inappropriate behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31241754</id>
	<title>Re:The age of majority is NOT arbitrary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266957180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In fact, what one society values and requires of people may differ from another, and thus necessitate a different age of majority.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So, you're saying that the age of majority is arbitrary?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , what one society values and requires of people may differ from another , and thus necessitate a different age of majority .
So , you 're saying that the age of majority is arbitrary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, what one society values and requires of people may differ from another, and thus necessitate a different age of majority.
So, you're saying that the age of majority is arbitrary?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230010</id>
	<title>Tee ell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266858300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dee aarr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dee aarr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dee aarr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230602</id>
	<title>Who Does The Parenting?</title>
	<author>nick\_davison</author>
	<datestamp>1266860820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I, in any way, think it's right we've ended up in this situation, nor that the conclusion is right. For the sake of providing an alternative perspective, however...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"And where does this attitude towards minors come from?"</p></div><p>Under the legal age of consent, minors are considered a group that require additional guidance: greater praise to encourage positive actions, protecting from greater long term consequences of negative actions, more immediate short term consequences for those actions.</p><p>Under that system, it's generally considered a parent's responsibility to discipline.</p><p>Unfortunately, the common belief is that a hell of a lot of parents don't bother. They've got other things to do, are absent, would rather be the kids' friends, had kids whilst kids themselves and never learned the lessons they need to teach, a whole slew of reasons.</p><p>The common belief holds that they tend to dump pretty much the entire responsibility for parenting on a school system that has to deal with the consequences of that lack of parenting every day.</p><p>Given they've had both the responsibility and consequences dumped on them, for the entirety of raising a child, time and again... and they know the parents often won't back them when it becomes the parents' responsibility in situations that overlap... how surprising is it that issues keep coming up where they overreach what would ever be acceptable in a world where every parent acted like a parent?</p><p>I'm not saying it's right. As is always joked, there are tougher requirements on having a beer or driving a car than there are on becoming a parent. It's not acceptable that many parents do a terrible job of raising their kids. It's not acceptable that responsibility and consequences are dumped on the school system. It's not acceptable that <em>some</em> parents acting so poorly leads to some teachers generalizing for <em>all</em> parents and overreaching in <em>all</em> cases. It's not acceptable that we value education as poorly as we do, have class sizes as large as we do, and create a situation where teachers don't have time to genuinely assess each case.</p><p>It's wrong in every way. But the only way you stand any chance of fixing something is to understand the whole broken system and everything that needs fixing... rather than just finger pointing at one symptom at the end of the chain and declaring that <em>it</em> is wrong. Sadly, as a society, we much prefer that fingerpointing and scapegoating to actually facing tough truths. So, I imagine these teachers will get sued, we'll all feel very righteous, then wonder why it's continued to get worse next year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I , in any way , think it 's right we 've ended up in this situation , nor that the conclusion is right .
For the sake of providing an alternative perspective , however... " And where does this attitude towards minors come from ?
" Under the legal age of consent , minors are considered a group that require additional guidance : greater praise to encourage positive actions , protecting from greater long term consequences of negative actions , more immediate short term consequences for those actions.Under that system , it 's generally considered a parent 's responsibility to discipline.Unfortunately , the common belief is that a hell of a lot of parents do n't bother .
They 've got other things to do , are absent , would rather be the kids ' friends , had kids whilst kids themselves and never learned the lessons they need to teach , a whole slew of reasons.The common belief holds that they tend to dump pretty much the entire responsibility for parenting on a school system that has to deal with the consequences of that lack of parenting every day.Given they 've had both the responsibility and consequences dumped on them , for the entirety of raising a child , time and again... and they know the parents often wo n't back them when it becomes the parents ' responsibility in situations that overlap... how surprising is it that issues keep coming up where they overreach what would ever be acceptable in a world where every parent acted like a parent ? I 'm not saying it 's right .
As is always joked , there are tougher requirements on having a beer or driving a car than there are on becoming a parent .
It 's not acceptable that many parents do a terrible job of raising their kids .
It 's not acceptable that responsibility and consequences are dumped on the school system .
It 's not acceptable that some parents acting so poorly leads to some teachers generalizing for all parents and overreaching in all cases .
It 's not acceptable that we value education as poorly as we do , have class sizes as large as we do , and create a situation where teachers do n't have time to genuinely assess each case.It 's wrong in every way .
But the only way you stand any chance of fixing something is to understand the whole broken system and everything that needs fixing... rather than just finger pointing at one symptom at the end of the chain and declaring that it is wrong .
Sadly , as a society , we much prefer that fingerpointing and scapegoating to actually facing tough truths .
So , I imagine these teachers will get sued , we 'll all feel very righteous , then wonder why it 's continued to get worse next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I, in any way, think it's right we've ended up in this situation, nor that the conclusion is right.
For the sake of providing an alternative perspective, however..."And where does this attitude towards minors come from?
"Under the legal age of consent, minors are considered a group that require additional guidance: greater praise to encourage positive actions, protecting from greater long term consequences of negative actions, more immediate short term consequences for those actions.Under that system, it's generally considered a parent's responsibility to discipline.Unfortunately, the common belief is that a hell of a lot of parents don't bother.
They've got other things to do, are absent, would rather be the kids' friends, had kids whilst kids themselves and never learned the lessons they need to teach, a whole slew of reasons.The common belief holds that they tend to dump pretty much the entire responsibility for parenting on a school system that has to deal with the consequences of that lack of parenting every day.Given they've had both the responsibility and consequences dumped on them, for the entirety of raising a child, time and again... and they know the parents often won't back them when it becomes the parents' responsibility in situations that overlap... how surprising is it that issues keep coming up where they overreach what would ever be acceptable in a world where every parent acted like a parent?I'm not saying it's right.
As is always joked, there are tougher requirements on having a beer or driving a car than there are on becoming a parent.
It's not acceptable that many parents do a terrible job of raising their kids.
It's not acceptable that responsibility and consequences are dumped on the school system.
It's not acceptable that some parents acting so poorly leads to some teachers generalizing for all parents and overreaching in all cases.
It's not acceptable that we value education as poorly as we do, have class sizes as large as we do, and create a situation where teachers don't have time to genuinely assess each case.It's wrong in every way.
But the only way you stand any chance of fixing something is to understand the whole broken system and everything that needs fixing... rather than just finger pointing at one symptom at the end of the chain and declaring that it is wrong.
Sadly, as a society, we much prefer that fingerpointing and scapegoating to actually facing tough truths.
So, I imagine these teachers will get sued, we'll all feel very righteous, then wonder why it's continued to get worse next year.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232318</id>
	<title>Re:if you are a minor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266865320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First you admit that the 21-100 crowd is stupid.  No arguments here.</p><p>Then you say that the under-18 crowd should listen to those idiots, because they're trying to protect the minors from themselves.</p><p>I know that when I was a teenager my parents made some horrible parenting mistakes.  On the balance of it they did mean well, but if I had followed all of their advice I don't think I'd be successful today.  After a certain point in my early 20s it became that I gave <i>them</i> stability rather than the other way around: giving them advice, telling them not to fret the small stuff, helping them meet their own personal deadlines...</p><p>Sometimes, especially as you get into the late teens, the kid really does know something the parents don't.  I don't think it's as uncommon as you suggest.</p><p>And my story is with relatively good parents.  Imagine if they had been completely negligent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First you admit that the 21-100 crowd is stupid .
No arguments here.Then you say that the under-18 crowd should listen to those idiots , because they 're trying to protect the minors from themselves.I know that when I was a teenager my parents made some horrible parenting mistakes .
On the balance of it they did mean well , but if I had followed all of their advice I do n't think I 'd be successful today .
After a certain point in my early 20s it became that I gave them stability rather than the other way around : giving them advice , telling them not to fret the small stuff , helping them meet their own personal deadlines...Sometimes , especially as you get into the late teens , the kid really does know something the parents do n't .
I do n't think it 's as uncommon as you suggest.And my story is with relatively good parents .
Imagine if they had been completely negligent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First you admit that the 21-100 crowd is stupid.
No arguments here.Then you say that the under-18 crowd should listen to those idiots, because they're trying to protect the minors from themselves.I know that when I was a teenager my parents made some horrible parenting mistakes.
On the balance of it they did mean well, but if I had followed all of their advice I don't think I'd be successful today.
After a certain point in my early 20s it became that I gave them stability rather than the other way around: giving them advice, telling them not to fret the small stuff, helping them meet their own personal deadlines...Sometimes, especially as you get into the late teens, the kid really does know something the parents don't.
I don't think it's as uncommon as you suggest.And my story is with relatively good parents.
Imagine if they had been completely negligent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230906</id>
	<title>no</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1266861660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Well, you knew this post was coming when you read the news. A federal judge has ruled that Katie Evans, who had been suspended from high school for creating a Facebook group calling one of her teachers "the worst teacher I've ever met", can proceed with her suit seeking attorney's fees from her principal for violating her First Amendment rights. Evans, now a journalism student at the University of Florida, is represented in her suit by the ACLU of Florida. </i>
<br>
<br>
No, the suit is apparently for injunctive relief; the attorneys' fees would be secondary.  Which is the main reason the court rejected the qualified immunity defense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you knew this post was coming when you read the news .
A federal judge has ruled that Katie Evans , who had been suspended from high school for creating a Facebook group calling one of her teachers " the worst teacher I 've ever met " , can proceed with her suit seeking attorney 's fees from her principal for violating her First Amendment rights .
Evans , now a journalism student at the University of Florida , is represented in her suit by the ACLU of Florida .
No , the suit is apparently for injunctive relief ; the attorneys ' fees would be secondary .
Which is the main reason the court rejected the qualified immunity defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you knew this post was coming when you read the news.
A federal judge has ruled that Katie Evans, who had been suspended from high school for creating a Facebook group calling one of her teachers "the worst teacher I've ever met", can proceed with her suit seeking attorney's fees from her principal for violating her First Amendment rights.
Evans, now a journalism student at the University of Florida, is represented in her suit by the ACLU of Florida.
No, the suit is apparently for injunctive relief; the attorneys' fees would be secondary.
Which is the main reason the court rejected the qualified immunity defense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233054</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1266867900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "obscenity" excuse is an ad-hoc argument designed to ovverride the constitution outside of the constitution, it's basically judicial and legislative handwaving, claiming that it's a "special" "unprotected" category of speech.</p><p>I am proudly anti-social and will fight for people's right to say any goddamn obscene thing they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " obscenity " excuse is an ad-hoc argument designed to ovverride the constitution outside of the constitution , it 's basically judicial and legislative handwaving , claiming that it 's a " special " " unprotected " category of speech.I am proudly anti-social and will fight for people 's right to say any goddamn obscene thing they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "obscenity" excuse is an ad-hoc argument designed to ovverride the constitution outside of the constitution, it's basically judicial and legislative handwaving, claiming that it's a "special" "unprotected" category of speech.I am proudly anti-social and will fight for people's right to say any goddamn obscene thing they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230616</id>
	<title>Coming soon to a theater near you:</title>
	<author>rtobyr</author>
	<datestamp>1266860880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe next, some teenager can sue movie theaters for charging 13 year olds "Adult" prices when they're not legally adults until they're 18. That always bugged the heck out of me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe next , some teenager can sue movie theaters for charging 13 year olds " Adult " prices when they 're not legally adults until they 're 18 .
That always bugged the heck out of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe next, some teenager can sue movie theaters for charging 13 year olds "Adult" prices when they're not legally adults until they're 18.
That always bugged the heck out of me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230428</id>
	<title>Seems like a double standard...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm missing something... but public schools can't have public prayer (in most cases--there are exceptions) because that would be government "establishment" of religion.  Yet they're allowed to do other things that government is forbidden to do on grounds that they're <i>in loco parentis</i>--like radically restricting student's freedom of speech, against their <b>real</b> parents wishes.  I understand that the processes and procedures that one would follow with adults are not necessarily appropriate to schools (I have four children, okay?) but it seems like the application of the bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment is rather selective--as if we as a society are trying to have it both ways.</p><p>One of the things I observed a number of years back, while taking a course (for my B.A. in Philosophy/Religious Studies concentration) called <i>Religious Freedom and the Law</i> was that most of the modern conflict over the Bill of Rights comes up as we see government involved in things that simply were not part of Government's mandate when the Bill of Rights was written.  In 1789, there was no public education to speak of.  Unfortunately, government run education has become a place in which children are "socialized" with little regard for the wishes of their parents, especially when those parents are an ethnic or religious minority.  Simply put, "civic virtue" is only "virtue" for the "civic"--for the insiders and the establishment. Public schooling is, by its very nature, an assault on freedom.</p><p>This to me is one of the best arguments for vouchers--not that children will necessarily get a <b>better</b> education, but people of modest income will be able to get an education that reflects <b>their</b> values and beliefs rather than the beliefs and values of the establishment.  If you say, "but I don't like the choices some people will make, so let's keep the current system!" you're kind of proving my point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm missing something... but public schools ca n't have public prayer ( in most cases--there are exceptions ) because that would be government " establishment " of religion .
Yet they 're allowed to do other things that government is forbidden to do on grounds that they 're in loco parentis--like radically restricting student 's freedom of speech , against their real parents wishes .
I understand that the processes and procedures that one would follow with adults are not necessarily appropriate to schools ( I have four children , okay ?
) but it seems like the application of the bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment is rather selective--as if we as a society are trying to have it both ways.One of the things I observed a number of years back , while taking a course ( for my B.A .
in Philosophy/Religious Studies concentration ) called Religious Freedom and the Law was that most of the modern conflict over the Bill of Rights comes up as we see government involved in things that simply were not part of Government 's mandate when the Bill of Rights was written .
In 1789 , there was no public education to speak of .
Unfortunately , government run education has become a place in which children are " socialized " with little regard for the wishes of their parents , especially when those parents are an ethnic or religious minority .
Simply put , " civic virtue " is only " virtue " for the " civic " --for the insiders and the establishment .
Public schooling is , by its very nature , an assault on freedom.This to me is one of the best arguments for vouchers--not that children will necessarily get a better education , but people of modest income will be able to get an education that reflects their values and beliefs rather than the beliefs and values of the establishment .
If you say , " but I do n't like the choices some people will make , so let 's keep the current system !
" you 're kind of proving my point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm missing something... but public schools can't have public prayer (in most cases--there are exceptions) because that would be government "establishment" of religion.
Yet they're allowed to do other things that government is forbidden to do on grounds that they're in loco parentis--like radically restricting student's freedom of speech, against their real parents wishes.
I understand that the processes and procedures that one would follow with adults are not necessarily appropriate to schools (I have four children, okay?
) but it seems like the application of the bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment is rather selective--as if we as a society are trying to have it both ways.One of the things I observed a number of years back, while taking a course (for my B.A.
in Philosophy/Religious Studies concentration) called Religious Freedom and the Law was that most of the modern conflict over the Bill of Rights comes up as we see government involved in things that simply were not part of Government's mandate when the Bill of Rights was written.
In 1789, there was no public education to speak of.
Unfortunately, government run education has become a place in which children are "socialized" with little regard for the wishes of their parents, especially when those parents are an ethnic or religious minority.
Simply put, "civic virtue" is only "virtue" for the "civic"--for the insiders and the establishment.
Public schooling is, by its very nature, an assault on freedom.This to me is one of the best arguments for vouchers--not that children will necessarily get a better education, but people of modest income will be able to get an education that reflects their values and beliefs rather than the beliefs and values of the establishment.
If you say, "but I don't like the choices some people will make, so let's keep the current system!
" you're kind of proving my point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231048</id>
	<title>if you are a minor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266862080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you genuinely have, for genuinely logically coherent reasons, a widely understood lower capacity for responsible behavior</p><p>yes, there are some 12 year olds who are more responsible than many 40 year olds, but by and large, when you are under 21, you're an idiot. you're also an idiot from age 21-100, but usually slightly less of one, which makes all the difference</p><p>the law is not made to excuse those rare 12 year olds who can behave responsibly. no more than the law is made to excuse drivers who can drive 90 miles per hour all the time and never get in an accident. mainly because self-perception of responsibility is usually inflated: if you asked a random sampling of people if they can drive 90 miles per hour responsibly, 40 out of 100 people will say "yes", when in reality it is only 2 out of 100</p><p>likewise, if you are under 18, you're probably an idiot. in spite of your self-perception to the contrary. so just deal with the fact that those horribly oppressive adults oppress you, and show some humility and understand why they "oppress" you (ie, try to tell you why certain behaviors of yours is wrong from their horribly corrupt and enfeedbled minds)</p><p>you may be amazed that you can in fact show humility about the possibility of your own lack of wisdom rather whine about the cosmic injustice of it all. and if you can keep from whining in such a way, congratulations: you're a mature adult</p><p>if you still feel the need to whine, you're an idiot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you genuinely have , for genuinely logically coherent reasons , a widely understood lower capacity for responsible behavioryes , there are some 12 year olds who are more responsible than many 40 year olds , but by and large , when you are under 21 , you 're an idiot .
you 're also an idiot from age 21-100 , but usually slightly less of one , which makes all the differencethe law is not made to excuse those rare 12 year olds who can behave responsibly .
no more than the law is made to excuse drivers who can drive 90 miles per hour all the time and never get in an accident .
mainly because self-perception of responsibility is usually inflated : if you asked a random sampling of people if they can drive 90 miles per hour responsibly , 40 out of 100 people will say " yes " , when in reality it is only 2 out of 100likewise , if you are under 18 , you 're probably an idiot .
in spite of your self-perception to the contrary .
so just deal with the fact that those horribly oppressive adults oppress you , and show some humility and understand why they " oppress " you ( ie , try to tell you why certain behaviors of yours is wrong from their horribly corrupt and enfeedbled minds ) you may be amazed that you can in fact show humility about the possibility of your own lack of wisdom rather whine about the cosmic injustice of it all .
and if you can keep from whining in such a way , congratulations : you 're a mature adultif you still feel the need to whine , you 're an idiot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you genuinely have, for genuinely logically coherent reasons, a widely understood lower capacity for responsible behavioryes, there are some 12 year olds who are more responsible than many 40 year olds, but by and large, when you are under 21, you're an idiot.
you're also an idiot from age 21-100, but usually slightly less of one, which makes all the differencethe law is not made to excuse those rare 12 year olds who can behave responsibly.
no more than the law is made to excuse drivers who can drive 90 miles per hour all the time and never get in an accident.
mainly because self-perception of responsibility is usually inflated: if you asked a random sampling of people if they can drive 90 miles per hour responsibly, 40 out of 100 people will say "yes", when in reality it is only 2 out of 100likewise, if you are under 18, you're probably an idiot.
in spite of your self-perception to the contrary.
so just deal with the fact that those horribly oppressive adults oppress you, and show some humility and understand why they "oppress" you (ie, try to tell you why certain behaviors of yours is wrong from their horribly corrupt and enfeedbled minds)you may be amazed that you can in fact show humility about the possibility of your own lack of wisdom rather whine about the cosmic injustice of it all.
and if you can keep from whining in such a way, congratulations: you're a mature adultif you still feel the need to whine, you're an idiot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233680</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266870120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want. Yes, a lot of guys likely just started drooling, but really think about it for a second.</i></p><p>Not sure about that... I think that if we lived in a society where showing fingers was taboo, then an ungloved hand would be pornographic and cause drooling. The titillation (har har) comes from seeing things we're not supposed to see, whether the part of the anatomy is sexual or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want .
Yes , a lot of guys likely just started drooling , but really think about it for a second.Not sure about that... I think that if we lived in a society where showing fingers was taboo , then an ungloved hand would be pornographic and cause drooling .
The titillation ( har har ) comes from seeing things we 're not supposed to see , whether the part of the anatomy is sexual or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want.
Yes, a lot of guys likely just started drooling, but really think about it for a second.Not sure about that... I think that if we lived in a society where showing fingers was taboo, then an ungloved hand would be pornographic and cause drooling.
The titillation (har har) comes from seeing things we're not supposed to see, whether the part of the anatomy is sexual or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231664</id>
	<title>One does wonder what would happen if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266863520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A teacher had used facebook (outside of school of course) to say how useless and pathetic and thoroughly evil etc etc blah blah their students were.

Would they be protected under free speech, or would they be dumped on by the law/authorities from and extreme height?

