We're losing sight of the argument. The question is how involved do we want uniformed police to be in the task of disciplining children. There's no question in mind, that we've come way too far in that direction in the many years its been since I was in school.

That there are laws an the books against assault which are more than adequate to deal with bullies when they actually engage in criminal behavior.

And yes, they do find arrest eye-opening under those circumstances.

Am I understand that high school students are now subject to arrest for engaging in the kind of hateful activity that has set adolescent males apart from other sorts of people for the entire history of mankind?

Excuse me for regarding that as a really bad idea. And that is speaking as a frequent victim of the behavior in question.

Lets be clear.

We are all human beings and are all imperfect. As soon as someone becomes an "official" then one has aquired a position that is backed by the threat of force. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees that the person having acquired the title has acquired any better judgement on the question of what is "permissible" speech than any randomly selected person on the street. In fact, people who strive to become officials are reliably self-selected to be those who err on the side of less expression. It's as natural as candidates for office lying.

That is why Freedom of Expression had to be specifically guaranteed in our founding documents. Left to itself our system will always evolve to LESS Freedom.

who contributed to this discussion for reminding me of all the ways my personal political views may be regarded as Conservative. It will come in handy the next time some idiot comes in to spew generalities about "lefties".

I Left Wheaton for the City as a young adult in ~1980. Spent the 90's downstate. (Kankakee) Left Illinois altogether in 2000.

It's interesting to note how little has changed in DuPage County sisnce I left.....

But he's never met an air campaign that he didn't like.

except Sudan that is.

My question from earlier remains unanswered.

We are discussing the ability to levy fines but no one has yet told me what the consequenses would be for refusing to pay the fine. I'm guessing that refusing to pay the fine would subject you to arrest. I'm waiting for someone to tell me why that isn't application of the full force of law to speech crimes or that my assumption is mistaken.

If you read shannonr's post carefully, he actually comes down on the right side of the question. It's the premise that insult should be criminilazed in the first place that leads to the contradiction.

but I know it when I see it.

The jury system is designed the way it is becuase individual humans are falable and one of the clever ways to get past that is to force 12 unrelated people to reach a consensus. The arrival at truth in the context of public debate has to be driven by the same principle.

I know that I see what's right and wrong as clearly as I can tell the difference between daylight and nightfall. But I'm just one person and there are literally millions of people who are quite sure that I am full of crap.

The only way to arrive at truth is to allow everyone the equal opportunity to be full of crap. Otherwise our view of the world is inevitably distorted.

There is a serious difference between getting a criminal record and going to prison, on the one hand, and having to suffer through a demeaning and inappropriate farce of a proceeding in which there is literally no question of criminal sanction, let alone incarceration.

What force is it that compels attendance at the proceeding? And what is the sanction for non-appearance?

I think I can guess the answer but some clarification would be helpful.

{snark}How many times do I have to tell you people, defending the right to express a viewpoint does not contitute endorsement for that viewpoint?

And I have not yet endorsed Mark Steyn's presidential bid. {/snark}

This has always been one of the things that I admire about you. Ideas will rise and fall on their own merit but your adherence to the notion of Freedom of Expression over the particulars of any idealogical litmus test, does indeed set you apart among commenters in today's environment.

Thank you.

But it would appear that Michael Scherer just pointed out that McCain might be ever so slightly less than honest with reporters on the bus:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/the_two_sides_of_mccains_south.html

Lets pretend as an exercise that the last sentence of Glenn's post had been "That was the whole interview -- all four questions." and that nothing had followed. Are you willing to deny that the interview itself would have made Glenn's point without any embellishment?

That was some suck-ass journalism and it's suck-ass nature happens to be out there for all to see.

If you want a basis to attack Glenn, feel free, but don't expect anything you say change the history or nature of the original exchange.

Once again the trolls help identify part of the problem. John McCain's bus is called the straight-talk express. It's called that because he hangs out with and glad-hands the reporters who cover his campaign. He does indeed become buddies with many of them. What a great idea! How better to control the message that gets out to the public?

The trolls note that you can't expect reporters to be adversarial if their in such close quarters with the candidtate. Guess what folks. THAT"S THE WHOLE FRIGGING POINT!