Somehow I expect it'd be the latter. Which makes it "interesting" why a kid would get more right to be an idiot than a "responsible adult."</htmltext>
<tokenext>A teacher had used facebook ( outside of school of course ) to say how useless and pathetic and thoroughly evil etc etc blah blah their students were .
Would they be protected under free speech , or would they be dumped on by the law/authorities from and extreme height ?
Somehow I expect it 'd be the latter .
Which makes it " interesting " why a kid would get more right to be an idiot than a " responsible adult .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A teacher had used facebook (outside of school of course) to say how useless and pathetic and thoroughly evil etc etc blah blah their students were.
Would they be protected under free speech, or would they be dumped on by the law/authorities from and extreme height?
Somehow I expect it'd be the latter.
Which makes it "interesting" why a kid would get more right to be an idiot than a "responsible adult.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235262</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>chaboud</author>
	<datestamp>1266831720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt that <b>any</b> of this crap comes anywhere near the bar of passing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker\_v.\_Des\_Moines\_Independent\_Community\_School\_District" title="wikipedia.org">Tinker test</a> [wikipedia.org], and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In\_loco\_parentis" title="wikipedia.org">in loco parentis</a> [wikipedia.org] means "in <i> <b>place</b> </i> of the parent" only so much as to be in place in the parent's absence due to the impracticality of <i>having all parents attend school with their children</i>.</p><p>Seriously, though, who is surprised by this?  Do we not remember school administrators with Napoleon complexes that fabricated arbitrary (and, frankly, dangerous) rules to satisfy their need for accomplishment?  I watched school teachers and administrators drag kids by their arms and pick kids up by their necks.  For administrators, it's all crooks and scowls.  Given the triple threat of terror, shooting, and sextings, it's a perfect opportunity for a power grab in a tiny corner of society.  It doesn't excuse their behavior, but the desire has been on simmer for eons.</p><p>Somewhere around here I have a picture of some runaway hippie at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent\_State\_shootings" title="wikipedia.org">Kent State</a> [wikipedia.org]...  She was 14!  If only they'd had laptops back then!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that any of this crap comes anywhere near the bar of passing the Tinker test [ wikipedia.org ] , and in loco parentis [ wikipedia.org ] means " in place of the parent " only so much as to be in place in the parent 's absence due to the impracticality of having all parents attend school with their children.Seriously , though , who is surprised by this ?
Do we not remember school administrators with Napoleon complexes that fabricated arbitrary ( and , frankly , dangerous ) rules to satisfy their need for accomplishment ?
I watched school teachers and administrators drag kids by their arms and pick kids up by their necks .
For administrators , it 's all crooks and scowls .
Given the triple threat of terror , shooting , and sextings , it 's a perfect opportunity for a power grab in a tiny corner of society .
It does n't excuse their behavior , but the desire has been on simmer for eons.Somewhere around here I have a picture of some runaway hippie at Kent State [ wikipedia.org ] ... She was 14 !
If only they 'd had laptops back then !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that any of this crap comes anywhere near the bar of passing the Tinker test [wikipedia.org], and in loco parentis [wikipedia.org] means "in  place  of the parent" only so much as to be in place in the parent's absence due to the impracticality of having all parents attend school with their children.Seriously, though, who is surprised by this?
Do we not remember school administrators with Napoleon complexes that fabricated arbitrary (and, frankly, dangerous) rules to satisfy their need for accomplishment?
I watched school teachers and administrators drag kids by their arms and pick kids up by their necks.
For administrators, it's all crooks and scowls.
Given the triple threat of terror, shooting, and sextings, it's a perfect opportunity for a power grab in a tiny corner of society.
It doesn't excuse their behavior, but the desire has been on simmer for eons.Somewhere around here I have a picture of some runaway hippie at Kent State [wikipedia.org]...  She was 14!
If only they'd had laptops back then!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230750</id>
	<title>Insulation from Consequences</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1266861240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The principal's legal bills will be paid by the taxpayers.  He is insulated from the consequences of his actions.</p><p>That SOB hit the girl (whose care he was entrusted with) where it hurts--he kicked her out of her AP classes.</p><p>If ever anybody deserved microscopic public scrutiny of his personal life . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The principal 's legal bills will be paid by the taxpayers .
He is insulated from the consequences of his actions.That SOB hit the girl ( whose care he was entrusted with ) where it hurts--he kicked her out of her AP classes.If ever anybody deserved microscopic public scrutiny of his personal life .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The principal's legal bills will be paid by the taxpayers.
He is insulated from the consequences of his actions.That SOB hit the girl (whose care he was entrusted with) where it hurts--he kicked her out of her AP classes.If ever anybody deserved microscopic public scrutiny of his personal life .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232440</id>
	<title>Re:How did we get here?</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1266865800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parental authority alone can't be the deciding factor, no matter how well-meaning the parents, because sooner or later you get a situation like in Japan, where children will run roughshod over one another and the teachers/administrators are powerless to do anything for fear of a parent's lawsuit over how their little angel was treated.</p><p>Nor can we accept a situation where the administrators rule supreme (i.e., the status quo in the US public system). In either extreme, there is great potential for abuse, and in the end, the kids are the ones who suffer the most.</p><p>There has to be a balance struck between these two, because I guarantee you they will jockey for power-- adults can be frighteningly petty, and some have no compunction against using children to get their way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parental authority alone ca n't be the deciding factor , no matter how well-meaning the parents , because sooner or later you get a situation like in Japan , where children will run roughshod over one another and the teachers/administrators are powerless to do anything for fear of a parent 's lawsuit over how their little angel was treated.Nor can we accept a situation where the administrators rule supreme ( i.e. , the status quo in the US public system ) .
In either extreme , there is great potential for abuse , and in the end , the kids are the ones who suffer the most.There has to be a balance struck between these two , because I guarantee you they will jockey for power-- adults can be frighteningly petty , and some have no compunction against using children to get their way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parental authority alone can't be the deciding factor, no matter how well-meaning the parents, because sooner or later you get a situation like in Japan, where children will run roughshod over one another and the teachers/administrators are powerless to do anything for fear of a parent's lawsuit over how their little angel was treated.Nor can we accept a situation where the administrators rule supreme (i.e., the status quo in the US public system).
In either extreme, there is great potential for abuse, and in the end, the kids are the ones who suffer the most.There has to be a balance struck between these two, because I guarantee you they will jockey for power-- adults can be frighteningly petty, and some have no compunction against using children to get their way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230462</id>
	<title>Re: Suspension of Disbelief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the parent government of the schools thinks they can suppress dissension by labeling people "terrorists", the schools think they can do the same by extension.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the parent government of the schools thinks they can suppress dissension by labeling people " terrorists " , the schools think they can do the same by extension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the parent government of the schools thinks they can suppress dissension by labeling people "terrorists", the schools think they can do the same by extension.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230340</id>
	<title>Not by Accident</title>
	<author>himurabattousai</author>
	<datestamp>1266859800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are too many people that don't want anyone to have our God-given/Constitutionally-recognized (however you choose to see them) rights, period.  They view rights like free speech as dangerous because such a right allows others to criticize them and possibly undermine their authority or whatever else it is they're afraid of.  Since it's easier to condition young people to not claim those rights than it is to strip those rights from older people , who are already accustomed to exercising them, that's the route that has been taken.</p><p>That's why schools now have essentially the same authority over students that the parents do.  In many ways, it's nothing more than an end-around that bypasses the First Amendment--and many others.  Schools were transformed from a pure agent of the state into quasi-parental figures <i>without losing their state-given powers of coercion</i>.</p><p>Since there's no magical age at which people begin to think responsibly, schools have decided that allowing <i>no</i> differing thoughts of any kind is the way to go.  And they can, because they have that power.  Eventually, all of society will be like our schools; no one will know how life could be different because no one was ever allowed to taste the thrills, or responsibilities, of freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are too many people that do n't want anyone to have our God-given/Constitutionally-recognized ( however you choose to see them ) rights , period .
They view rights like free speech as dangerous because such a right allows others to criticize them and possibly undermine their authority or whatever else it is they 're afraid of .
Since it 's easier to condition young people to not claim those rights than it is to strip those rights from older people , who are already accustomed to exercising them , that 's the route that has been taken.That 's why schools now have essentially the same authority over students that the parents do .
In many ways , it 's nothing more than an end-around that bypasses the First Amendment--and many others .
Schools were transformed from a pure agent of the state into quasi-parental figures without losing their state-given powers of coercion.Since there 's no magical age at which people begin to think responsibly , schools have decided that allowing no differing thoughts of any kind is the way to go .
And they can , because they have that power .
Eventually , all of society will be like our schools ; no one will know how life could be different because no one was ever allowed to taste the thrills , or responsibilities , of freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are too many people that don't want anyone to have our God-given/Constitutionally-recognized (however you choose to see them) rights, period.
They view rights like free speech as dangerous because such a right allows others to criticize them and possibly undermine their authority or whatever else it is they're afraid of.
Since it's easier to condition young people to not claim those rights than it is to strip those rights from older people , who are already accustomed to exercising them, that's the route that has been taken.That's why schools now have essentially the same authority over students that the parents do.
In many ways, it's nothing more than an end-around that bypasses the First Amendment--and many others.
Schools were transformed from a pure agent of the state into quasi-parental figures without losing their state-given powers of coercion.Since there's no magical age at which people begin to think responsibly, schools have decided that allowing no differing thoughts of any kind is the way to go.
And they can, because they have that power.
Eventually, all of society will be like our schools; no one will know how life could be different because no one was ever allowed to taste the thrills, or responsibilities, of freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230418</id>
	<title>This also misses the point</title>
	<author>calibre-not-output</author>
	<datestamp>1266860160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Legal age affects several rights, like the right to vote, to drink, or to drive (though at a different age, it's the same principle).<br>But this has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. These belong to <b>everyone</b>. Even toddlers. Before you know how to speak, your speech is protected. Anything else is plain and simple bullshit.<br> <br>I don't fancy anyone would deny a 17-year-old the right to speak at a rally, for example. How is this any different? Except, of course, for the fact that a school principal has no legal authority whatsoever over a student beyond what the contract with him or his parents (in the case of a minor) allows, and never in a situation where the student isn't under immediate care of the school. This whole thing is ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legal age affects several rights , like the right to vote , to drink , or to drive ( though at a different age , it 's the same principle ) .But this has nothing to do with First Amendment rights .
These belong to everyone .
Even toddlers .
Before you know how to speak , your speech is protected .
Anything else is plain and simple bullshit .
I do n't fancy anyone would deny a 17-year-old the right to speak at a rally , for example .
How is this any different ?
Except , of course , for the fact that a school principal has no legal authority whatsoever over a student beyond what the contract with him or his parents ( in the case of a minor ) allows , and never in a situation where the student is n't under immediate care of the school .
This whole thing is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legal age affects several rights, like the right to vote, to drink, or to drive (though at a different age, it's the same principle).But this has nothing to do with First Amendment rights.
These belong to everyone.
Even toddlers.
Before you know how to speak, your speech is protected.
Anything else is plain and simple bullshit.
I don't fancy anyone would deny a 17-year-old the right to speak at a rally, for example.
How is this any different?
Except, of course, for the fact that a school principal has no legal authority whatsoever over a student beyond what the contract with him or his parents (in the case of a minor) allows, and never in a situation where the student isn't under immediate care of the school.
This whole thing is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208</id>
	<title>Some Legal Background</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1266859200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Not a lawyer but found <a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm" title="umkc.edu">resources</a> [umkc.edu] (site is cosmetically terrible but information rich) on some case histories in this sort of thing.  <br> <br>

Probably the closest case to that is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse\_v.\_Frederick" title="wikipedia.org">Morse v. Frederick</a> [wikipedia.org] in which students stood just off school property with a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS."  Basically what it seems to come down to is that you have some first amendment rights as a minor in school unless your message contradicts stated school goals or hinders the learning process.  <br> <br>

So the banner contradicted their anti-drug agenda and therefore it was ruled as okay to suspend them for the act.  Similarly I guess a judge could interpret undermining a teacher's status as an authority figure to be an inhibition of the learning process in the facebook page.  I don't agree with that ruling but this didn't seem to be addressed in the lengthy opinion piece presented above.  <br> <br>

A classic case of a message not hindering the learning process was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker\_v.\_Des\_Moines\_Independent\_Community\_School\_District" title="wikipedia.org">Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District</a> [wikipedia.org] in which black armbands were worn to protest the Vietnam war.  <br> <br>

In high school some kids circulated a <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=223816&amp;cid=18121734" title="slashdot.org">'zine that was laden with four letter words</a> [slashdot.org] and was distributed via a student's access to his mom's work's photocopying machine during after hours.  We were aware that some of them had been confiscated and you got detention for profanity but since we never really attacked teachers, it never resulted in suspension or worse.  During the 'vest craze' of the late nineties, I fashioned a vest out of duct tape and made "Old Navy Sucks, GAP Blows" out of duct tape letters on it.  And I was allowed to wear it throughout the whole school day claiming it was a political message if anyone gave me grief.  I actually recall being pretty disappointed at the <i>lack</i> of attention I was given for it.  The school had some rule about profanity so if you wore a shirt with profanity you had to turn it inside out.  I guess 'sucks/blows' wasn't foul enough.  <br> <br>

Long story short: as a minor you have some free speech rights in school but not all of them.  Any that violate the reason you're in school are restricted.  Any that undermine the stated goals of your institution are restricted.  I think it's sad that this gets escalated so much<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... was the teacher really that insecure of themselves that they thought the Facebook group hurt them?  <br> <br>

Whatever was going on <a href="http://libertarianrock.com/1999/09/vegan-student-may-seek-new-judge/" title="libertarianrock.com">in Utah needs to be looked at though</a> [libertarianrock.com].  That story was downright disturbing.  "Curbing the straight edge movement" was one of their school's stated goals?!  Vegan statements were construed as 'straight edge'?!  I must have missed something about the dangers of the straight edge movement and veganism because that smells like complete administrative bullshit from where I'm standing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a lawyer but found resources [ umkc.edu ] ( site is cosmetically terrible but information rich ) on some case histories in this sort of thing .
Probably the closest case to that is Morse v. Frederick [ wikipedia.org ] in which students stood just off school property with a banner reading " BONG HiTS 4 JESUS .
" Basically what it seems to come down to is that you have some first amendment rights as a minor in school unless your message contradicts stated school goals or hinders the learning process .
So the banner contradicted their anti-drug agenda and therefore it was ruled as okay to suspend them for the act .
Similarly I guess a judge could interpret undermining a teacher 's status as an authority figure to be an inhibition of the learning process in the facebook page .
I do n't agree with that ruling but this did n't seem to be addressed in the lengthy opinion piece presented above .
A classic case of a message not hindering the learning process was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District [ wikipedia.org ] in which black armbands were worn to protest the Vietnam war .
In high school some kids circulated a 'zine that was laden with four letter words [ slashdot.org ] and was distributed via a student 's access to his mom 's work 's photocopying machine during after hours .
We were aware that some of them had been confiscated and you got detention for profanity but since we never really attacked teachers , it never resulted in suspension or worse .
During the 'vest craze ' of the late nineties , I fashioned a vest out of duct tape and made " Old Navy Sucks , GAP Blows " out of duct tape letters on it .
And I was allowed to wear it throughout the whole school day claiming it was a political message if anyone gave me grief .
I actually recall being pretty disappointed at the lack of attention I was given for it .
The school had some rule about profanity so if you wore a shirt with profanity you had to turn it inside out .
I guess 'sucks/blows ' was n't foul enough .
Long story short : as a minor you have some free speech rights in school but not all of them .
Any that violate the reason you 're in school are restricted .
Any that undermine the stated goals of your institution are restricted .
I think it 's sad that this gets escalated so much ... was the teacher really that insecure of themselves that they thought the Facebook group hurt them ?
Whatever was going on in Utah needs to be looked at though [ libertarianrock.com ] .
That story was downright disturbing .
" Curbing the straight edge movement " was one of their school 's stated goals ? !
Vegan statements were construed as 'straight edge ' ? !
I must have missed something about the dangers of the straight edge movement and veganism because that smells like complete administrative bullshit from where I 'm standing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Not a lawyer but found resources [umkc.edu] (site is cosmetically terrible but information rich) on some case histories in this sort of thing.
Probably the closest case to that is Morse v. Frederick [wikipedia.org] in which students stood just off school property with a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.
"  Basically what it seems to come down to is that you have some first amendment rights as a minor in school unless your message contradicts stated school goals or hinders the learning process.
So the banner contradicted their anti-drug agenda and therefore it was ruled as okay to suspend them for the act.
Similarly I guess a judge could interpret undermining a teacher's status as an authority figure to be an inhibition of the learning process in the facebook page.
I don't agree with that ruling but this didn't seem to be addressed in the lengthy opinion piece presented above.
A classic case of a message not hindering the learning process was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District [wikipedia.org] in which black armbands were worn to protest the Vietnam war.
In high school some kids circulated a 'zine that was laden with four letter words [slashdot.org] and was distributed via a student's access to his mom's work's photocopying machine during after hours.
We were aware that some of them had been confiscated and you got detention for profanity but since we never really attacked teachers, it never resulted in suspension or worse.
During the 'vest craze' of the late nineties, I fashioned a vest out of duct tape and made "Old Navy Sucks, GAP Blows" out of duct tape letters on it.
And I was allowed to wear it throughout the whole school day claiming it was a political message if anyone gave me grief.
I actually recall being pretty disappointed at the lack of attention I was given for it.
The school had some rule about profanity so if you wore a shirt with profanity you had to turn it inside out.
I guess 'sucks/blows' wasn't foul enough.
Long story short: as a minor you have some free speech rights in school but not all of them.
Any that violate the reason you're in school are restricted.
Any that undermine the stated goals of your institution are restricted.
I think it's sad that this gets escalated so much ... was the teacher really that insecure of themselves that they thought the Facebook group hurt them?
Whatever was going on in Utah needs to be looked at though [libertarianrock.com].
That story was downright disturbing.
"Curbing the straight edge movement" was one of their school's stated goals?!
Vegan statements were construed as 'straight edge'?!
I must have missed something about the dangers of the straight edge movement and veganism because that smells like complete administrative bullshit from where I'm standing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31243740</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1266936660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question isn't "Is it considered vulgar right now" but rather "Why is it considered vulgar?"  As other posters have pointed out, showing a woman's ankles was, at one point, considered vulgar in the US.  Why can we show nearly the entire breast in a skimpy bikini, but showing a single nipple is not allowed.  Is the nipple itself vulgar?  Is it the whole breast?  If it is the whole breast, would a shirt that covered a woman's entire top (obscuring the shape and size of her breasts) be alright if it exposed her nipples?  If it is just the nipples, than why is that small patch of skin considered so disgusting or sexually exciting that it must be covered up at all times under penalty of law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is n't " Is it considered vulgar right now " but rather " Why is it considered vulgar ?
" As other posters have pointed out , showing a woman 's ankles was , at one point , considered vulgar in the US .
Why can we show nearly the entire breast in a skimpy bikini , but showing a single nipple is not allowed .
Is the nipple itself vulgar ?
Is it the whole breast ?
If it is the whole breast , would a shirt that covered a woman 's entire top ( obscuring the shape and size of her breasts ) be alright if it exposed her nipples ?
If it is just the nipples , than why is that small patch of skin considered so disgusting or sexually exciting that it must be covered up at all times under penalty of law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question isn't "Is it considered vulgar right now" but rather "Why is it considered vulgar?
"  As other posters have pointed out, showing a woman's ankles was, at one point, considered vulgar in the US.
Why can we show nearly the entire breast in a skimpy bikini, but showing a single nipple is not allowed.
Is the nipple itself vulgar?
Is it the whole breast?
If it is the whole breast, would a shirt that covered a woman's entire top (obscuring the shape and size of her breasts) be alright if it exposed her nipples?
If it is just the nipples, than why is that small patch of skin considered so disgusting or sexually exciting that it must be covered up at all times under penalty of law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230276</id>
	<title>because..</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1266859500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place?</p></div><p>Probably the same reasoning they used when thinking it was ok to <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/18/1846222/PA-School-Spied-On-Students-Via-School-Issued-Laptop-Webcams?art\_pos=3" title="slashdot.org">spy on students and their families with school-issued laptops</a> [slashdot.org]...a severe God complex.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place ? Probably the same reasoning they used when thinking it was ok to spy on students and their families with school-issued laptops [ slashdot.org ] ...a severe God complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place?Probably the same reasoning they used when thinking it was ok to spy on students and their families with school-issued laptops [slashdot.org]...a severe God complex.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232722</id>
	<title>Free speech issue</title>
	<author>peteybear</author>
	<datestamp>1266866700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The principal was obviously a product of the US education system system, which is apparently too busy with the science/religion question to worry about something as mundane as free speech. That, plus a mistrust of even the least qualified lawyer to tell them what the constitution says about free speech, makes these issues increasingly frustrating, and expensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The principal was obviously a product of the US education system system , which is apparently too busy with the science/religion question to worry about something as mundane as free speech .
That , plus a mistrust of even the least qualified lawyer to tell them what the constitution says about free speech , makes these issues increasingly frustrating , and expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The principal was obviously a product of the US education system system, which is apparently too busy with the science/religion question to worry about something as mundane as free speech.
That, plus a mistrust of even the least qualified lawyer to tell them what the constitution says about free speech, makes these issues increasingly frustrating, and expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31236118</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266834240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in addition, we've gotten to the point that we (as a society) can't seem to see a woman's breast as anything other than a sexual object. If a woman breastfeeds her child in public, she risks being told to cover up her breasts because someone doesn't get that her breast isn't being used in a sexual manner but is being used to feed her child.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>But breasts are involved so therefore someone, somewhere might see this as sexual and therefore we must push them out of sight entirely.</p></div><p>I get rock hard when I see a hottie with a milk swollen tit out and something sucking on it.  I also get off on lactation, nipples dripping milk, etc. It's some of the most potent boner-maker available.  There's a ton of porn on the subject. : )</p><p> <strong>Men are attracted to fertility and all physical attributes that enable it.  That is a simple fact of biology! </strong> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in addition , we 've gotten to the point that we ( as a society ) ca n't seem to see a woman 's breast as anything other than a sexual object .
If a woman breastfeeds her child in public , she risks being told to cover up her breasts because someone does n't get that her breast is n't being used in a sexual manner but is being used to feed her child.But breasts are involved so therefore someone , somewhere might see this as sexual and therefore we must push them out of sight entirely.I get rock hard when I see a hottie with a milk swollen tit out and something sucking on it .
I also get off on lactation , nipples dripping milk , etc .
It 's some of the most potent boner-maker available .
There 's a ton of porn on the subject .
: ) Men are attracted to fertility and all physical attributes that enable it .
That is a simple fact of biology !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in addition, we've gotten to the point that we (as a society) can't seem to see a woman's breast as anything other than a sexual object.
If a woman breastfeeds her child in public, she risks being told to cover up her breasts because someone doesn't get that her breast isn't being used in a sexual manner but is being used to feed her child.But breasts are involved so therefore someone, somewhere might see this as sexual and therefore we must push them out of sight entirely.I get rock hard when I see a hottie with a milk swollen tit out and something sucking on it.
I also get off on lactation, nipples dripping milk, etc.
It's some of the most potent boner-maker available.
There's a ton of porn on the subject.
: ) Men are attracted to fertility and all physical attributes that enable it.
That is a simple fact of biology!  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232084</id>
	<title>This applies...</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1266864720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't legislate stupidity.</p><p>Sure the kid can say what she wants and should be able to say what she wants.  But you know, if you don't have anything nice to say, keep your mouth shut.  If you're going to get all teen angsty over this teacher you don't like, text your friends, not the world.  You're a teenager, not a two year old.</p><p>I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend your right, whilst rolling my eyes and giving heavy sighs, to say it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't legislate stupidity.Sure the kid can say what she wants and should be able to say what she wants .
But you know , if you do n't have anything nice to say , keep your mouth shut .
If you 're going to get all teen angsty over this teacher you do n't like , text your friends , not the world .
You 're a teenager , not a two year old.I may not like what you have to say , but I 'll defend your right , whilst rolling my eyes and giving heavy sighs , to say it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't legislate stupidity.Sure the kid can say what she wants and should be able to say what she wants.
But you know, if you don't have anything nice to say, keep your mouth shut.
If you're going to get all teen angsty over this teacher you don't like, text your friends, not the world.
You're a teenager, not a two year old.I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend your right, whilst rolling my eyes and giving heavy sighs, to say it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233564</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't that different from the adult world.</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1266869700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more like calling your local police chief "the worst cop I've ever met" in a public forum and being arrested for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more like calling your local police chief " the worst cop I 've ever met " in a public forum and being arrested for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more like calling your local police chief "the worst cop I've ever met" in a public forum and being arrested for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230452</id>
	<title>Teacher</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a teacher, it is best to suspend these kids.  From the outside it appears harmless.  But inside the building, these things boil over because the people involvedd are actually together.  Facebook and blogs are done at a distance; but confronting the content of those writings takes place at school in the form of knives, yelling and disruption, fighting, and in our inner city also gang payback, destroyed property and rape.</p><p>As teachers, we have enough crazy people and nutty kids go bonkers and violent during the day, without having to pile on more tension from trash written at home.  The judge is clueless and so is anyone that disagrees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a teacher , it is best to suspend these kids .
From the outside it appears harmless .
But inside the building , these things boil over because the people involvedd are actually together .
Facebook and blogs are done at a distance ; but confronting the content of those writings takes place at school in the form of knives , yelling and disruption , fighting , and in our inner city also gang payback , destroyed property and rape.As teachers , we have enough crazy people and nutty kids go bonkers and violent during the day , without having to pile on more tension from trash written at home .
The judge is clueless and so is anyone that disagrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a teacher, it is best to suspend these kids.
From the outside it appears harmless.
But inside the building, these things boil over because the people involvedd are actually together.
Facebook and blogs are done at a distance; but confronting the content of those writings takes place at school in the form of knives, yelling and disruption, fighting, and in our inner city also gang payback, destroyed property and rape.As teachers, we have enough crazy people and nutty kids go bonkers and violent during the day, without having to pile on more tension from trash written at home.
The judge is clueless and so is anyone that disagrees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231742</id>
	<title>Re:Some Legal Background</title>
	<author>Somebody Is Using My</author>
	<datestamp>1266863760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And when the hell did straight edge have anything to do with being vegan? One can be one and not the other, or one can be both. Neither group is violent, if anything they're likely to be LESS violent than the jocks and hiphop kids. </i></p><p>I'm not in the least bit familiar with the Straight Edge movement (I'd not even heard of it until this discussion), but if we are to believe Wikipedia:</p><p><i>"By the early 1990s, militant Straight Edge was a well-known presence in the scene&mdash;the term militant meaning someone who is dedicated and outspoken, but also believed to be narrow-minded, judgmental, and potentially violent. The militant Straight Edger was characterized by less tolerance for non-straight-edge people, more outward pride in being Straight Edge, more outspokenness, <b>and the willingness to resort to violence in order to promote clean living."</b> </i></p><p>Apparently the group became less "militant" after the turn of the century, but since the case in question revolved around an event that occurred in 1999, I can imagine school officials being worried about "dangerous" followers of Straight Edge and felt the steps they took were necessary for the safety of their students. It's an indefensible position (don't teachers talk to kids anymore?), but I can imagine that being the train of logic that they followed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when the hell did straight edge have anything to do with being vegan ?
One can be one and not the other , or one can be both .
Neither group is violent , if anything they 're likely to be LESS violent than the jocks and hiphop kids .
I 'm not in the least bit familiar with the Straight Edge movement ( I 'd not even heard of it until this discussion ) , but if we are to believe Wikipedia : " By the early 1990s , militant Straight Edge was a well-known presence in the scene    the term militant meaning someone who is dedicated and outspoken , but also believed to be narrow-minded , judgmental , and potentially violent .
The militant Straight Edger was characterized by less tolerance for non-straight-edge people , more outward pride in being Straight Edge , more outspokenness , and the willingness to resort to violence in order to promote clean living .
" Apparently the group became less " militant " after the turn of the century , but since the case in question revolved around an event that occurred in 1999 , I can imagine school officials being worried about " dangerous " followers of Straight Edge and felt the steps they took were necessary for the safety of their students .
It 's an indefensible position ( do n't teachers talk to kids anymore ?
) , but I can imagine that being the train of logic that they followed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when the hell did straight edge have anything to do with being vegan?
One can be one and not the other, or one can be both.
Neither group is violent, if anything they're likely to be LESS violent than the jocks and hiphop kids.
I'm not in the least bit familiar with the Straight Edge movement (I'd not even heard of it until this discussion), but if we are to believe Wikipedia:"By the early 1990s, militant Straight Edge was a well-known presence in the scene—the term militant meaning someone who is dedicated and outspoken, but also believed to be narrow-minded, judgmental, and potentially violent.
The militant Straight Edger was characterized by less tolerance for non-straight-edge people, more outward pride in being Straight Edge, more outspokenness, and the willingness to resort to violence in order to promote clean living.
" Apparently the group became less "militant" after the turn of the century, but since the case in question revolved around an event that occurred in 1999, I can imagine school officials being worried about "dangerous" followers of Straight Edge and felt the steps they took were necessary for the safety of their students.
It's an indefensible position (don't teachers talk to kids anymore?
), but I can imagine that being the train of logic that they followed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231002</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>TimedArt</author>
	<datestamp>1266861960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want.</p></div><p>
As an American, this is pretty much how I picture all of Europe, is that inaccurate?.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want .
As an American , this is pretty much how I picture all of Europe , is that inaccurate ? .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want.
As an American, this is pretty much how I picture all of Europe, is that inaccurate?.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230222</id>
	<title>Tricking us into reading TFA!</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1266859260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>How dare they trick us into reading TFA!  It should be my constitutional right to have a genuine Slashdot summary complete with mis-quotes and misinformation not this bloated full page article masquerading as the former.  I don't have time to read TFA, I'm supposed to be working...</htmltext>
<tokenext>How dare they trick us into reading TFA !
It should be my constitutional right to have a genuine Slashdot summary complete with mis-quotes and misinformation not this bloated full page article masquerading as the former .
I do n't have time to read TFA , I 'm supposed to be working.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How dare they trick us into reading TFA!
It should be my constitutional right to have a genuine Slashdot summary complete with mis-quotes and misinformation not this bloated full page article masquerading as the former.
I don't have time to read TFA, I'm supposed to be working...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233470</id>
	<title>How is this related to the "cutoff"-age?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266869400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how the last part of the text (about the arbitrary age-limit of 18) relates the the first part (about free speech for minors). Would it be OK to suspend a 10-year-old for criticising a teacher (in or out of school)?</p><p>There are plenty of activities that reasonably can be allowed for adults but not children. (E.g. alcohol does more damage to a childs brain than to an adults. Children in general do not have the experience needed to determine when signing a legally binding contract is good or bad for them etc.) But I can see no reason why a child or teenager should not be allowed to express views that an adult would be allowed to, whether they are 5, 7 or 17 years old. (Whether we adults should to take those views seriously is for us to decide when we hear them.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how the last part of the text ( about the arbitrary age-limit of 18 ) relates the the first part ( about free speech for minors ) .
Would it be OK to suspend a 10-year-old for criticising a teacher ( in or out of school ) ? There are plenty of activities that reasonably can be allowed for adults but not children .
( E.g. alcohol does more damage to a childs brain than to an adults .
Children in general do not have the experience needed to determine when signing a legally binding contract is good or bad for them etc .
) But I can see no reason why a child or teenager should not be allowed to express views that an adult would be allowed to , whether they are 5 , 7 or 17 years old .
( Whether we adults should to take those views seriously is for us to decide when we hear them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how the last part of the text (about the arbitrary age-limit of 18) relates the the first part (about free speech for minors).
Would it be OK to suspend a 10-year-old for criticising a teacher (in or out of school)?There are plenty of activities that reasonably can be allowed for adults but not children.
(E.g. alcohol does more damage to a childs brain than to an adults.
Children in general do not have the experience needed to determine when signing a legally binding contract is good or bad for them etc.
) But I can see no reason why a child or teenager should not be allowed to express views that an adult would be allowed to, whether they are 5, 7 or 17 years old.
(Whether we adults should to take those views seriously is for us to decide when we hear them.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31237074</id>
	<title>Re:ARGH!!! Who the -x\%&amp;(#- cares?!</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1266837180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, right, so we should ignore the plight of the last legally oppressed group in our society, the young, because in your mind there are brown people to worry about.  Row, row, fight da powa!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , right , so we should ignore the plight of the last legally oppressed group in our society , the young , because in your mind there are brown people to worry about .
Row , row , fight da powa !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, right, so we should ignore the plight of the last legally oppressed group in our society, the young, because in your mind there are brown people to worry about.
Row, row, fight da powa!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234102</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1266871500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To confirm the reports of my co-responder:
<br> <br>
Would they care if a woman was topless? Probably not, although the Brits don't strike me as any less repressed in this respect than any Americans I've met.<br> <br>

Are there hot naked women running all over the place? Not even close. Strip clubs and billboards in the East are the closest you'll get most of the time, and the only time you'll get it without seeing 100x more naked men in the process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To confirm the reports of my co-responder : Would they care if a woman was topless ?
Probably not , although the Brits do n't strike me as any less repressed in this respect than any Americans I 've met .
Are there hot naked women running all over the place ?
Not even close .
Strip clubs and billboards in the East are the closest you 'll get most of the time , and the only time you 'll get it without seeing 100x more naked men in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To confirm the reports of my co-responder:
 
Would they care if a woman was topless?
Probably not, although the Brits don't strike me as any less repressed in this respect than any Americans I've met.
Are there hot naked women running all over the place?
Not even close.
Strip clubs and billboards in the East are the closest you'll get most of the time, and the only time you'll get it without seeing 100x more naked men in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231772</id>
	<title>Re:How did we get here?</title>
	<author>King Louie</author>
	<datestamp>1266863820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More than socialized education, it is the ever-increasing tendency to invest the schools with responsibilities beyond teaching. When schools are insisting students perform "community service" in order to graduate, are pressed into service as monitors of their charges' weight, and similar activities having nothing to do with the conveyance of academic knowledge, then it is only natural that some administrators will come to see themselves as the arbiters of all student behavior.</p><p>Too many school administrators increasingly tell parents that they are the "experts" who know best how to run their kids' education and that parents need to butt out. Power tends to corrupt; this is only the logical extension of a culture where administrators feel they are the final authority on child rearing.</p><p>To be fair, much of the blame must be laid at the feet of politicians who insist that schools be used to effect social change to that politician's liking. Leave the schools to teach the three Rs and leave the social engineering out of it and this sort of problem will cease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More than socialized education , it is the ever-increasing tendency to invest the schools with responsibilities beyond teaching .
When schools are insisting students perform " community service " in order to graduate , are pressed into service as monitors of their charges ' weight , and similar activities having nothing to do with the conveyance of academic knowledge , then it is only natural that some administrators will come to see themselves as the arbiters of all student behavior.Too many school administrators increasingly tell parents that they are the " experts " who know best how to run their kids ' education and that parents need to butt out .
Power tends to corrupt ; this is only the logical extension of a culture where administrators feel they are the final authority on child rearing.To be fair , much of the blame must be laid at the feet of politicians who insist that schools be used to effect social change to that politician 's liking .
Leave the schools to teach the three Rs and leave the social engineering out of it and this sort of problem will cease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than socialized education, it is the ever-increasing tendency to invest the schools with responsibilities beyond teaching.
When schools are insisting students perform "community service" in order to graduate, are pressed into service as monitors of their charges' weight, and similar activities having nothing to do with the conveyance of academic knowledge, then it is only natural that some administrators will come to see themselves as the arbiters of all student behavior.Too many school administrators increasingly tell parents that they are the "experts" who know best how to run their kids' education and that parents need to butt out.
Power tends to corrupt; this is only the logical extension of a culture where administrators feel they are the final authority on child rearing.To be fair, much of the blame must be laid at the feet of politicians who insist that schools be used to effect social change to that politician's liking.
Leave the schools to teach the three Rs and leave the social engineering out of it and this sort of problem will cease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231536</id>
	<title>The age of majority is NOT arbitrary.</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1266863220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recent studies have shown that the executive portion of the brain, that is, the portion that makes complex decisions, doesn't fully mature until the early 20s.  Important decisions, like voting, sexual activity, college major, marriage, etc, are controlled by this portion of the brain.  The age of 18 is a balance between sexual development and mental development.  By this age, most of the important mental capacities have reached maturity.  The age of 18 isn't arbitrary.  It may differ from culture to culture, but each culture has made this decision based on accurate observations and the responsibilities of adulthood in their society.</p><p>In fact, what one society values and requires of people may differ from another, and thus necessitate a different age of majority.  An agrarian society may choose the age of 13 because by that age, you are mentally developed enough to function as an adult.  You may not be mentally developed enough to choose a spouse, and therefore have one chosen for you by your parents, but you don't need to choose a career or even drive a car.</p><p>Modern western societies require much more by way of executive decisions, and place the burden of such decisions on the individual.  Adult members of our society need to be capable of choosing their own career, their own spouse, and live with the consequences of their sexual choices without having the large network of social support that more "primitive" societies provide.  This is also supported by many studies (which I am too lazy to cite at this time) that show a much greater rate of divorce among those who marry as teens (under the age of 20), the frequency by which college students change majors, and a higher rate of accidents, deaths, and road citations (per person) among new teenage drivers (16-19 year olds with less than 2 years of driving experience) vs. older new drivers (25-30 year olds with less than 2 years of driving experience).</p><p>It's my opinion that everyone should be considered a minor until age 22.  That means no drinking, voting, marriage, sex, driving, military service, etc, should be permitted until the age of 22.  College should be an extension of high school, made compulsory, and made more general.  This would be more in line with the expectations we place on modern adults, and while it may delay the granting of liberties, it would equip them with the tools they need to deal with the demands we expect of them already.  Of course, this would require many changes across all aspects of society, and therefore is infeasible at this time.</p><p>Here are some links to support my claims:</p><p>http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtml</p><p>http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/News/Executive-Function-Part-Four-Brain-growth-and-the-development-of-executive-function.aspx?articleID=8071&amp;categoryID=news-type</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This research shows that the frontal cortex develops rapidly in early childhood, with important changes occurring at particular ages (at the end of the first year of life, between 3 and 6 years, and around puberty), and then continues to develop into adulthood. Grey matter, for example, doesn&rsquo;t reach adult levels in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex until at least the end of adolescence, and myelination of this region continues into the 20s or possibly 30s.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recent studies have shown that the executive portion of the brain , that is , the portion that makes complex decisions , does n't fully mature until the early 20s .
Important decisions , like voting , sexual activity , college major , marriage , etc , are controlled by this portion of the brain .
The age of 18 is a balance between sexual development and mental development .
By this age , most of the important mental capacities have reached maturity .
The age of 18 is n't arbitrary .
It may differ from culture to culture , but each culture has made this decision based on accurate observations and the responsibilities of adulthood in their society.In fact , what one society values and requires of people may differ from another , and thus necessitate a different age of majority .
An agrarian society may choose the age of 13 because by that age , you are mentally developed enough to function as an adult .
You may not be mentally developed enough to choose a spouse , and therefore have one chosen for you by your parents , but you do n't need to choose a career or even drive a car.Modern western societies require much more by way of executive decisions , and place the burden of such decisions on the individual .
Adult members of our society need to be capable of choosing their own career , their own spouse , and live with the consequences of their sexual choices without having the large network of social support that more " primitive " societies provide .
This is also supported by many studies ( which I am too lazy to cite at this time ) that show a much greater rate of divorce among those who marry as teens ( under the age of 20 ) , the frequency by which college students change majors , and a higher rate of accidents , deaths , and road citations ( per person ) among new teenage drivers ( 16-19 year olds with less than 2 years of driving experience ) vs. older new drivers ( 25-30 year olds with less than 2 years of driving experience ) .It 's my opinion that everyone should be considered a minor until age 22 .
That means no drinking , voting , marriage , sex , driving , military service , etc , should be permitted until the age of 22 .
College should be an extension of high school , made compulsory , and made more general .
This would be more in line with the expectations we place on modern adults , and while it may delay the granting of liberties , it would equip them with the tools they need to deal with the demands we expect of them already .
Of course , this would require many changes across all aspects of society , and therefore is infeasible at this time.Here are some links to support my claims : http : //www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtmlhttp : //www.aboutkidshealth.ca/News/Executive-Function-Part-Four-Brain-growth-and-the-development-of-executive-function.aspx ? articleID = 8071&amp;categoryID = news-typeThis research shows that the frontal cortex develops rapidly in early childhood , with important changes occurring at particular ages ( at the end of the first year of life , between 3 and 6 years , and around puberty ) , and then continues to develop into adulthood .
Grey matter , for example , doesn    t reach adult levels in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex until at least the end of adolescence , and myelination of this region continues into the 20s or possibly 30s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recent studies have shown that the executive portion of the brain, that is, the portion that makes complex decisions, doesn't fully mature until the early 20s.
Important decisions, like voting, sexual activity, college major, marriage, etc, are controlled by this portion of the brain.
The age of 18 is a balance between sexual development and mental development.
By this age, most of the important mental capacities have reached maturity.
The age of 18 isn't arbitrary.
It may differ from culture to culture, but each culture has made this decision based on accurate observations and the responsibilities of adulthood in their society.In fact, what one society values and requires of people may differ from another, and thus necessitate a different age of majority.
An agrarian society may choose the age of 13 because by that age, you are mentally developed enough to function as an adult.
You may not be mentally developed enough to choose a spouse, and therefore have one chosen for you by your parents, but you don't need to choose a career or even drive a car.Modern western societies require much more by way of executive decisions, and place the burden of such decisions on the individual.
Adult members of our society need to be capable of choosing their own career, their own spouse, and live with the consequences of their sexual choices without having the large network of social support that more "primitive" societies provide.
This is also supported by many studies (which I am too lazy to cite at this time) that show a much greater rate of divorce among those who marry as teens (under the age of 20), the frequency by which college students change majors, and a higher rate of accidents, deaths, and road citations (per person) among new teenage drivers (16-19 year olds with less than 2 years of driving experience) vs. older new drivers (25-30 year olds with less than 2 years of driving experience).It's my opinion that everyone should be considered a minor until age 22.
That means no drinking, voting, marriage, sex, driving, military service, etc, should be permitted until the age of 22.
College should be an extension of high school, made compulsory, and made more general.
This would be more in line with the expectations we place on modern adults, and while it may delay the granting of liberties, it would equip them with the tools they need to deal with the demands we expect of them already.
Of course, this would require many changes across all aspects of society, and therefore is infeasible at this time.Here are some links to support my claims:http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtmlhttp://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/News/Executive-Function-Part-Four-Brain-growth-and-the-development-of-executive-function.aspx?articleID=8071&amp;categoryID=news-typeThis research shows that the frontal cortex develops rapidly in early childhood, with important changes occurring at particular ages (at the end of the first year of life, between 3 and 6 years, and around puberty), and then continues to develop into adulthood.
Grey matter, for example, doesn’t reach adult levels in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex until at least the end of adolescence, and myelination of this region continues into the 20s or possibly 30s.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230426</id>
	<title>Origins of ignorance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously the principle went to public school... there we learn that it is our right to rail against anything and everything (rhetorically) before we learn to study the nature of the system in which we operate. Venting is a national past time, and the opportunity to do so has been greatly expanded by the web. (Thank you Slashdot!)</p><p>Apparently this principle runs a model school because he has enough time to find and suspend a student for criticizing  one of his teachers. No need to look into the merits of the argument, the politeness of the presentation or the ramifications of his own decision. I think any student who implicitly acknowledges the limits of their experience by qualifying the scope criticism (e.g. "the worst teacher I've ever met") deserves accolades for being both polite and self aware. This principle could take lessons from the student.</p><p>How would I fix this situation. Send the for training as a mediator, demote the principle and investigate the allegations of incompetence on the part of the teacher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the principle went to public school... there we learn that it is our right to rail against anything and everything ( rhetorically ) before we learn to study the nature of the system in which we operate .
Venting is a national past time , and the opportunity to do so has been greatly expanded by the web .
( Thank you Slashdot !
) Apparently this principle runs a model school because he has enough time to find and suspend a student for criticizing one of his teachers .
No need to look into the merits of the argument , the politeness of the presentation or the ramifications of his own decision .
I think any student who implicitly acknowledges the limits of their experience by qualifying the scope criticism ( e.g .
" the worst teacher I 've ever met " ) deserves accolades for being both polite and self aware .
This principle could take lessons from the student.How would I fix this situation .
Send the for training as a mediator , demote the principle and investigate the allegations of incompetence on the part of the teacher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the principle went to public school... there we learn that it is our right to rail against anything and everything (rhetorically) before we learn to study the nature of the system in which we operate.
Venting is a national past time, and the opportunity to do so has been greatly expanded by the web.
(Thank you Slashdot!
)Apparently this principle runs a model school because he has enough time to find and suspend a student for criticizing  one of his teachers.
No need to look into the merits of the argument, the politeness of the presentation or the ramifications of his own decision.
I think any student who implicitly acknowledges the limits of their experience by qualifying the scope criticism (e.g.
"the worst teacher I've ever met") deserves accolades for being both polite and self aware.
This principle could take lessons from the student.How would I fix this situation.
Send the for training as a mediator, demote the principle and investigate the allegations of incompetence on the part of the teacher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460</id>
	<title>How did we get here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what happens when you have socialized education, rather than a competitive market where parents are customers, rather than consumers of a limited good (consumer and customer are not the same social standing). If education were run more like a business, the schools would actually be afraid of overreaching against parental authority because the parents would be the ones writing the checks that keep the school afloat.</p><p>Of course, since parental authority is meaningless to the public schools aside from when it means parental responsibility (more specifically, culpability), they feel perfectly free to take the legal equivalent of a sledgehammer to their children and teens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when you have socialized education , rather than a competitive market where parents are customers , rather than consumers of a limited good ( consumer and customer are not the same social standing ) .
If education were run more like a business , the schools would actually be afraid of overreaching against parental authority because the parents would be the ones writing the checks that keep the school afloat.Of course , since parental authority is meaningless to the public schools aside from when it means parental responsibility ( more specifically , culpability ) , they feel perfectly free to take the legal equivalent of a sledgehammer to their children and teens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when you have socialized education, rather than a competitive market where parents are customers, rather than consumers of a limited good (consumer and customer are not the same social standing).
If education were run more like a business, the schools would actually be afraid of overreaching against parental authority because the parents would be the ones writing the checks that keep the school afloat.Of course, since parental authority is meaningless to the public schools aside from when it means parental responsibility (more specifically, culpability), they feel perfectly free to take the legal equivalent of a sledgehammer to their children and teens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232092</id>
	<title>This has nothing to do with free speech.</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1266864720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL but If I slandered my employer on facebook I would expect to be fired. I'm not sure how slandering a teacher at your school is (or should be) any different.</p><p>While it's legal, and you are within your free speech rights to post anything you want, that doesn't protect you from repercussions from the organization you are talking smack about. It protects you from getting arrested ; )</p><p>The school is well within it's rights to suspend a student who's publicly talking smack about a teacher. Free speech is guaranteed by the constitution, not your school's charter.</p><p>IMHO the student made a libelous claim on a public forum. The first amendment doesn't protect her from getting suspended. I guarantee this suit will be dismissed. It should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL but If I slandered my employer on facebook I would expect to be fired .
I 'm not sure how slandering a teacher at your school is ( or should be ) any different.While it 's legal , and you are within your free speech rights to post anything you want , that does n't protect you from repercussions from the organization you are talking smack about .
It protects you from getting arrested ; ) The school is well within it 's rights to suspend a student who 's publicly talking smack about a teacher .
Free speech is guaranteed by the constitution , not your school 's charter.IMHO the student made a libelous claim on a public forum .
The first amendment does n't protect her from getting suspended .
I guarantee this suit will be dismissed .
It should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL but If I slandered my employer on facebook I would expect to be fired.
I'm not sure how slandering a teacher at your school is (or should be) any different.While it's legal, and you are within your free speech rights to post anything you want, that doesn't protect you from repercussions from the organization you are talking smack about.
It protects you from getting arrested ; )The school is well within it's rights to suspend a student who's publicly talking smack about a teacher.
Free speech is guaranteed by the constitution, not your school's charter.IMHO the student made a libelous claim on a public forum.
The first amendment doesn't protect her from getting suspended.
I guarantee this suit will be dismissed.
It should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231034</id>
	<title>Re:Some Legal Background</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1266862080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell are the dangers of being straight edge or vegan????  Oh teh noes, their going to eat tofu after an all night not drinking binge!</p><p>i would have been in trouble in THAT school.</p><p>And when the hell did straight edge have anything to do with being vegan?  One can be one and not the other, or one can be both.  Neither group is violent, if anything they're likely to be LESS violent than the jocks and hiphop kids.  Geez.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell are the dangers of being straight edge or vegan ? ? ? ?
Oh teh noes , their going to eat tofu after an all night not drinking binge ! i would have been in trouble in THAT school.And when the hell did straight edge have anything to do with being vegan ?
One can be one and not the other , or one can be both .
Neither group is violent , if anything they 're likely to be LESS violent than the jocks and hiphop kids .
Geez .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell are the dangers of being straight edge or vegan????
Oh teh noes, their going to eat tofu after an all night not drinking binge!i would have been in trouble in THAT school.And when the hell did straight edge have anything to do with being vegan?
One can be one and not the other, or one can be both.
Neither group is violent, if anything they're likely to be LESS violent than the jocks and hiphop kids.
Geez.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231774</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't that different from the adult world.</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1266863820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if you decided to get another job, your current employer would continue to collect taxes from you and/or send a truant officer around to drag you back to the office?</p><p>The thing is, school is compulsory and it is paid for by non-optional taxation. It is a function of government. That makes it significantly different from an employer-employee relationship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you decided to get another job , your current employer would continue to collect taxes from you and/or send a truant officer around to drag you back to the office ? The thing is , school is compulsory and it is paid for by non-optional taxation .
It is a function of government .
That makes it significantly different from an employer-employee relationship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you decided to get another job, your current employer would continue to collect taxes from you and/or send a truant officer around to drag you back to the office?The thing is, school is compulsory and it is paid for by non-optional taxation.
It is a function of government.
That makes it significantly different from an employer-employee relationship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230866</id>
	<title>Re:Some Legal Background</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1266861600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the Morse decision: SCOTUS ruled that the school could regulate the students speech because it was an "official school event."</p><p>If you wanted to hang the, "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" poster on your bedroom wall, it would be none of the schools damn business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the Morse decision : SCOTUS ruled that the school could regulate the students speech because it was an " official school event .
" If you wanted to hang the , " BONG HiTS 4 JESUS " poster on your bedroom wall , it would be none of the schools damn business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the Morse decision: SCOTUS ruled that the school could regulate the students speech because it was an "official school event.
"If you wanted to hang the, "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" poster on your bedroom wall, it would be none of the schools damn business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230488</id>
	<title>Re:Real Question: Jurisdiction of Public School</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1266860400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about a current student sitting one foot outside the school perimeter holding a sign that reads "The principal is an asshole!"?</p><p>IMHO, anything that disturbs the teaching going on in the classroom should be squashed. Kids need to focus on the big picture and why they are there in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about a current student sitting one foot outside the school perimeter holding a sign that reads " The principal is an asshole !
" ? IMHO , anything that disturbs the teaching going on in the classroom should be squashed .
Kids need to focus on the big picture and why they are there in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about a current student sitting one foot outside the school perimeter holding a sign that reads "The principal is an asshole!
"?IMHO, anything that disturbs the teaching going on in the classroom should be squashed.
Kids need to focus on the big picture and why they are there in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231010</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266861960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So breasts are allowed, but showing a woman's nipple turns it from a normal (ok, maybe slightly more-than-normal) show of skin into "OMG!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"</p></div><p>It&rsquo;s even more ridiculous, because by definition every child has seen and sucked a breast a hundred times.</p><p>It&rsquo;s hypocrisy at its best, and frankly, we here in Germany/France laugh our asses off about it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>(Of course we have our own share of bullshit social conditioning.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So breasts are allowed , but showing a woman 's nipple turns it from a normal ( ok , maybe slightly more-than-normal ) show of skin into " OMG ! ! !
THINK OF THE CHILDREN ! ! !
" It    s even more ridiculous , because by definition every child has seen and sucked a breast a hundred times.It    s hypocrisy at its best , and frankly , we here in Germany/France laugh our asses off about it .
; ) ( Of course we have our own share of bullshit social conditioning .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So breasts are allowed, but showing a woman's nipple turns it from a normal (ok, maybe slightly more-than-normal) show of skin into "OMG!!!
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
"It’s even more ridiculous, because by definition every child has seen and sucked a breast a hundred times.It’s hypocrisy at its best, and frankly, we here in Germany/France laugh our asses off about it.
;)(Of course we have our own share of bullshit social conditioning.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233114</id>
	<title>Children do not have the same rights as adults</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266868140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Children do not have the same rights as adults. Get over it. When you turn the age of an adult for your state (not all use 18), then you get the right to free speech, not before.</p><p>OTOH, she didn't use any school equipment to perform the speech, so the Principal should be sued and lose. Idiot. Even if she had used a school computer to post the article, it wasn't hosted at the school. The hosting provider is what counts in my mind. Did any other students post positive pages about that teacher?</p><p>When I was in school, my swim coach was not very popular with the normal students, but very popular with the swim team. Over her 25+ yrs of being a teacher, she'd learned that if you aren't a hard ass, then students won't do what they are told. Rather than worry about that, she was very clear on the expectations for each student and held them to those expectations.  If she were still alive and teaching, I bet she'd have a bunch of I-hate-teacher-XYZ pages too. She wouldn't care.  A number of state swimming championships covered any issues for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Children do not have the same rights as adults .
Get over it .
When you turn the age of an adult for your state ( not all use 18 ) , then you get the right to free speech , not before.OTOH , she did n't use any school equipment to perform the speech , so the Principal should be sued and lose .
Idiot. Even if she had used a school computer to post the article , it was n't hosted at the school .
The hosting provider is what counts in my mind .
Did any other students post positive pages about that teacher ? When I was in school , my swim coach was not very popular with the normal students , but very popular with the swim team .
Over her 25 + yrs of being a teacher , she 'd learned that if you are n't a hard ass , then students wo n't do what they are told .
Rather than worry about that , she was very clear on the expectations for each student and held them to those expectations .
If she were still alive and teaching , I bet she 'd have a bunch of I-hate-teacher-XYZ pages too .
She would n't care .
A number of state swimming championships covered any issues for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Children do not have the same rights as adults.
Get over it.
When you turn the age of an adult for your state (not all use 18), then you get the right to free speech, not before.OTOH, she didn't use any school equipment to perform the speech, so the Principal should be sued and lose.
Idiot. Even if she had used a school computer to post the article, it wasn't hosted at the school.
The hosting provider is what counts in my mind.
Did any other students post positive pages about that teacher?When I was in school, my swim coach was not very popular with the normal students, but very popular with the swim team.
Over her 25+ yrs of being a teacher, she'd learned that if you aren't a hard ass, then students won't do what they are told.
Rather than worry about that, she was very clear on the expectations for each student and held them to those expectations.
If she were still alive and teaching, I bet she'd have a bunch of I-hate-teacher-XYZ pages too.
She wouldn't care.
A number of state swimming championships covered any issues for us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230842</id>
	<title>How do you...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266861540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you teach students to think, question and critique (skills required in a representative democracy and an information driven society) when they aren't allowed to do it in the vicinity of their school?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you teach students to think , question and critique ( skills required in a representative democracy and an information driven society ) when they are n't allowed to do it in the vicinity of their school ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you teach students to think, question and critique (skills required in a representative democracy and an information driven society) when they aren't allowed to do it in the vicinity of their school?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230468</id>
	<title>Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was painful to read &ndash; here's a summary:
<ul>
<li>Student creates a Facebook group calling one of her teachers "the worst teacher I've ever met". Gets suspended by principal with a permanent record. ACLU steps in (First Amendment blah blah). Case goes to court. Judge orders.</li>
<li>This case was clearly in student's favour, no threat of violence etc</li>
<li>Rant about judges being inconsistent in rulings. Choice quote: "Judges are not like doctors who look at a mammogram, and draw on experience that the general public does not have As such they're acting more like referees (who make a decision so that the game -- or, in this case, society -- can move on) than true "experts"."</li>
<li>Case is really about attitudes towards age changing. Lots of countries put majority age at 18. We shouldn't deny rights to 17 year olds when we allow 25 year olds to have them.</li>
<li>Teenage is a modern conception of age. Suspects because education going on for longer, but does not detract from the fact that "natural" age of maturity has remained the same.</li>
</ul><p>

Ok, now carry on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was painful to read    here 's a summary : Student creates a Facebook group calling one of her teachers " the worst teacher I 've ever met " .
Gets suspended by principal with a permanent record .
ACLU steps in ( First Amendment blah blah ) .
Case goes to court .
Judge orders .
This case was clearly in student 's favour , no threat of violence etc Rant about judges being inconsistent in rulings .
Choice quote : " Judges are not like doctors who look at a mammogram , and draw on experience that the general public does not have As such they 're acting more like referees ( who make a decision so that the game -- or , in this case , society -- can move on ) than true " experts " .
" Case is really about attitudes towards age changing .
Lots of countries put majority age at 18 .
We should n't deny rights to 17 year olds when we allow 25 year olds to have them .
Teenage is a modern conception of age .
Suspects because education going on for longer , but does not detract from the fact that " natural " age of maturity has remained the same .
Ok , now carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was painful to read – here's a summary:

Student creates a Facebook group calling one of her teachers "the worst teacher I've ever met".
Gets suspended by principal with a permanent record.
ACLU steps in (First Amendment blah blah).
Case goes to court.
Judge orders.
This case was clearly in student's favour, no threat of violence etc
Rant about judges being inconsistent in rulings.
Choice quote: "Judges are not like doctors who look at a mammogram, and draw on experience that the general public does not have As such they're acting more like referees (who make a decision so that the game -- or, in this case, society -- can move on) than true "experts".
"
Case is really about attitudes towards age changing.
Lots of countries put majority age at 18.
We shouldn't deny rights to 17 year olds when we allow 25 year olds to have them.
Teenage is a modern conception of age.
Suspects because education going on for longer, but does not detract from the fact that "natural" age of maturity has remained the same.
Ok, now carry on.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232696</id>
	<title>Re:How did we get here?</title>
	<author>LateArthurDent</author>
	<datestamp>1266866580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is what happens when you have socialized education, rather than a competitive market where parents are customers, rather than consumers of a limited good (consumer and customer are not the same social standing). If education were run more like a business, the schools would actually be afraid of overreaching against parental authority because the parents would be the ones writing the checks that keep the school afloat.</p></div><p>Uh...bullshit from someone who has obviously never dealt with private schools.  They ignore an individual parent's opinion just as much, and for the same reason.  The "socialist" school board thinks they need to restrict students speech because all the parents who don't think that type of speech should be allowed from a child are voters.  The private school restricts them because all the parents who don't think that type of speech should be allowed from a child are customers.</p><p>The problem is a societal one.  Our society seems to think that until you turn a certain age, your job is to sit down, shut up, and pay attention to what you're being told.  Raising an objection to this while you're still a "child", even a 17-year-old one, means that you're a disruptive influence that needs to be quelled.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, since parental authority is meaningless to the public schools aside from when it means parental responsibility (more specifically, culpability), they feel perfectly free to take the legal equivalent of a sledgehammer to their children and teens.</p></div><p>The schools aren't suing the children and teens.  They're suspending / expelling them, which is exactly what private schools also do.  The legal issues are raised when the kids and parents sue the schools.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when you have socialized education , rather than a competitive market where parents are customers , rather than consumers of a limited good ( consumer and customer are not the same social standing ) .
If education were run more like a business , the schools would actually be afraid of overreaching against parental authority because the parents would be the ones writing the checks that keep the school afloat.Uh...bullshit from someone who has obviously never dealt with private schools .
They ignore an individual parent 's opinion just as much , and for the same reason .
The " socialist " school board thinks they need to restrict students speech because all the parents who do n't think that type of speech should be allowed from a child are voters .
The private school restricts them because all the parents who do n't think that type of speech should be allowed from a child are customers.The problem is a societal one .
Our society seems to think that until you turn a certain age , your job is to sit down , shut up , and pay attention to what you 're being told .
Raising an objection to this while you 're still a " child " , even a 17-year-old one , means that you 're a disruptive influence that needs to be quelled.Of course , since parental authority is meaningless to the public schools aside from when it means parental responsibility ( more specifically , culpability ) , they feel perfectly free to take the legal equivalent of a sledgehammer to their children and teens.The schools are n't suing the children and teens .
They 're suspending / expelling them , which is exactly what private schools also do .
The legal issues are raised when the kids and parents sue the schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when you have socialized education, rather than a competitive market where parents are customers, rather than consumers of a limited good (consumer and customer are not the same social standing).
If education were run more like a business, the schools would actually be afraid of overreaching against parental authority because the parents would be the ones writing the checks that keep the school afloat.Uh...bullshit from someone who has obviously never dealt with private schools.
They ignore an individual parent's opinion just as much, and for the same reason.
The "socialist" school board thinks they need to restrict students speech because all the parents who don't think that type of speech should be allowed from a child are voters.
The private school restricts them because all the parents who don't think that type of speech should be allowed from a child are customers.The problem is a societal one.
Our society seems to think that until you turn a certain age, your job is to sit down, shut up, and pay attention to what you're being told.
Raising an objection to this while you're still a "child", even a 17-year-old one, means that you're a disruptive influence that needs to be quelled.Of course, since parental authority is meaningless to the public schools aside from when it means parental responsibility (more specifically, culpability), they feel perfectly free to take the legal equivalent of a sledgehammer to their children and teens.The schools aren't suing the children and teens.
They're suspending / expelling them, which is exactly what private schools also do.
The legal issues are raised when the kids and parents sue the schools.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231440</id>
	<title>Re:Real Question: Jurisdiction of Public School</title>
	<author>Blindman</author>
	<datestamp>1266862980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> anything that disturbs the teaching going on in the classroom should be squashed.</p> </div><p>Are you saying that no one has the right to hold up a sign outside the school perimeter criticizing the principal?  If so, then that would also restrict the rights of former students, parents, and teachers, as well.  If the message is "disruptive," why does it matter who is saying it?  Are messages from current students necessarily extra "disruptive?"</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Kids need to focus on the big picture and why they are there in the first place.</p></div><p>Sure, this sounds good, but should be punish those kids that choose not to focus and don't hold up signs criticizing the principal?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>anything that disturbs the teaching going on in the classroom should be squashed .
Are you saying that no one has the right to hold up a sign outside the school perimeter criticizing the principal ?
If so , then that would also restrict the rights of former students , parents , and teachers , as well .
If the message is " disruptive , " why does it matter who is saying it ?
Are messages from current students necessarily extra " disruptive ?
" Kids need to focus on the big picture and why they are there in the first place.Sure , this sounds good , but should be punish those kids that choose not to focus and do n't hold up signs criticizing the principal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> anything that disturbs the teaching going on in the classroom should be squashed.
Are you saying that no one has the right to hold up a sign outside the school perimeter criticizing the principal?
If so, then that would also restrict the rights of former students, parents, and teachers, as well.
If the message is "disruptive," why does it matter who is saying it?
Are messages from current students necessarily extra "disruptive?
" Kids need to focus on the big picture and why they are there in the first place.Sure, this sounds good, but should be punish those kids that choose not to focus and don't hold up signs criticizing the principal?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231192</id>
	<title>I don't think it's about age at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266862380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How did the legal and societal climate of attitudes toward people under 18, lead to a principal thinking that he could punish a 17-year-old for comments that she made about a teacher, on her own time, to a third-party audience?</p></div></blockquote><p>The problem isn't so much with what they thought they <em>could</em> do, as what they <em>wanted</em> to do.  Whether the student were 18 or 13, you darn well know that the government's <em>desire</em> to attack its citizen would be pretty much the same, and the decision to proceed with the attack against a 17-year-old, was purely tactical.</p><p>Ok, maybe we <em>do</em> have a problem where people magically gain rights on their 18th birthday that they didn't have the day before, but <em>long</em> before an administrator working for the government starts asking "Can we get away with this?" they should already have been fired in disgrace, unable to show their face in that city.  But that just doesn't happen at all.</p><p>We spend a lot of words talking about "who should have freedom?" or "when should we reluctantly take away someone's freedom?" but those questions are based on the premise that, by default, we generally <em>want</em> freedom.  That premise <em>seems</em> obvious to many of us, but it you listen to enough people, I think you'll see that it's <em>not</em> really most peoples' attitude. Society is actually really conflicted about whether or not freedom is a good idea.  Otherwise we wouldn't <em>have</em> people in government asking whether a 17-year-old person's freedom matters, we wouldn't have people proposing amendments to "clarify" the definition of marriage, etc.</p><p>Instead of worrying about all the different ways it can be violated, I think we (everyone) need to get our heads screwed on tight and decide whether or not government's primary purpose is still to protect freedom.  If it's not, then that sucks, but at least if we're honest about that, we can go down the road to fascism without <em>hypocrisy.</em>  But if people say, "Hey, wait, yeah.  Freedom is what it's all <em>for</em>," then a lot of this bullshit can get pre-empted before it gets too far.</p><p>As soon as the administrator took the first action against this student, whatever elected political leader this person answers to, should have gotten phone calls from 90\% of their constituents, saying, "fire that dude, because whether the law happens to technically be on his side <strong>or not</strong>, this person is acting in a way that is <strong>deeply</strong> contrary to everything we want from government."</p><p>Freedom isn't just a good idea.  It's the <em>best</em> idea.  It is the primary objective.</p><p>Or is it?  We're not actually so sure about that. The words are in our "sacred" documents, but maybe it's not really something we all really believe.  Let's look into that and re-assert our values, whatever they may be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did the legal and societal climate of attitudes toward people under 18 , lead to a principal thinking that he could punish a 17-year-old for comments that she made about a teacher , on her own time , to a third-party audience ? The problem is n't so much with what they thought they could do , as what they wanted to do .
Whether the student were 18 or 13 , you darn well know that the government 's desire to attack its citizen would be pretty much the same , and the decision to proceed with the attack against a 17-year-old , was purely tactical.Ok , maybe we do have a problem where people magically gain rights on their 18th birthday that they did n't have the day before , but long before an administrator working for the government starts asking " Can we get away with this ?
" they should already have been fired in disgrace , unable to show their face in that city .
But that just does n't happen at all.We spend a lot of words talking about " who should have freedom ?
" or " when should we reluctantly take away someone 's freedom ?
" but those questions are based on the premise that , by default , we generally want freedom .
That premise seems obvious to many of us , but it you listen to enough people , I think you 'll see that it 's not really most peoples ' attitude .
Society is actually really conflicted about whether or not freedom is a good idea .
Otherwise we would n't have people in government asking whether a 17-year-old person 's freedom matters , we would n't have people proposing amendments to " clarify " the definition of marriage , etc.Instead of worrying about all the different ways it can be violated , I think we ( everyone ) need to get our heads screwed on tight and decide whether or not government 's primary purpose is still to protect freedom .
If it 's not , then that sucks , but at least if we 're honest about that , we can go down the road to fascism without hypocrisy .
But if people say , " Hey , wait , yeah .
Freedom is what it 's all for , " then a lot of this bullshit can get pre-empted before it gets too far.As soon as the administrator took the first action against this student , whatever elected political leader this person answers to , should have gotten phone calls from 90 \ % of their constituents , saying , " fire that dude , because whether the law happens to technically be on his side or not , this person is acting in a way that is deeply contrary to everything we want from government .
" Freedom is n't just a good idea .
It 's the best idea .
It is the primary objective.Or is it ?
We 're not actually so sure about that .
The words are in our " sacred " documents , but maybe it 's not really something we all really believe .
Let 's look into that and re-assert our values , whatever they may be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did the legal and societal climate of attitudes toward people under 18, lead to a principal thinking that he could punish a 17-year-old for comments that she made about a teacher, on her own time, to a third-party audience?The problem isn't so much with what they thought they could do, as what they wanted to do.
Whether the student were 18 or 13, you darn well know that the government's desire to attack its citizen would be pretty much the same, and the decision to proceed with the attack against a 17-year-old, was purely tactical.Ok, maybe we do have a problem where people magically gain rights on their 18th birthday that they didn't have the day before, but long before an administrator working for the government starts asking "Can we get away with this?
" they should already have been fired in disgrace, unable to show their face in that city.
But that just doesn't happen at all.We spend a lot of words talking about "who should have freedom?
" or "when should we reluctantly take away someone's freedom?
" but those questions are based on the premise that, by default, we generally want freedom.
That premise seems obvious to many of us, but it you listen to enough people, I think you'll see that it's not really most peoples' attitude.
Society is actually really conflicted about whether or not freedom is a good idea.
Otherwise we wouldn't have people in government asking whether a 17-year-old person's freedom matters, we wouldn't have people proposing amendments to "clarify" the definition of marriage, etc.Instead of worrying about all the different ways it can be violated, I think we (everyone) need to get our heads screwed on tight and decide whether or not government's primary purpose is still to protect freedom.
If it's not, then that sucks, but at least if we're honest about that, we can go down the road to fascism without hypocrisy.
But if people say, "Hey, wait, yeah.
Freedom is what it's all for," then a lot of this bullshit can get pre-empted before it gets too far.As soon as the administrator took the first action against this student, whatever elected political leader this person answers to, should have gotten phone calls from 90\% of their constituents, saying, "fire that dude, because whether the law happens to technically be on his side or not, this person is acting in a way that is deeply contrary to everything we want from government.
"Freedom isn't just a good idea.
It's the best idea.
It is the primary objective.Or is it?
We're not actually so sure about that.
The words are in our "sacred" documents, but maybe it's not really something we all really believe.
Let's look into that and re-assert our values, whatever they may be.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232512</id>
	<title>Ivory Tower Syndrome</title>
	<author>scerruti</author>
	<datestamp>1266865980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place?"</p><p>This question could only be asked by someone clearly outside of the day-to-day functions of schools. Further evidence abounds in the summary "it would have been a matter for the police, not for a school punishment".</p><p>Schools do not operate under the same rules as "the real world". Commit violence upon someone and you are likely to suffer detention, really injure someone and you are likely to be suspended. Steal and you face a stern lecture. The police do not get involved, there are no assault or theft charges filed. Schools have operated as substitute parents since they were created, however public schools face the daunting challenge of trying to discipline children without having any real authority to punish and without recourse to the typical rule of law except in extreme cases. Even the punishment of suspension is only a hope that the parents will be so unhappy about having to arrange for care of their children that they subject the violator to appropriate punishment.</p><p>Are we surprised then that school administrators and teachers operate not only above the law, but clearly ignorant of it? For example, did you know that many school districts tell teachers that wholesale copying of sample textbooks is permitted under Fair Use for Educational Purposes? I know of a teacher who installed a cell phone jammer because it worked so well at his last school. My wife, a teacher, was incredulous when I told her about the PA spycam situation, but I am not surprised to see these administrators defending their position. If there is no way for you to use the law to enforce discipline for the students then why should it apply at all?</p><p>Perhaps this is why we just had a Principal plead guilty to diverting PTA funds for personal use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place ?
" This question could only be asked by someone clearly outside of the day-to-day functions of schools .
Further evidence abounds in the summary " it would have been a matter for the police , not for a school punishment " .Schools do not operate under the same rules as " the real world " .
Commit violence upon someone and you are likely to suffer detention , really injure someone and you are likely to be suspended .
Steal and you face a stern lecture .
The police do not get involved , there are no assault or theft charges filed .
Schools have operated as substitute parents since they were created , however public schools face the daunting challenge of trying to discipline children without having any real authority to punish and without recourse to the typical rule of law except in extreme cases .
Even the punishment of suspension is only a hope that the parents will be so unhappy about having to arrange for care of their children that they subject the violator to appropriate punishment.Are we surprised then that school administrators and teachers operate not only above the law , but clearly ignorant of it ?
For example , did you know that many school districts tell teachers that wholesale copying of sample textbooks is permitted under Fair Use for Educational Purposes ?
I know of a teacher who installed a cell phone jammer because it worked so well at his last school .
My wife , a teacher , was incredulous when I told her about the PA spycam situation , but I am not surprised to see these administrators defending their position .
If there is no way for you to use the law to enforce discipline for the students then why should it apply at all ? Perhaps this is why we just had a Principal plead guilty to diverting PTA funds for personal use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place?
"This question could only be asked by someone clearly outside of the day-to-day functions of schools.
Further evidence abounds in the summary "it would have been a matter for the police, not for a school punishment".Schools do not operate under the same rules as "the real world".
Commit violence upon someone and you are likely to suffer detention, really injure someone and you are likely to be suspended.
Steal and you face a stern lecture.
The police do not get involved, there are no assault or theft charges filed.
Schools have operated as substitute parents since they were created, however public schools face the daunting challenge of trying to discipline children without having any real authority to punish and without recourse to the typical rule of law except in extreme cases.
Even the punishment of suspension is only a hope that the parents will be so unhappy about having to arrange for care of their children that they subject the violator to appropriate punishment.Are we surprised then that school administrators and teachers operate not only above the law, but clearly ignorant of it?
For example, did you know that many school districts tell teachers that wholesale copying of sample textbooks is permitted under Fair Use for Educational Purposes?
I know of a teacher who installed a cell phone jammer because it worked so well at his last school.
My wife, a teacher, was incredulous when I told her about the PA spycam situation, but I am not surprised to see these administrators defending their position.
If there is no way for you to use the law to enforce discipline for the students then why should it apply at all?Perhaps this is why we just had a Principal plead guilty to diverting PTA funds for personal use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230622</id>
	<title>Property</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1266860880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bigger problem is that kids are considered "property", or "wards" of their parents, and have no rights, themselves, until they reach the age of majority.  However, that's wrong.  Children under the age of 18 are still considered citizens and the courts have rules that they do, in fact, have rights unto their own, including the right not to be searched without a warrant, and the right to free speech.</p><p>This particular case is just an example of a power-tripping ego-centric principal who thinks he can get away with it because he's The Man.  That the courts have slapped him down is just as it should be.  That it happened in the first place is just testament to the fact that the district hired the wrong person in the first place.  Will they learn their lesson?  One would hope.  Will other district's learn from this district's lesson?  Probably not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bigger problem is that kids are considered " property " , or " wards " of their parents , and have no rights , themselves , until they reach the age of majority .
However , that 's wrong .
Children under the age of 18 are still considered citizens and the courts have rules that they do , in fact , have rights unto their own , including the right not to be searched without a warrant , and the right to free speech.This particular case is just an example of a power-tripping ego-centric principal who thinks he can get away with it because he 's The Man .
That the courts have slapped him down is just as it should be .
That it happened in the first place is just testament to the fact that the district hired the wrong person in the first place .
Will they learn their lesson ?
One would hope .
Will other district 's learn from this district 's lesson ?
Probably not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bigger problem is that kids are considered "property", or "wards" of their parents, and have no rights, themselves, until they reach the age of majority.
However, that's wrong.
Children under the age of 18 are still considered citizens and the courts have rules that they do, in fact, have rights unto their own, including the right not to be searched without a warrant, and the right to free speech.This particular case is just an example of a power-tripping ego-centric principal who thinks he can get away with it because he's The Man.
That the courts have slapped him down is just as it should be.
That it happened in the first place is just testament to the fact that the district hired the wrong person in the first place.
Will they learn their lesson?
One would hope.
Will other district's learn from this district's lesson?
Probably not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31239642</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1266850920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been societies where a woman's ankle was as much an object of lust, and required even more covering up, than did her breasts. So... the notion that it's dependency-against-mommy-revolt doesn't wash, especially in America where most babies since the 1940s were bottle-fed. It's only in the past couple decades that breast-feeding has come back in vogue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been societies where a woman 's ankle was as much an object of lust , and required even more covering up , than did her breasts .
So... the notion that it 's dependency-against-mommy-revolt does n't wash , especially in America where most babies since the 1940s were bottle-fed .
It 's only in the past couple decades that breast-feeding has come back in vogue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been societies where a woman's ankle was as much an object of lust, and required even more covering up, than did her breasts.
So... the notion that it's dependency-against-mommy-revolt doesn't wash, especially in America where most babies since the 1940s were bottle-fed.
It's only in the past couple decades that breast-feeding has come back in vogue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230380</id>
	<title>Re:Not a free speech issue</title>
	<author>Sique</author>
	<datestamp>1266859980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, they actually bugged the laptops of children to spy on them in their homes! The who kids accepted that... what kind of adults do you think they're going to become?</p></div><p>If I followed the case correctly, then none of the kids accepted that. In fact it was discovered only because the principal showed a picture taken of the pupil to claim "inapprobriate behaviour". And now the school district is telling everyone they are <em>so</em> sorry that they didn't tell anyone about the remote webcam activation feature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , they actually bugged the laptops of children to spy on them in their homes !
The who kids accepted that... what kind of adults do you think they 're going to become ? If I followed the case correctly , then none of the kids accepted that .
In fact it was discovered only because the principal showed a picture taken of the pupil to claim " inapprobriate behaviour " .
And now the school district is telling everyone they are so sorry that they did n't tell anyone about the remote webcam activation feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, they actually bugged the laptops of children to spy on them in their homes!
The who kids accepted that... what kind of adults do you think they're going to become?If I followed the case correctly, then none of the kids accepted that.
In fact it was discovered only because the principal showed a picture taken of the pupil to claim "inapprobriate behaviour".
And now the school district is telling everyone they are so sorry that they didn't tell anyone about the remote webcam activation feature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230636</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't that different from the adult world.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but your boss pays you.  On the other hand, the students parents pay the principal/teachers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but your boss pays you .
On the other hand , the students parents pay the principal/teachers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but your boss pays you.
On the other hand, the students parents pay the principal/teachers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231948</id>
	<title>Re:How did we get here?</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266864300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't extrapolate across the world when you've never seen it. Every last country in Europe has far more socialized education than the US ever will, and yet, this kind of behavior would be unthinkable there. This has nothing to do with socialized education, but all with legalistic terror and a scary increase in the authoritarian streak of Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't extrapolate across the world when you 've never seen it .
Every last country in Europe has far more socialized education than the US ever will , and yet , this kind of behavior would be unthinkable there .
This has nothing to do with socialized education , but all with legalistic terror and a scary increase in the authoritarian streak of Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't extrapolate across the world when you've never seen it.
Every last country in Europe has far more socialized education than the US ever will, and yet, this kind of behavior would be unthinkable there.
This has nothing to do with socialized education, but all with legalistic terror and a scary increase in the authoritarian streak of Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231252</id>
	<title>Reasonable and rational.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266862560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The OP seems to argue, without actually stating this thesis in a 2000 word essay, that there should be no distinction between the free speech rights of 17 year-olds and 18 year-olds.  The argument appears to be that the line could just as easily be drawn at age 13 or 22 instead of 18, and therefore the line is arbitrary, and because the law should not be arbitrary the distinction should be abolished.</p><p>There are arguments to be made for a line drawn at any age, or that no line should be made at all.  There are reasons for any of these points of view.  However, there may be no rational arguments to favor any of these reasons above the others.  The difference between reasonable and rational is that reasons just represent a coherent system of ideas and that rational arguments requires measurement and comparison (to find the "ratio" of the arguments).  Religion and politics, and therefore law, are not suitable for measurement.  The only rational argument that I can see is at the meta level of which coherent system of ideas best works in the current world.  There is no rational argument to be made on a particular point unless we agree which system we will use to measure and compare the merits of the arguments.  This is done in a de facto manner in each culture, where different societies use more-or-less coherent systems that lead to the conclusion that certain rights should be granted at any age, at age 13, 18 or 22, or never at all.</p><p>That said, law should not be arbitrary.  The question is: should we give all people free speech rights, or only some?  (I might favor giving them to everyone; the OP, however, seems to exclude children below a possible age of 11.)  If we give them to only some, where do we draw the line?    I'll go further than say that the law should not be arbitrary, because the law will necessarily be arbitrary at some point.  Rather, the law should be as predictable as possible.  If there needs to be a line, it should be known before one goes to court.  Do we afford mature 13 year-olds rights yet deny them to immature 22 year-olds?  That would be far more arbitrary than creating a line at age 18.  The clearest way, the least arbitrary way, to draw a line relating to human maturity is with age.  I will take a law that tells judges to give certain rights to everyone over the age 18, or any other arbitrary but reasonable age, over a law that tells a judge to discern whether a person has attained sufficient maturity to deserve the privileges of majority.</p><p>By the way, the OP puts too much faith in doctors' ability to read diagnostic materials without arbitrariness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The OP seems to argue , without actually stating this thesis in a 2000 word essay , that there should be no distinction between the free speech rights of 17 year-olds and 18 year-olds .
The argument appears to be that the line could just as easily be drawn at age 13 or 22 instead of 18 , and therefore the line is arbitrary , and because the law should not be arbitrary the distinction should be abolished.There are arguments to be made for a line drawn at any age , or that no line should be made at all .
There are reasons for any of these points of view .
However , there may be no rational arguments to favor any of these reasons above the others .
The difference between reasonable and rational is that reasons just represent a coherent system of ideas and that rational arguments requires measurement and comparison ( to find the " ratio " of the arguments ) .
Religion and politics , and therefore law , are not suitable for measurement .
The only rational argument that I can see is at the meta level of which coherent system of ideas best works in the current world .
There is no rational argument to be made on a particular point unless we agree which system we will use to measure and compare the merits of the arguments .
This is done in a de facto manner in each culture , where different societies use more-or-less coherent systems that lead to the conclusion that certain rights should be granted at any age , at age 13 , 18 or 22 , or never at all.That said , law should not be arbitrary .
The question is : should we give all people free speech rights , or only some ?
( I might favor giving them to everyone ; the OP , however , seems to exclude children below a possible age of 11 .
) If we give them to only some , where do we draw the line ?
I 'll go further than say that the law should not be arbitrary , because the law will necessarily be arbitrary at some point .
Rather , the law should be as predictable as possible .
If there needs to be a line , it should be known before one goes to court .
Do we afford mature 13 year-olds rights yet deny them to immature 22 year-olds ?
That would be far more arbitrary than creating a line at age 18 .
The clearest way , the least arbitrary way , to draw a line relating to human maturity is with age .
I will take a law that tells judges to give certain rights to everyone over the age 18 , or any other arbitrary but reasonable age , over a law that tells a judge to discern whether a person has attained sufficient maturity to deserve the privileges of majority.By the way , the OP puts too much faith in doctors ' ability to read diagnostic materials without arbitrariness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OP seems to argue, without actually stating this thesis in a 2000 word essay, that there should be no distinction between the free speech rights of 17 year-olds and 18 year-olds.
The argument appears to be that the line could just as easily be drawn at age 13 or 22 instead of 18, and therefore the line is arbitrary, and because the law should not be arbitrary the distinction should be abolished.There are arguments to be made for a line drawn at any age, or that no line should be made at all.
There are reasons for any of these points of view.
However, there may be no rational arguments to favor any of these reasons above the others.
The difference between reasonable and rational is that reasons just represent a coherent system of ideas and that rational arguments requires measurement and comparison (to find the "ratio" of the arguments).
Religion and politics, and therefore law, are not suitable for measurement.
The only rational argument that I can see is at the meta level of which coherent system of ideas best works in the current world.
There is no rational argument to be made on a particular point unless we agree which system we will use to measure and compare the merits of the arguments.
This is done in a de facto manner in each culture, where different societies use more-or-less coherent systems that lead to the conclusion that certain rights should be granted at any age, at age 13, 18 or 22, or never at all.That said, law should not be arbitrary.
The question is: should we give all people free speech rights, or only some?
(I might favor giving them to everyone; the OP, however, seems to exclude children below a possible age of 11.
)  If we give them to only some, where do we draw the line?
I'll go further than say that the law should not be arbitrary, because the law will necessarily be arbitrary at some point.
Rather, the law should be as predictable as possible.
If there needs to be a line, it should be known before one goes to court.
Do we afford mature 13 year-olds rights yet deny them to immature 22 year-olds?
That would be far more arbitrary than creating a line at age 18.
The clearest way, the least arbitrary way, to draw a line relating to human maturity is with age.
I will take a law that tells judges to give certain rights to everyone over the age 18, or any other arbitrary but reasonable age, over a law that tells a judge to discern whether a person has attained sufficient maturity to deserve the privileges of majority.By the way, the OP puts too much faith in doctors' ability to read diagnostic materials without arbitrariness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230658</id>
	<title>Not in front of the children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266861000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those interested in a cross cultural exploration of "protecting" children (admittedly the flip side of this issue) should check out the book Not In Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth by Marjorie Heins</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those interested in a cross cultural exploration of " protecting " children ( admittedly the flip side of this issue ) should check out the book Not In Front of the Children : " Indecency , " Censorship , and the Innocence of Youth by Marjorie Heins</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those interested in a cross cultural exploration of "protecting" children (admittedly the flip side of this issue) should check out the book Not In Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth by Marjorie Heins</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</id>
	<title>Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1266859560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If that sounds like a trite platitude, consider how few people in the U.S. seem to question the rule that you can show a man's chest on television but not a woman's chest.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's even more ridiculous than that.  In 1999, Lil' Kim went to the MYV video music awards with one breast hanging out.  She covered her nipple with a pasty and all was well.  So breasts are allowed, but showing a woman's nipple turns it from a normal (ok, maybe slightly more-than-normal) show of skin into "OMG!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"</p><p>In addition, we've gotten to the point that we (as a society) can't seem to see a woman's breast as anything other than a sexual object.  If a woman breastfeeds her child in public, she risks being told to cover up her breasts because someone doesn't get that her breast isn't being used in a sexual manner but is being used to feed her child.  She might even be told to take it to the bathroom.  As if anyone really would like to eat their meal sitting atop a toilet!  But breasts are involved so therefore someone, somewhere might see this as sexual and therefore we must push them out of sight entirely.</p><p>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want.  Yes, a lot of guys likely just started drooling, but really think about it for a second.  After a few weeks of that, seeing a topless woman would be just a normal part of life.  It would be like seeing a woman's leg:  Yes, a guy might be attracted to that piece of her anatomy, but it wouldn't cause him to go into a frenzy.  Of course, the THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd would eventually move on to another body part, calling kids seeing that as inherently harmful and thus required to be hidden from view at all possible times.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that sounds like a trite platitude , consider how few people in the U.S. seem to question the rule that you can show a man 's chest on television but not a woman 's chest.It 's even more ridiculous than that .
In 1999 , Lil ' Kim went to the MYV video music awards with one breast hanging out .
She covered her nipple with a pasty and all was well .
So breasts are allowed , but showing a woman 's nipple turns it from a normal ( ok , maybe slightly more-than-normal ) show of skin into " OMG ! ! !
THINK OF THE CHILDREN ! ! !
" In addition , we 've gotten to the point that we ( as a society ) ca n't seem to see a woman 's breast as anything other than a sexual object .
If a woman breastfeeds her child in public , she risks being told to cover up her breasts because someone does n't get that her breast is n't being used in a sexual manner but is being used to feed her child .
She might even be told to take it to the bathroom .
As if anyone really would like to eat their meal sitting atop a toilet !
But breasts are involved so therefore someone , somewhere might see this as sexual and therefore we must push them out of sight entirely.I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want .
Yes , a lot of guys likely just started drooling , but really think about it for a second .
After a few weeks of that , seeing a topless woman would be just a normal part of life .
It would be like seeing a woman 's leg : Yes , a guy might be attracted to that piece of her anatomy , but it would n't cause him to go into a frenzy .
Of course , the THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd would eventually move on to another body part , calling kids seeing that as inherently harmful and thus required to be hidden from view at all possible times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that sounds like a trite platitude, consider how few people in the U.S. seem to question the rule that you can show a man's chest on television but not a woman's chest.It's even more ridiculous than that.
In 1999, Lil' Kim went to the MYV video music awards with one breast hanging out.
She covered her nipple with a pasty and all was well.
So breasts are allowed, but showing a woman's nipple turns it from a normal (ok, maybe slightly more-than-normal) show of skin into "OMG!!!
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
"In addition, we've gotten to the point that we (as a society) can't seem to see a woman's breast as anything other than a sexual object.
If a woman breastfeeds her child in public, she risks being told to cover up her breasts because someone doesn't get that her breast isn't being used in a sexual manner but is being used to feed her child.
She might even be told to take it to the bathroom.
As if anyone really would like to eat their meal sitting atop a toilet!
But breasts are involved so therefore someone, somewhere might see this as sexual and therefore we must push them out of sight entirely.I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want.
Yes, a lot of guys likely just started drooling, but really think about it for a second.
After a few weeks of that, seeing a topless woman would be just a normal part of life.
It would be like seeing a woman's leg:  Yes, a guy might be attracted to that piece of her anatomy, but it wouldn't cause him to go into a frenzy.
Of course, the THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd would eventually move on to another body part, calling kids seeing that as inherently harmful and thus required to be hidden from view at all possible times.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31240634</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266859140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want.</p></div><p>Welcome to Ontario.  That law got passed in 1996.<br>Doesn't mean it happens a lot, but it's legal up here.  Of course, in winter, you go from "perky" to "can put an eye out with that" if you try, but you've always got it as an option.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want.Welcome to Ontario .
That law got passed in 1996.Does n't mean it happens a lot , but it 's legal up here .
Of course , in winter , you go from " perky " to " can put an eye out with that " if you try , but you 've always got it as an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want.Welcome to Ontario.
That law got passed in 1996.Doesn't mean it happens a lot, but it's legal up here.
Of course, in winter, you go from "perky" to "can put an eye out with that" if you try, but you've always got it as an option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230046</id>
	<title>Ageism</title>
	<author>FredFredrickson</author>
	<datestamp>1266858480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always been against ageism, and have been active in youth rights, first as a minor, but later as an "adult".<br> <br>The scary thing is, I just don't think age has much to do with maturity.. I've met plenty of minors who seem to have a really decent grasp on maturity, while I've met plenty of 18+ who will never grow up.<br> <br>Curfews and other discriminatory things are inherently ageist, and should be examined. Let's let parents do some parenting, shall we?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always been against ageism , and have been active in youth rights , first as a minor , but later as an " adult " .
The scary thing is , I just do n't think age has much to do with maturity.. I 've met plenty of minors who seem to have a really decent grasp on maturity , while I 've met plenty of 18 + who will never grow up .
Curfews and other discriminatory things are inherently ageist , and should be examined .
Let 's let parents do some parenting , shall we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always been against ageism, and have been active in youth rights, first as a minor, but later as an "adult".
The scary thing is, I just don't think age has much to do with maturity.. I've met plenty of minors who seem to have a really decent grasp on maturity, while I've met plenty of 18+ who will never grow up.
Curfews and other discriminatory things are inherently ageist, and should be examined.
Let's let parents do some parenting, shall we?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232506</id>
	<title>Bennett Haselton, your assignment: Revise...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266865980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bennett Haselton, your assignment is to revise your post to Slashdot to cut the number of words into 1/3 or less.  With care you should be able to reduce it to 1/4 or less and make your arguments and questions much clearer.</p><p>CmdrTaco, what, did you lose a bet?  Couldn't you let him know it was a rambling inchoate mess that was way too long?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bennett Haselton , your assignment is to revise your post to Slashdot to cut the number of words into 1/3 or less .
With care you should be able to reduce it to 1/4 or less and make your arguments and questions much clearer.CmdrTaco , what , did you lose a bet ?
Could n't you let him know it was a rambling inchoate mess that was way too long ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bennett Haselton, your assignment is to revise your post to Slashdot to cut the number of words into 1/3 or less.
With care you should be able to reduce it to 1/4 or less and make your arguments and questions much clearer.CmdrTaco, what, did you lose a bet?
Couldn't you let him know it was a rambling inchoate mess that was way too long?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230136</id>
	<title>Re:Ageism</title>
	<author>Akido37</author>
	<datestamp>1266858900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting how it's taboo to discriminate against the old, but not the young.<br> <br>

Bars that won't let you enter unless you're over 25, although the drinking age is 21.<br> <br>

Apartment complexes that won't rent to you unless you're over 55.<br> <br>

In both these cases, the reverse would be unthinkable.<br> <br>

I don't want smelly old people in my bar or apartment complex - nobody over 40 allowed.  Why does this bring a lawsuit, and the former does not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting how it 's taboo to discriminate against the old , but not the young .
Bars that wo n't let you enter unless you 're over 25 , although the drinking age is 21 .
Apartment complexes that wo n't rent to you unless you 're over 55 .
In both these cases , the reverse would be unthinkable .
I do n't want smelly old people in my bar or apartment complex - nobody over 40 allowed .
Why does this bring a lawsuit , and the former does not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting how it's taboo to discriminate against the old, but not the young.
Bars that won't let you enter unless you're over 25, although the drinking age is 21.
Apartment complexes that won't rent to you unless you're over 55.
In both these cases, the reverse would be unthinkable.
I don't want smelly old people in my bar or apartment complex - nobody over 40 allowed.
Why does this bring a lawsuit, and the former does not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230214</id>
	<title>human nature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266859260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What is the source of society's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds?</i><br>When one human being is in a position of authority over another in one domain, they will tend to leverage that into coercion in any and all domains in which they are related.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the source of society 's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds ? When one human being is in a position of authority over another in one domain , they will tend to leverage that into coercion in any and all domains in which they are related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the source of society's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds?When one human being is in a position of authority over another in one domain, they will tend to leverage that into coercion in any and all domains in which they are related.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231228</id>
	<title>Another rambling mess from Mr. Haselton</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1266862500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again Mr. Haselton demonstrates his tremendous ignorance of the law by attempting to analyze it from his own preconceived first principles using his own methods of reasoning rather than from within the appropriate legal framework using legal reasoning.</p><p> <em>Judges are not like doctors who look at a mammogram, and draw on experience that the general public does not have, in order to see something that would be hidden from the rest of us.</em> </p><p>The general public does not have substantial legal experience or knowledge, so judges do indeed see something that would be hidden from most people, Mr. Haselton included, evidently.</p><p> <em>In cases like these, judges simply have multiple plausible interpretations in front of them, and they pick one. As such they're acting more like referees (who make a decision so that the game -- or, in this case, society -- can move on) than true "experts". </em> </p><p>Although Mr. Haselton almost certainly does not know it, this is close to a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical\_legal\_studies" title="wikipedia.org">critical legal studies</a> [wikipedia.org] view of jurisprudence.  It is a controversial view, to put it mildly, and the majority of judges and attorneys do not subscribe to it.</p><p> <em>There is a temptation to think that there is some consistent reasoning behind the different courts' rulings...This, I think, is nonsense, an attempt to put a consistent theory on top of a legal system that does not follow consistent rules from one court ruling to the next.</em> </p><p>Those rulings were written by judges in different circuits who were thus bound by different precedents.  Furthermore, one was written by a district court judge who is generally constrained to follow the law in his circuit.  The other was a decision on appeal written by a circuit judges who were considerably more free to deviate from prior precedent.  Mr. Haselton is comparing apples and oranges.</p><p>And indeed in the 3rd Circuit case you see 3rd Circuit cases cited, and in the Southern District of Florida case you see different cases cited, including the earlier 3rd Circuit case!  There is no inconsistency here: the Southern Florida judge is distinguishing his case from the 3rd Circuit case based on the facts present in the particular case.  Judges do this all the time.</p><p>Mr. Haselton seems to think that rulings are always simplistic hard and fast rules.  Here he seems think that the rule is something like "students can't be punished for something they do online outside the school."  In fact, as the case discusses, there is a complex legal and factual inquiry that is dependent on balancing competing factors and making fine distinctions.  The case itself makes this clear: "While the Frederick decision offers little aid in solving the specific issue of student speech published on the internet, it does, however, make clear that the operative test is not a simple one of geography. <em>Where the speech is published is not the only question that needs to be asked.</em>" (emphasis added)</p><p> <em>But even if it's still a roll of the dice how a court would rule in a particular student free-speech case, what matters from the point of view of a principal in a future case, are the potential payoffs. </em> </p><p>Here Mr. Haselton is stumbling onto <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law\_and\_economics" title="wikipedia.org">law &amp; economics</a> [wikipedia.org].  But his argument rests on several unstated assumptions: first, he's assuming that the principal is a rational actor, which is a pretty questionable assumption.  Second, he's assuming that principal's have sufficient information on which to base a rational choice; in particular he's assuming that the principals (or their lawyers) know about this and related cases and know all of the ground facts of the case that a court might use to come to a decision.  This is also a questionable assumption.  He offers nothing to support either of these assumptions.</p><p> <em>How did the legal and societal climate of attitudes toward people under 18, lead to a principal thinking that he could punish a 17-year-old for comment</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again Mr. Haselton demonstrates his tremendous ignorance of the law by attempting to analyze it from his own preconceived first principles using his own methods of reasoning rather than from within the appropriate legal framework using legal reasoning .
Judges are not like doctors who look at a mammogram , and draw on experience that the general public does not have , in order to see something that would be hidden from the rest of us .
The general public does not have substantial legal experience or knowledge , so judges do indeed see something that would be hidden from most people , Mr. Haselton included , evidently .
In cases like these , judges simply have multiple plausible interpretations in front of them , and they pick one .
As such they 're acting more like referees ( who make a decision so that the game -- or , in this case , society -- can move on ) than true " experts " .
Although Mr. Haselton almost certainly does not know it , this is close to a critical legal studies [ wikipedia.org ] view of jurisprudence .
It is a controversial view , to put it mildly , and the majority of judges and attorneys do not subscribe to it .
There is a temptation to think that there is some consistent reasoning behind the different courts ' rulings...This , I think , is nonsense , an attempt to put a consistent theory on top of a legal system that does not follow consistent rules from one court ruling to the next .
Those rulings were written by judges in different circuits who were thus bound by different precedents .
Furthermore , one was written by a district court judge who is generally constrained to follow the law in his circuit .
The other was a decision on appeal written by a circuit judges who were considerably more free to deviate from prior precedent .
Mr. Haselton is comparing apples and oranges.And indeed in the 3rd Circuit case you see 3rd Circuit cases cited , and in the Southern District of Florida case you see different cases cited , including the earlier 3rd Circuit case !
There is no inconsistency here : the Southern Florida judge is distinguishing his case from the 3rd Circuit case based on the facts present in the particular case .
Judges do this all the time.Mr .
Haselton seems to think that rulings are always simplistic hard and fast rules .
Here he seems think that the rule is something like " students ca n't be punished for something they do online outside the school .
" In fact , as the case discusses , there is a complex legal and factual inquiry that is dependent on balancing competing factors and making fine distinctions .
The case itself makes this clear : " While the Frederick decision offers little aid in solving the specific issue of student speech published on the internet , it does , however , make clear that the operative test is not a simple one of geography .
Where the speech is published is not the only question that needs to be asked .
" ( emphasis added ) But even if it 's still a roll of the dice how a court would rule in a particular student free-speech case , what matters from the point of view of a principal in a future case , are the potential payoffs .
Here Mr. Haselton is stumbling onto law &amp; economics [ wikipedia.org ] .
But his argument rests on several unstated assumptions : first , he 's assuming that the principal is a rational actor , which is a pretty questionable assumption .
Second , he 's assuming that principal 's have sufficient information on which to base a rational choice ; in particular he 's assuming that the principals ( or their lawyers ) know about this and related cases and know all of the ground facts of the case that a court might use to come to a decision .
This is also a questionable assumption .
He offers nothing to support either of these assumptions .
How did the legal and societal climate of attitudes toward people under 18 , lead to a principal thinking that he could punish a 17-year-old for comment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again Mr. Haselton demonstrates his tremendous ignorance of the law by attempting to analyze it from his own preconceived first principles using his own methods of reasoning rather than from within the appropriate legal framework using legal reasoning.
Judges are not like doctors who look at a mammogram, and draw on experience that the general public does not have, in order to see something that would be hidden from the rest of us.
The general public does not have substantial legal experience or knowledge, so judges do indeed see something that would be hidden from most people, Mr. Haselton included, evidently.
In cases like these, judges simply have multiple plausible interpretations in front of them, and they pick one.
As such they're acting more like referees (who make a decision so that the game -- or, in this case, society -- can move on) than true "experts".
Although Mr. Haselton almost certainly does not know it, this is close to a critical legal studies [wikipedia.org] view of jurisprudence.
It is a controversial view, to put it mildly, and the majority of judges and attorneys do not subscribe to it.
There is a temptation to think that there is some consistent reasoning behind the different courts' rulings...This, I think, is nonsense, an attempt to put a consistent theory on top of a legal system that does not follow consistent rules from one court ruling to the next.
Those rulings were written by judges in different circuits who were thus bound by different precedents.
Furthermore, one was written by a district court judge who is generally constrained to follow the law in his circuit.
The other was a decision on appeal written by a circuit judges who were considerably more free to deviate from prior precedent.
Mr. Haselton is comparing apples and oranges.And indeed in the 3rd Circuit case you see 3rd Circuit cases cited, and in the Southern District of Florida case you see different cases cited, including the earlier 3rd Circuit case!
There is no inconsistency here: the Southern Florida judge is distinguishing his case from the 3rd Circuit case based on the facts present in the particular case.
Judges do this all the time.Mr.
Haselton seems to think that rulings are always simplistic hard and fast rules.
Here he seems think that the rule is something like "students can't be punished for something they do online outside the school.
"  In fact, as the case discusses, there is a complex legal and factual inquiry that is dependent on balancing competing factors and making fine distinctions.
The case itself makes this clear: "While the Frederick decision offers little aid in solving the specific issue of student speech published on the internet, it does, however, make clear that the operative test is not a simple one of geography.
Where the speech is published is not the only question that needs to be asked.
" (emphasis added) But even if it's still a roll of the dice how a court would rule in a particular student free-speech case, what matters from the point of view of a principal in a future case, are the potential payoffs.
Here Mr. Haselton is stumbling onto law &amp; economics [wikipedia.org].
But his argument rests on several unstated assumptions: first, he's assuming that the principal is a rational actor, which is a pretty questionable assumption.
Second, he's assuming that principal's have sufficient information on which to base a rational choice; in particular he's assuming that the principals (or their lawyers) know about this and related cases and know all of the ground facts of the case that a court might use to come to a decision.
This is also a questionable assumption.
He offers nothing to support either of these assumptions.
How did the legal and societal climate of attitudes toward people under 18, lead to a principal thinking that he could punish a 17-year-old for comment</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231396</id>
	<title>lot of words in that post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266862860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can you just give us the link to the boobies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can you just give us the link to the boobies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can you just give us the link to the boobies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230958</id>
	<title>Not a free speech issue</title>
	<author>Silver Surfer 1</author>
	<datestamp>1266861840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A federal judge rules that a student can seek attorney's fees against a high school principal who suspended her for a Facebook page she made at home. Good news, but how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place? Posing the question not rhetorically but seriously. What is the source of society's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds?"</p><p>This is not a case of free speech as people often misunderstand what exactly free speech means.<br>You can yell "fire" in a movie theater or insult your boss or company on facebook and than act surprised when you get fired or go to jail.<br>You are free to do those things, however your actions have consequences and getting suspended was the reaction to the students action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A federal judge rules that a student can seek attorney 's fees against a high school principal who suspended her for a Facebook page she made at home .
Good news , but how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place ?
Posing the question not rhetorically but seriously .
What is the source of society 's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds ?
" This is not a case of free speech as people often misunderstand what exactly free speech means.You can yell " fire " in a movie theater or insult your boss or company on facebook and than act surprised when you get fired or go to jail.You are free to do those things , however your actions have consequences and getting suspended was the reaction to the students action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A federal judge rules that a student can seek attorney's fees against a high school principal who suspended her for a Facebook page she made at home.
Good news, but how could the school have thought they had the right to punish her for that in the first place?
Posing the question not rhetorically but seriously.
What is the source of society's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds?
"This is not a case of free speech as people often misunderstand what exactly free speech means.You can yell "fire" in a movie theater or insult your boss or company on facebook and than act surprised when you get fired or go to jail.You are free to do those things, however your actions have consequences and getting suspended was the reaction to the students action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230266</id>
	<title>Real Question:  Jurisdiction of Public School</title>
	<author>reporter</author>
	<datestamp>1266859500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The issue is not really about free speech.  The victim in this case is surely free to publish whatever she wants on Facebook, regardless of whether she is suspended from school.
<p>
The issue is whether the school has jurisdiction over activities that a student performs outside school.  Legally, the school does not have any such jurisdiction.
</p><p>
For example, consider a Christian fellowship meeting.  The governing council of a school district can ban the conduct of such a meeting on the premises of the school, but students wishing to attend a Christian fellowship meeting off campus are free to do so.  Once you walk off the premises of the school, you are free to do whatever you want.
</p><p>
Consider another example.  Smoking cigarettes on campus will result in a suspension.  Yet, smoking cigarettes at about 1 foot outside the perimeter of a campus will result in nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is not really about free speech .
The victim in this case is surely free to publish whatever she wants on Facebook , regardless of whether she is suspended from school .
The issue is whether the school has jurisdiction over activities that a student performs outside school .
Legally , the school does not have any such jurisdiction .
For example , consider a Christian fellowship meeting .
The governing council of a school district can ban the conduct of such a meeting on the premises of the school , but students wishing to attend a Christian fellowship meeting off campus are free to do so .
Once you walk off the premises of the school , you are free to do whatever you want .
Consider another example .
Smoking cigarettes on campus will result in a suspension .
Yet , smoking cigarettes at about 1 foot outside the perimeter of a campus will result in nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is not really about free speech.
The victim in this case is surely free to publish whatever she wants on Facebook, regardless of whether she is suspended from school.
The issue is whether the school has jurisdiction over activities that a student performs outside school.
Legally, the school does not have any such jurisdiction.
For example, consider a Christian fellowship meeting.
The governing council of a school district can ban the conduct of such a meeting on the premises of the school, but students wishing to attend a Christian fellowship meeting off campus are free to do so.
Once you walk off the premises of the school, you are free to do whatever you want.
Consider another example.
Smoking cigarettes on campus will result in a suspension.
Yet, smoking cigarettes at about 1 foot outside the perimeter of a campus will result in nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230934</id>
	<title>You can always grow up</title>
	<author>drewhk</author>
	<datestamp>1266861780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people here compare discrimination against youth with discrimination against old people or different races.</p><p>They are not the same:<br>- you cannot change your race<br>- you cannot get younger</p><p>However you \_inevitably\_ grow older.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people here compare discrimination against youth with discrimination against old people or different races.They are not the same : - you can not change your race- you can not get youngerHowever you \ _inevitably \ _ grow older .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people here compare discrimination against youth with discrimination against old people or different races.They are not the same:- you cannot change your race- you cannot get youngerHowever you \_inevitably\_ grow older.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31243758</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1266936840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I am.  (My wife's, specifically.)  However, I recognize that they aren't merely sexual objects but are a part of a woman's body with a function completely separate from anything sexual (i.e. Breastfeeding).  Would you support a law which called for men to cover their tops at all times because some women were turned on by the sight of a bare chested man?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I am .
( My wife 's , specifically .
) However , I recognize that they are n't merely sexual objects but are a part of a woman 's body with a function completely separate from anything sexual ( i.e .
Breastfeeding ) . Would you support a law which called for men to cover their tops at all times because some women were turned on by the sight of a bare chested man ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I am.
(My wife's, specifically.
)  However, I recognize that they aren't merely sexual objects but are a part of a woman's body with a function completely separate from anything sexual (i.e.
Breastfeeding).  Would you support a law which called for men to cover their tops at all times because some women were turned on by the sight of a bare chested man?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232580</id>
	<title>You are a douche-bag. This is not Libel.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1266866220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can quit your job at any time.  You are compelled to attend high-school by force of law.  </p><p>Stating your qualitative opinion of something is not libel, it is an opinion.  It is protected under free speech regardless.  You're a douche-bag.  This is not libel, this is my honest and truthful opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can quit your job at any time .
You are compelled to attend high-school by force of law .
Stating your qualitative opinion of something is not libel , it is an opinion .
It is protected under free speech regardless .
You 're a douche-bag .
This is not libel , this is my honest and truthful opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can quit your job at any time.
You are compelled to attend high-school by force of law.
Stating your qualitative opinion of something is not libel, it is an opinion.
It is protected under free speech regardless.
You're a douche-bag.
This is not libel, this is my honest and truthful opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231656</id>
	<title>Re:Some Legal Background</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1266863460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Long story short: as a minor you have some free speech rights in school but not all of them. </i></p><p>No, no, no.  As a minor you have all the free speech rights any adult has.  However, you are a subject to an oppressive government and will be punished if you try to use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long story short : as a minor you have some free speech rights in school but not all of them .
No , no , no .
As a minor you have all the free speech rights any adult has .
However , you are a subject to an oppressive government and will be punished if you try to use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long story short: as a minor you have some free speech rights in school but not all of them.
No, no, no.
As a minor you have all the free speech rights any adult has.
However, you are a subject to an oppressive government and will be punished if you try to use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31239392</id>
	<title>whats up with this submission?</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1266849240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a news submission, it's dude using a news story to get his opinion out about how he feels, without using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comment &amp; moderation system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a news submission , it 's dude using a news story to get his opinion out about how he feels , without using / .
comment &amp; moderation system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a news submission, it's dude using a news story to get his opinion out about how he feels, without using /.
comment &amp; moderation system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230666</id>
	<title>Honestly...</title>
	<author>Nov Voc</author>
	<datestamp>1266861000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm tired of school administrations being so petty that they think a student disliking them is a reason to suspend or otherwise "punish" students. It's one thing to punish someone for interrupting class by insulting a teacher outright, but entirely different and downright immature to say that they are not entitled to express themselves at home. Between this and the recent spying laptops scandal, whatever happened to being "for the children", rather than "anything so the f#!kers sit still in class"? If they're so worried about not being liked, why <i>punish</i> them arbitrarily?<br> <br>I certainly hope they get lawyer fees repaid, because this behavior is outright unacceptable. Having the power to unilaterally grant or deny education to these kids based on whether or not they "like" you, is power that is apparently being abused. The "Vegan" sweater case is a nice example, but I'd imagine most of you TL;DR'd the hybrid TFA/summary, so here's the link: <a href="http://libertarianrock.com/1999/09/vegan-student-may-seek-new-judge/" title="libertarianrock.com" rel="nofollow">http://libertarianrock.com/1999/09/vegan-student-may-seek-new-judge/</a> [libertarianrock.com] <br> <br> I fear a world where education is taken or given away on the whims of a single official.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of school administrations being so petty that they think a student disliking them is a reason to suspend or otherwise " punish " students .
It 's one thing to punish someone for interrupting class by insulting a teacher outright , but entirely different and downright immature to say that they are not entitled to express themselves at home .
Between this and the recent spying laptops scandal , whatever happened to being " for the children " , rather than " anything so the f # ! kers sit still in class " ?
If they 're so worried about not being liked , why punish them arbitrarily ?
I certainly hope they get lawyer fees repaid , because this behavior is outright unacceptable .
Having the power to unilaterally grant or deny education to these kids based on whether or not they " like " you , is power that is apparently being abused .
The " Vegan " sweater case is a nice example , but I 'd imagine most of you TL ; DR 'd the hybrid TFA/summary , so here 's the link : http : //libertarianrock.com/1999/09/vegan-student-may-seek-new-judge/ [ libertarianrock.com ] I fear a world where education is taken or given away on the whims of a single official .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of school administrations being so petty that they think a student disliking them is a reason to suspend or otherwise "punish" students.
It's one thing to punish someone for interrupting class by insulting a teacher outright, but entirely different and downright immature to say that they are not entitled to express themselves at home.
Between this and the recent spying laptops scandal, whatever happened to being "for the children", rather than "anything so the f#!kers sit still in class"?
If they're so worried about not being liked, why punish them arbitrarily?
I certainly hope they get lawyer fees repaid, because this behavior is outright unacceptable.
Having the power to unilaterally grant or deny education to these kids based on whether or not they "like" you, is power that is apparently being abused.
The "Vegan" sweater case is a nice example, but I'd imagine most of you TL;DR'd the hybrid TFA/summary, so here's the link: http://libertarianrock.com/1999/09/vegan-student-may-seek-new-judge/ [libertarianrock.com]   I fear a world where education is taken or given away on the whims of a single official.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231306</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't that different from the adult world.</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1266862680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The student isn't an employee of the school.</p><p>Do you also think you should be not allowed to use the services of the fire department if you publicly complain about one of the fire fighters?</p><p>You shouldn't be allowed to vote because you publicly complain about politicians?</p><p>Shouldn't be allowed to drive because you publicly complained about the department of motor vehicles staff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The student is n't an employee of the school.Do you also think you should be not allowed to use the services of the fire department if you publicly complain about one of the fire fighters ? You should n't be allowed to vote because you publicly complain about politicians ? Should n't be allowed to drive because you publicly complained about the department of motor vehicles staff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The student isn't an employee of the school.Do you also think you should be not allowed to use the services of the fire department if you publicly complain about one of the fire fighters?You shouldn't be allowed to vote because you publicly complain about politicians?Shouldn't be allowed to drive because you publicly complained about the department of motor vehicles staff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233868</id>
	<title>ARGH!!!  Who the -x\%&amp;(#- cares?!</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1266870840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently, 300+ posters do.</p><p>Which makes it legitimate; that's always been my argument when it comes to social commentary.</p><p>But at the same time. . .  Honestly, this focus on school-is-unfair stories is just a thinking man's "Octo-Mom".</p><p>School is full of bullshit and kids have no rights.  Yes.  We know this.  We all lived through it.  The only thing new going on here is that indignant internet denizens are watching and lawyers are involved.  Marvelous.</p><p>Seriously. . .  What South American country is the U.S. about to bomb back into the Slave Trade which the Powers That Be are desperate we should fail to notice?</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , 300 + posters do.Which makes it legitimate ; that 's always been my argument when it comes to social commentary.But at the same time .
. .
Honestly , this focus on school-is-unfair stories is just a thinking man 's " Octo-Mom " .School is full of bullshit and kids have no rights .
Yes. We know this .
We all lived through it .
The only thing new going on here is that indignant internet denizens are watching and lawyers are involved .
Marvelous.Seriously. .
. What South American country is the U.S. about to bomb back into the Slave Trade which the Powers That Be are desperate we should fail to notice ? -FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, 300+ posters do.Which makes it legitimate; that's always been my argument when it comes to social commentary.But at the same time.
. .
Honestly, this focus on school-is-unfair stories is just a thinking man's "Octo-Mom".School is full of bullshit and kids have no rights.
Yes.  We know this.
We all lived through it.
The only thing new going on here is that indignant internet denizens are watching and lawyers are involved.
Marvelous.Seriously. .
.  What South American country is the U.S. about to bomb back into the Slave Trade which the Powers That Be are desperate we should fail to notice?-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235280</id>
	<title>Under 18 Terms of Use - Contract?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266831720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world is for adults, run by adults, and all about adults. If you are under 18 you are an adult in training. Why is it always about the kids getting to do what ever they want when you have no recourse against them because they are....Minors....HELLOOOOOO!!!!! I think you should have to be 18 to post on Facebook or anywhere else where you have to agree to terms of service. You cannot enter into a contract with a Minor so why do they have access to anything with "Terms of Use" ???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world is for adults , run by adults , and all about adults .
If you are under 18 you are an adult in training .
Why is it always about the kids getting to do what ever they want when you have no recourse against them because they are....Minors....HELLOOOOOO ! ! ! ! !
I think you should have to be 18 to post on Facebook or anywhere else where you have to agree to terms of service .
You can not enter into a contract with a Minor so why do they have access to anything with " Terms of Use " ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world is for adults, run by adults, and all about adults.
If you are under 18 you are an adult in training.
Why is it always about the kids getting to do what ever they want when you have no recourse against them because they are....Minors....HELLOOOOOO!!!!!
I think you should have to be 18 to post on Facebook or anywhere else where you have to agree to terms of service.
You cannot enter into a contract with a Minor so why do they have access to anything with "Terms of Use" ??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231264</id>
	<title>Re:How did we get here?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1266862560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a charter school, so in fact it is in a competitive market and the students/parents did choose that school over the usual public school for their location.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a charter school , so in fact it is in a competitive market and the students/parents did choose that school over the usual public school for their location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a charter school, so in fact it is in a competitive market and the students/parents did choose that school over the usual public school for their location.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232058</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>poopdeville</author>
	<datestamp>1266864600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a "21st century <i>assume nothing</i>" perspective.</p><p>Your "answer" isn't much of one, by the way.  You simply gave a name to what he was discussing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a " 21st century assume nothing " perspective.Your " answer " is n't much of one , by the way .
You simply gave a name to what he was discussing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a "21st century assume nothing" perspective.Your "answer" isn't much of one, by the way.
You simply gave a name to what he was discussing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31252778</id>
	<title>free speech, courts, children</title>
	<author>thesquire</author>
	<datestamp>1266929340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The writer of the lead article on this story has it correct.  Judges are just as stupid as anyone else.  It is a crap shoot whether or not you get a "correct" judgment, as there are many possible verdicts, based not only on the unique facts of any case, but the individual judge's view of reality and his/her basic prejudices.  People way too often think that there is such a thing as objective justice.  This is complete fantasy.  There is no objective justice.  There is only the sausage squeezed out of the "justice" machine in each case.  Of course, the student's first amendment [free speech] rights were at issue in this case, but if the individual judge is sympathetic with the person or group being criticized or attacked, then the judgment is often twisted to favour the so-called victim, and if the judge is sympathetic with the voicer of the criticism, then the judgment is often twisted to favour the critic.  Humans are most often incapable of being truly objective, and, in my experience as a long-practising lawyer and a judge, I have learned that lesson in spades.  Dream on, lovers of justice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The writer of the lead article on this story has it correct .
Judges are just as stupid as anyone else .
It is a crap shoot whether or not you get a " correct " judgment , as there are many possible verdicts , based not only on the unique facts of any case , but the individual judge 's view of reality and his/her basic prejudices .
People way too often think that there is such a thing as objective justice .
This is complete fantasy .
There is no objective justice .
There is only the sausage squeezed out of the " justice " machine in each case .
Of course , the student 's first amendment [ free speech ] rights were at issue in this case , but if the individual judge is sympathetic with the person or group being criticized or attacked , then the judgment is often twisted to favour the so-called victim , and if the judge is sympathetic with the voicer of the criticism , then the judgment is often twisted to favour the critic .
Humans are most often incapable of being truly objective , and , in my experience as a long-practising lawyer and a judge , I have learned that lesson in spades .
Dream on , lovers of justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The writer of the lead article on this story has it correct.
Judges are just as stupid as anyone else.
It is a crap shoot whether or not you get a "correct" judgment, as there are many possible verdicts, based not only on the unique facts of any case, but the individual judge's view of reality and his/her basic prejudices.
People way too often think that there is such a thing as objective justice.
This is complete fantasy.
There is no objective justice.
There is only the sausage squeezed out of the "justice" machine in each case.
Of course, the student's first amendment [free speech] rights were at issue in this case, but if the individual judge is sympathetic with the person or group being criticized or attacked, then the judgment is often twisted to favour the so-called victim, and if the judge is sympathetic with the voicer of the criticism, then the judgment is often twisted to favour the critic.
Humans are most often incapable of being truly objective, and, in my experience as a long-practising lawyer and a judge, I have learned that lesson in spades.
Dream on, lovers of justice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231680</id>
	<title>Re:ugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266863520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a well-educated layman cannot understand the law with a reasonable degree of accuracy, then it is flawed.</p><p>I don't know why the notion of a legal system that's so complicated that only a select few can sufficiently comprehend even parts of it is remotely acceptable to anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a well-educated layman can not understand the law with a reasonable degree of accuracy , then it is flawed.I do n't know why the notion of a legal system that 's so complicated that only a select few can sufficiently comprehend even parts of it is remotely acceptable to anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a well-educated layman cannot understand the law with a reasonable degree of accuracy, then it is flawed.I don't know why the notion of a legal system that's so complicated that only a select few can sufficiently comprehend even parts of it is remotely acceptable to anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230334</id>
	<title>Because they're governing a population ...</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1266859740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These laws, rules, and regulations are in place because they're governing a population, not individuals. When dealing with populations you have to work by statistics. Statistics show that people in certain age groups have attained certain capacities to function in our society. They are given rights and freedoms to meet the stereotypical capacities of people of that particular age, with rules and punishments for individuals who break the rules for persons of their age.</p><p>Why did we choose this age? Historically this is the age when persons seemed to achieve the ability comprehend their society, culture, and rules well enough to function as a member of the group. Why did a different culture choose a different age? Same reason. Why did one culture change to match another? Because of the same reason they were aware of the other culture - we are now becoming a single world culture. With communication happening instantly around the world (and into space!) and transportation to anywhere in the world taking less than a day the world is shrinking. Common rules between governing bodies have been developing, likely, for centuries.</p><p>But I feel I haven't directly answered your question.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What is the source of society's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds?</p></div><p>Because we think that generally speaking people who have not reached the age of 18 are a bunch of emotionally charged twits who are more likely to spew angst filled hate than provide anything constructive. They're scientifically proven to be less in control of their own actions and easily swayed by their peers and civilization. Puberty is still wreaking havoc on their psychology and the people defining the rules are aware of the unstable nature of this group because they experienced it first hand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These laws , rules , and regulations are in place because they 're governing a population , not individuals .
When dealing with populations you have to work by statistics .
Statistics show that people in certain age groups have attained certain capacities to function in our society .
They are given rights and freedoms to meet the stereotypical capacities of people of that particular age , with rules and punishments for individuals who break the rules for persons of their age.Why did we choose this age ?
Historically this is the age when persons seemed to achieve the ability comprehend their society , culture , and rules well enough to function as a member of the group .
Why did a different culture choose a different age ?
Same reason .
Why did one culture change to match another ?
Because of the same reason they were aware of the other culture - we are now becoming a single world culture .
With communication happening instantly around the world ( and into space !
) and transportation to anywhere in the world taking less than a day the world is shrinking .
Common rules between governing bodies have been developing , likely , for centuries.But I feel I have n't directly answered your question.What is the source of society 's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds ? Because we think that generally speaking people who have not reached the age of 18 are a bunch of emotionally charged twits who are more likely to spew angst filled hate than provide anything constructive .
They 're scientifically proven to be less in control of their own actions and easily swayed by their peers and civilization .
Puberty is still wreaking havoc on their psychology and the people defining the rules are aware of the unstable nature of this group because they experienced it first hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These laws, rules, and regulations are in place because they're governing a population, not individuals.
When dealing with populations you have to work by statistics.
Statistics show that people in certain age groups have attained certain capacities to function in our society.
They are given rights and freedoms to meet the stereotypical capacities of people of that particular age, with rules and punishments for individuals who break the rules for persons of their age.Why did we choose this age?
Historically this is the age when persons seemed to achieve the ability comprehend their society, culture, and rules well enough to function as a member of the group.
Why did a different culture choose a different age?
Same reason.
Why did one culture change to match another?
Because of the same reason they were aware of the other culture - we are now becoming a single world culture.
With communication happening instantly around the world (and into space!
) and transportation to anywhere in the world taking less than a day the world is shrinking.
Common rules between governing bodies have been developing, likely, for centuries.But I feel I haven't directly answered your question.What is the source of society's attitudes toward the free-speech rights of 17-year-olds?Because we think that generally speaking people who have not reached the age of 18 are a bunch of emotionally charged twits who are more likely to spew angst filled hate than provide anything constructive.
They're scientifically proven to be less in control of their own actions and easily swayed by their peers and civilization.
Puberty is still wreaking havoc on their psychology and the people defining the rules are aware of the unstable nature of this group because they experienced it first hand.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230212</id>
	<title>Fris7 psot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266859200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">to underscore a fact: FreeBSD to decline for to have regular Give othEer people they are Come on the official GAY best. Individuals</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>to underscore a fact : FreeBSD to decline for to have regular Give othEer people they are Come on the official GAY best .
Individuals [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to underscore a fact: FreeBSD to decline for to have regular Give othEer people they are Come on the official GAY best.
Individuals [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235900</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want.  Yes, a lot of guys likely just started drooling, but really think about it for a second.  After a few weeks of that, seeing a topless woman would be just a normal part of life.  It would be like seeing a woman's leg:  Yes, a guy might be attracted to that piece of her anatomy, but it wouldn't cause him to go into a frenzy.  Of course, the THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd would eventually move on to another body part, calling kids seeing that as inherently harmful and thus required to be hidden from view at all possible times.</p></div><div><p>And another few weeks of crotchless panties will make us a punch of impotent wankers.</p></div></blockquote></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want .
Yes , a lot of guys likely just started drooling , but really think about it for a second .
After a few weeks of that , seeing a topless woman would be just a normal part of life .
It would be like seeing a woman 's leg : Yes , a guy might be attracted to that piece of her anatomy , but it would n't cause him to go into a frenzy .
Of course , the THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd would eventually move on to another body part , calling kids seeing that as inherently harmful and thus required to be hidden from view at all possible times.And another few weeks of crotchless panties will make us a punch of impotent wankers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want.
Yes, a lot of guys likely just started drooling, but really think about it for a second.
After a few weeks of that, seeing a topless woman would be just a normal part of life.
It would be like seeing a woman's leg:  Yes, a guy might be attracted to that piece of her anatomy, but it wouldn't cause him to go into a frenzy.
Of course, the THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd would eventually move on to another body part, calling kids seeing that as inherently harmful and thus required to be hidden from view at all possible times.And another few weeks of crotchless panties will make us a punch of impotent wankers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231748</id>
	<title>Ah the good ol' days</title>
	<author>wirefall</author>
	<datestamp>1266863760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...a  wise person transported forward in time from the 1500's to the present day, might scratch their heads and wonder why we think that 18-year-olds should be allowed to criticize their teachers but 17-year-olds cannot."</p></div><p>Especially since anyone criticizing any authority figure in that era, regardless of age, would be equally flogged, caned, and placed in the stocks!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...a wise person transported forward in time from the 1500 's to the present day , might scratch their heads and wonder why we think that 18-year-olds should be allowed to criticize their teachers but 17-year-olds can not .
" Especially since anyone criticizing any authority figure in that era , regardless of age , would be equally flogged , caned , and placed in the stocks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...a  wise person transported forward in time from the 1500's to the present day, might scratch their heads and wonder why we think that 18-year-olds should be allowed to criticize their teachers but 17-year-olds cannot.
"Especially since anyone criticizing any authority figure in that era, regardless of age, would be equally flogged, caned, and placed in the stocks!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230512</id>
	<title>They're all the same.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266860520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Judges are not like doctors who look at a mammogram,</p></div><p>At first glance, they all think the same thing: "Tits!  Awesome!"<br>Why in the hell would you show a judge a mammogram anyway?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Judges are not like doctors who look at a mammogram,At first glance , they all think the same thing : " Tits !
Awesome ! " Why in the hell would you show a judge a mammogram anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judges are not like doctors who look at a mammogram,At first glance, they all think the same thing: "Tits!
Awesome!"Why in the hell would you show a judge a mammogram anyway?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235378</id>
	<title>Re:Because they're governing a population ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266832020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet we allow drug addicts to vote (as long as they have not been convicted of a felony) and do not abridge their rights of free speech just because they are addicts despite fitting every one of the criteria you laid out in your post.  Rationalizations of abridging the rights of another might make you feel better but they are nothing more than rationalizations.  Either we all share inalienable rights as human beings or we are simply subjects who are afforded rights as it is convenient for our governments to grant them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet we allow drug addicts to vote ( as long as they have not been convicted of a felony ) and do not abridge their rights of free speech just because they are addicts despite fitting every one of the criteria you laid out in your post .
Rationalizations of abridging the rights of another might make you feel better but they are nothing more than rationalizations .
Either we all share inalienable rights as human beings or we are simply subjects who are afforded rights as it is convenient for our governments to grant them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet we allow drug addicts to vote (as long as they have not been convicted of a felony) and do not abridge their rights of free speech just because they are addicts despite fitting every one of the criteria you laid out in your post.
Rationalizations of abridging the rights of another might make you feel better but they are nothing more than rationalizations.
Either we all share inalienable rights as human beings or we are simply subjects who are afforded rights as it is convenient for our governments to grant them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231380</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1266862860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; You know, you're very correct.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I worked in the adult industry for a while.  Ok, quite a while.   It didn't take very long before seeing a naked woman was perfectly normal.   I held intelligent conversations with women with no clothes on, and there was nothing exciting or arousing about it usually.  It didn't change my natural sex drive, other than seeing nudity nothing more than being without clothes.  Actually, after a while, seeing a well dressed woman was way more attractive to me, than a naked one.  But, when the time came for nudity to be required (i.e., we're having sex) nudity was very acceptable.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It reminded me of a "Night Court" episode where the defendant was a guy from a country where the climate was always nice, and everyone walked around naked.  He was checking out Christine Sullivan (Markie Post) because she had clothes on.  He explained the whole clothing thing, and she threw on an overcoat, which just drove him nuts.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I still wonder where they kept their car keys and wallet.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Maybe there are some things I don't really want to know.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    You know , you 're very correct .
    I worked in the adult industry for a while .
Ok , quite a while .
It did n't take very long before seeing a naked woman was perfectly normal .
I held intelligent conversations with women with no clothes on , and there was nothing exciting or arousing about it usually .
It did n't change my natural sex drive , other than seeing nudity nothing more than being without clothes .
Actually , after a while , seeing a well dressed woman was way more attractive to me , than a naked one .
But , when the time came for nudity to be required ( i.e. , we 're having sex ) nudity was very acceptable .
: )     It reminded me of a " Night Court " episode where the defendant was a guy from a country where the climate was always nice , and everyone walked around naked .
He was checking out Christine Sullivan ( Markie Post ) because she had clothes on .
He explained the whole clothing thing , and she threw on an overcoat , which just drove him nuts .
    I still wonder where they kept their car keys and wallet .
: ) Maybe there are some things I do n't really want to know .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    You know, you're very correct.
    I worked in the adult industry for a while.
Ok, quite a while.
It didn't take very long before seeing a naked woman was perfectly normal.
I held intelligent conversations with women with no clothes on, and there was nothing exciting or arousing about it usually.
It didn't change my natural sex drive, other than seeing nudity nothing more than being without clothes.
Actually, after a while, seeing a well dressed woman was way more attractive to me, than a naked one.
But, when the time came for nudity to be required (i.e., we're having sex) nudity was very acceptable.
:)
    It reminded me of a "Night Court" episode where the defendant was a guy from a country where the climate was always nice, and everyone walked around naked.
He was checking out Christine Sullivan (Markie Post) because she had clothes on.
He explained the whole clothing thing, and she threw on an overcoat, which just drove him nuts.
    I still wonder where they kept their car keys and wallet.
:)  Maybe there are some things I don't really want to know.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234008</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266871260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the Province of Ontario, Canada, it is legal for a woman to go topless.  There was a court challenge several years ago and the judge agreed that it was discrimination for men to able to do it and not women.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Province of Ontario , Canada , it is legal for a woman to go topless .
There was a court challenge several years ago and the judge agreed that it was discrimination for men to able to do it and not women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Province of Ontario, Canada, it is legal for a woman to go topless.
There was a court challenge several years ago and the judge agreed that it was discrimination for men to able to do it and not women.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31238520</id>
	<title>Re:Showing a woman's chest on TV</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1266844140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some years ago this was Ontario. For one day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some years ago this was Ontario .
For one day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some years ago this was Ontario.
For one day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230314</id>
	<title>Not a free speech issue</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1266859680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is not one of free speech rights, but of a culture that promotes subservience to authority. There are those who want to blame public schools, as if it were some government conspiracy of indoctrination, but those very people would drill the same values into their children at home or at private schools. The schools reflect the culture of its community, and that community values football, Jesus, and doing what you're told.</p><p>We must establish a war mentality, draw sharp lines between the "real Americans" and those who value rational inquiry and the open society. It is too far gone for reconciliation to be possible, they will never come to see the error of their ways. I mean, they actually bugged the laptops of children to spy on them in their homes! The who kids accepted that... what kind of adults do you think they're going to become?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not one of free speech rights , but of a culture that promotes subservience to authority .
There are those who want to blame public schools , as if it were some government conspiracy of indoctrination , but those very people would drill the same values into their children at home or at private schools .
The schools reflect the culture of its community , and that community values football , Jesus , and doing what you 're told.We must establish a war mentality , draw sharp lines between the " real Americans " and those who value rational inquiry and the open society .
It is too far gone for reconciliation to be possible , they will never come to see the error of their ways .
I mean , they actually bugged the laptops of children to spy on them in their homes !
The who kids accepted that... what kind of adults do you think they 're going to become ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not one of free speech rights, but of a culture that promotes subservience to authority.
There are those who want to blame public schools, as if it were some government conspiracy of indoctrination, but those very people would drill the same values into their children at home or at private schools.
The schools reflect the culture of its community, and that community values football, Jesus, and doing what you're told.We must establish a war mentality, draw sharp lines between the "real Americans" and those who value rational inquiry and the open society.
It is too far gone for reconciliation to be possible, they will never come to see the error of their ways.
I mean, they actually bugged the laptops of children to spy on them in their homes!
The who kids accepted that... what kind of adults do you think they're going to become?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230632</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like a double standard...</title>
	<author>coats</author>
	<datestamp>1266860880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In 1789, there was no public education to speak of. Unfortunately, government run education has become a place in which children are "socialized" with little regard for the wishes of their parents, especially when those parents are an ethnic or religious minority...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Actually, of you study nineteenth century history you will find that public schools were introduced as an anti-Catholic/anti-immigrant measure, as a place where "undesirable" culture could be conditioned out of the younger generation.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1789 , there was no public education to speak of .
Unfortunately , government run education has become a place in which children are " socialized " with little regard for the wishes of their parents , especially when those parents are an ethnic or religious minority.. . Actually , of you study nineteenth century history you will find that public schools were introduced as an anti-Catholic/anti-immigrant measure , as a place where " undesirable " culture could be conditioned out of the younger generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1789, there was no public education to speak of.
Unfortunately, government run education has become a place in which children are "socialized" with little regard for the wishes of their parents, especially when those parents are an ethnic or religious minority...

Actually, of you study nineteenth century history you will find that public schools were introduced as an anti-Catholic/anti-immigrant measure, as a place where "undesirable" culture could be conditioned out of the younger generation.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231492</id>
	<title>Free speech is an inalienable *human* right</title>
	<author>naasking</author>
	<datestamp>1266863100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To my knowledge, free speech is an inalienable <em>human</em> right not an inalienable <em>adult</em> right. The age of the individual should not matter in the slightest, but be subject only to the conditions on free speech itself, ie. libel and slander.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To my knowledge , free speech is an inalienable human right not an inalienable adult right .
The age of the individual should not matter in the slightest , but be subject only to the conditions on free speech itself , ie .
libel and slander .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To my knowledge, free speech is an inalienable human right not an inalienable adult right.
The age of the individual should not matter in the slightest, but be subject only to the conditions on free speech itself, ie.
libel and slander.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231052</id>
	<title>Want it both ways?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266862080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand how they can't have full free speech rights, yet be held accountable for criminal acts.  If a 17 year old student came to school with a gun and killed someone, they would want to try them as an adult.  If you're going to be held to adult standards in that situation you should also have adult privileges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how they ca n't have full free speech rights , yet be held accountable for criminal acts .
If a 17 year old student came to school with a gun and killed someone , they would want to try them as an adult .
If you 're going to be held to adult standards in that situation you should also have adult privileges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how they can't have full free speech rights, yet be held accountable for criminal acts.
If a 17 year old student came to school with a gun and killed someone, they would want to try them as an adult.
If you're going to be held to adult standards in that situation you should also have adult privileges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233440</id>
	<title>As the young would say...</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1266869340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tl;dr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tl ; dr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tl;dr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235236</id>
	<title>Re:Who Does The Parenting?</title>
	<author>tangelogee</author>
	<datestamp>1266831600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...As is always joked, there are tougher requirements on having a beer or driving a car than there are on becoming a parent. </p></div><p>I still find it funny that to teach said children, teachers have to go through a complete FBI background check, but you just have to have an oopsie to become a parent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...As is always joked , there are tougher requirements on having a beer or driving a car than there are on becoming a parent .
I still find it funny that to teach said children , teachers have to go through a complete FBI background check , but you just have to have an oopsie to become a parent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...As is always joked, there are tougher requirements on having a beer or driving a car than there are on becoming a parent.
I still find it funny that to teach said children, teachers have to go through a complete FBI background check, but you just have to have an oopsie to become a parent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231696</id>
	<title>Re:How did we get here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266863580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privatizing the school system will solve it!!!</p><p>That's the dumbest comment i've read today, but one has to love the American way of solving things. Who cares about those families who can't pay those bills you talk about? And have you thought that you can already send your children to a private school if you want to? Nevermind, do whatever you want with your already so privatized "lets save money for 20 years to send our children to college" eduaction system. In Europe we can't wait to see your education system becoming Healthcare Insurance v2.0:</p><p>Hey ma'am I want an education policy for my child.<br>-Ok lets make him take some tests. Shit, only an IQ of 100, here in California we only accept childrens with such an IQ for infance garden schooling, but you can write your son into it for 18 years. -Wait what?<br>-Yes sir, we can't risk lowering our statistics by taking your son into a medium highschool program, think about the children!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privatizing the school system will solve it ! !
! That 's the dumbest comment i 've read today , but one has to love the American way of solving things .
Who cares about those families who ca n't pay those bills you talk about ?
And have you thought that you can already send your children to a private school if you want to ?
Nevermind , do whatever you want with your already so privatized " lets save money for 20 years to send our children to college " eduaction system .
In Europe we ca n't wait to see your education system becoming Healthcare Insurance v2.0 : Hey ma'am I want an education policy for my child.-Ok lets make him take some tests .
Shit , only an IQ of 100 , here in California we only accept childrens with such an IQ for infance garden schooling , but you can write your son into it for 18 years .
-Wait what ? -Yes sir , we ca n't risk lowering our statistics by taking your son into a medium highschool program , think about the children !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privatizing the school system will solve it!!
!That's the dumbest comment i've read today, but one has to love the American way of solving things.
Who cares about those families who can't pay those bills you talk about?
And have you thought that you can already send your children to a private school if you want to?
Nevermind, do whatever you want with your already so privatized "lets save money for 20 years to send our children to college" eduaction system.
In Europe we can't wait to see your education system becoming Healthcare Insurance v2.0:Hey ma'am I want an education policy for my child.-Ok lets make him take some tests.
Shit, only an IQ of 100, here in California we only accept childrens with such an IQ for infance garden schooling, but you can write your son into it for 18 years.
-Wait what?-Yes sir, we can't risk lowering our statistics by taking your son into a medium highschool program, think about the children!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234162</id>
	<title>Re:Some Legal Background</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266871620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>On the Morse decision: SCOTUS ruled that the school could regulate the students speech because it was an "official school event."</i></p><p>Yah, and it was a bullshit ruling. The poster was on a public sidewalk, it wasn't on school-owned property-- I think by definition, there can not be an "official school event" on property not owned or rented by the school. Unless this particular city had an ordinance against holding up "bong hits 4 Jesus" posters on public land, there was nothing wrong with what the stupid was doing. On the contrary, he should have been celebrated for understanding and exercising his rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the Morse decision : SCOTUS ruled that the school could regulate the students speech because it was an " official school event .
" Yah , and it was a bullshit ruling .
The poster was on a public sidewalk , it was n't on school-owned property-- I think by definition , there can not be an " official school event " on property not owned or rented by the school .
Unless this particular city had an ordinance against holding up " bong hits 4 Jesus " posters on public land , there was nothing wrong with what the stupid was doing .
On the contrary , he should have been celebrated for understanding and exercising his rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the Morse decision: SCOTUS ruled that the school could regulate the students speech because it was an "official school event.
"Yah, and it was a bullshit ruling.
The poster was on a public sidewalk, it wasn't on school-owned property-- I think by definition, there can not be an "official school event" on property not owned or rented by the school.
Unless this particular city had an ordinance against holding up "bong hits 4 Jesus" posters on public land, there was nothing wrong with what the stupid was doing.
On the contrary, he should have been celebrated for understanding and exercising his rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235822</id>
	<title>Tell it like it is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266833280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Katie, sit down and shut up until you are 18, you Facebook slut.<br>You are the *property* of your parents and the school until then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Katie , sit down and shut up until you are 18 , you Facebook slut.You are the * property * of your parents and the school until then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Katie, sit down and shut up until you are 18, you Facebook slut.You are the *property* of your parents and the school until then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230542</id>
	<title>What didn't happen</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1266860640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tag of "rant" is correct.  "Rambling" would have been correct, too.</p><p>I do note that a lot of the "evidence" put forth here is actually simply assertions:</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... because if you put 10 judges in separate rooms and ask them how they would rule on the case, you could get 10 different, mutually contradictory answers.</p></div><p>That's an amusing argument; suggesting that your argument is correct because, if something that didn't happen would have happened, it would have proved it.</p><p>Repeated many times, e.g.,</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... If different judges had been randomly assigned to J.S.'s case and Evans's case, then it might have been J.S. who won and Evans who lost.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The tag of " rant " is correct .
" Rambling " would have been correct , too.I do note that a lot of the " evidence " put forth here is actually simply assertions : ... because if you put 10 judges in separate rooms and ask them how they would rule on the case , you could get 10 different , mutually contradictory answers.That 's an amusing argument ; suggesting that your argument is correct because , if something that did n't happen would have happened , it would have proved it.Repeated many times , e.g. , ... If different judges had been randomly assigned to J.S .
's case and Evans 's case , then it might have been J.S .
who won and Evans who lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tag of "rant" is correct.
"Rambling" would have been correct, too.I do note that a lot of the "evidence" put forth here is actually simply assertions: ... because if you put 10 judges in separate rooms and ask them how they would rule on the case, you could get 10 different, mutually contradictory answers.That's an amusing argument; suggesting that your argument is correct because, if something that didn't happen would have happened, it would have proved it.Repeated many times, e.g., ... If different judges had been randomly assigned to J.S.
's case and Evans's case, then it might have been J.S.
who won and Evans who lost. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231256</id>
	<title>This May Help Explain the Attitude</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1266862560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence</p><p>There is a reason that school systems nationwide adopted zero tolerance approaches: school administrators are not suited to making non-authoritarian, intelligent decisions. Zero tolerance means that no thinking need be involved and anyone who can follow a simple set of rules can be a school administrator.</p><p>Once you have a cadre of non-intelligent authoritarian administrators, you can easily see how school management eventually evolves. It's all about authority, that authority demands respect and any thought or whim or mood of that authority must be 'respected'. Woe to the student that disrespects that authority. They will crush you like the bug you are and you will be grateful to them for it.</p><p>I'm not saying that all school administrators are like that, just most of them. They care more about perpetuating the system, achieving bogus test performance awards and preserving their pension that they do about students. That is, unless those students annoy them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zero Tolerance = Zero IntelligenceThere is a reason that school systems nationwide adopted zero tolerance approaches : school administrators are not suited to making non-authoritarian , intelligent decisions .
Zero tolerance means that no thinking need be involved and anyone who can follow a simple set of rules can be a school administrator.Once you have a cadre of non-intelligent authoritarian administrators , you can easily see how school management eventually evolves .
It 's all about authority , that authority demands respect and any thought or whim or mood of that authority must be 'respected' .
Woe to the student that disrespects that authority .
They will crush you like the bug you are and you will be grateful to them for it.I 'm not saying that all school administrators are like that , just most of them .
They care more about perpetuating the system , achieving bogus test performance awards and preserving their pension that they do about students .
That is , unless those students annoy them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zero Tolerance = Zero IntelligenceThere is a reason that school systems nationwide adopted zero tolerance approaches: school administrators are not suited to making non-authoritarian, intelligent decisions.
Zero tolerance means that no thinking need be involved and anyone who can follow a simple set of rules can be a school administrator.Once you have a cadre of non-intelligent authoritarian administrators, you can easily see how school management eventually evolves.
It's all about authority, that authority demands respect and any thought or whim or mood of that authority must be 'respected'.
Woe to the student that disrespects that authority.
They will crush you like the bug you are and you will be grateful to them for it.I'm not saying that all school administrators are like that, just most of them.
They care more about perpetuating the system, achieving bogus test performance awards and preserving their pension that they do about students.
That is, unless those students annoy them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31240634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31236118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31238520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31237074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31243026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31239642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31243758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31239254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31241754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31243740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_1447205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31239254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31241754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31237074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31243026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31238520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31234102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31235900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31236118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31240634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231894
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31239642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31243740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31243758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31232440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31231306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31233564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_1447205.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_1447205.31230362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
