Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Violence?

Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Violence? Another instance of Zimmerman Derangement Syndrome, a disease caused by the Jackson-Sharpton-Obama virus.

 Remel Newson posted on his Facebook page, using the "killallwhites"hashtag, some verbiage such as "BLAC NIGGAS CNT GET NO TYPE OF JUSTICE FUCCIN WIT DESE CRACCER'S #KILLALL WHITES DATS DA TYPE OF SHIT I'M ON FUCK DIS BEEF SHIT LET'S KILL COPS ND NEIGHBO RHOOD WATCHER #FACTS DAT."

 A sharp-eyed NYPD detective caught it, and Newson was arrested and charged with making terroristic threats. Newson had claimed that he is just an aspiring rapper, and that what he posted were just lyrics (which are, of course, protected under the First Amendment).

 Now the charges have been dropped.

 Without in any way trying to promote Newson as anything resembling a productive and contributing citizen (he does, after all, have a prison record for a crime of violence, and he is only 20 years old), I would have to say that the dropping of the charges was the correct decision. There really wasn't enough evidence to make the charge stick, what with all of the reasonable doubts as to his true intention ("reasonable doubt" being a legal term, and not necessarily based in common sense/street sense/cop sense logic). Why strain the public resources any more with a futile trial, when there is every reason to expect that Newson will once again have a further encounter with the criminal justice system, and where there is a good chance that the evidence in the next case will be far better?


 Query: Would similar charges have been dropped so quickly against a white Facebook poster of "lyrics" advocating the killing of police officers and Black people?

First Amendment, Second Class Education

When I was in senior high school (let alone junior high), it was well understood that students were expected to attend classes for the duration of the class session, until dismissed by the teacher. We were not allowed to cut classes, and we were not allowed to leave the classes before dismissal.

And if, by whatever circumstance, we deigned to walk out of class (or, more commonly, were ordered out by the teacher on account of our suboptimal decorum), we were required to report directly to the Vice Principal's office for such action as he deemed appropriate. All else being equal, the consequences would be a one day after-school detention for the first offense, a two day after-school detention for the second offense, and a one-day suspension for the third offense (a level I was skillful enough to personally achieve).

But now, the New York Civil Liberties Union takes the position that students should be allowed to walk out of classes with impunity if the action is for political purposes! Some students at the Ralph J. Reed Middle School in Central Islip, NY, walked out of classes in protest against some proposed budget cuts by the school district.

Hey, aren't the students allowed to exercise their First Amendment free speech rights by talking about whatever the wish during travel time between classes, during lunch, before and after school, et cetera? Shouldn't the teachers have the right to demand the undivided attention of the students during classes? Apparently, the NYCLU (and by extension, its parent organization, the ACLU, from whose policies the NYCLU would never deviate) thinks that freely walking out of classes in the name of free expression and the First Amendment is more important than a first-rate education.

I can see reasons for prioritizing free expression over education. But if students seek to walk in and out of classes, willy-nilly, and thereby subvert the educational process and the teachers' lesson plans, then they should exercise their First Amendment rights on their parents' dimes, and not the taxpayers'. Because if the teachers are not allowed to teach, then they are relegated to being babysitters, and should be paid babysitter wages with our tax money and not teacher wages.

Better still -- Get the students who do not want to learn out of the classrooms, so that those dedicated professionals in the classrooms can get their smaller class sizes, and those students who do wish to learn can do so without the distraction of the other pantywaist.

There is a time and place for political protest. But there also is a time and place for the education of our children.

To Central Islip School District Superintendent Craig Carr, I say stand by the suspensions and tell the NYCLU to go take a hike!

Match from Hell, but Made in Heaven

I note, with interest, the case of Williams v. Williams, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32119, N.Y.L.J., 4/7/2010, p. 36 (No. 07 Civ. 119, S.D.N.Y., 31 March 2010).

Notwithstanding that the primary plaintiff and the primary defendant share a common surname, they apparently are unrelated.

The plaintiffs are students and alumni of the City College of New York, and the defendants are officials or employees of said college and/or its parent institution, the City University of New York.

Seems that a one or more groups of CCNY students decided to honor two former CCNY students, to wit, terrorist Guillermo Morales and terrorist/cop-killer Assata Shakur (formerly known as JoAnne Chesimard), each of whom escaped the authorities and now lives in Cuba. One such group received permission from the College to use a room for their organization. The room was (dis)graced by a sign reading "Guillermo Morales/Assata Shakur Community and Student Center" some time in 1990. The room was (and continues to be) used by various far, far left organizations.

[N.B. Neither the two aforementioned oxygen-wasting lowlifes, nor their sycophants, admirers or acolytes, will be further glorified by any links in this posting. No need to boost their Google search counts any more than necessary.].

The 12 December 2006 issue of the New York Daily News featured an article, and a companion editorial, which criticized CCNY and CUNY for sanctioning "a shrine to killers." The sign was removed, and the students now sue for infringement of their Constitutional rights. In defense, CCNY and CUNY claim qualified immunity in removing the sign.

Judge Thomas Griesa denied CCNY/CUNY's motion to dismiss. As the Judge explained it, "There is surely a serious question as to whether the students had a Constitutional right to name the Community Center after two criminals and to place a sign announcing this name above the door, thereby in effect commemorating such criminals. However, the court does not believe the case should be decided on motion. There are issues that deserve a trial, both as to plaintiffs' First Amendment claims and defendants' qualified immunity defense."

The added stress upon the judicial resources not withstanding, Judge Griesa has, in my own humble opinion, called this one correctly. While the students and their organizations are lowly scums, and their efforts to commemorate killers, anarchists and terrorists are most reprehensible, the College is hardly any better for tolerating that plaque above the door to the room for over 16 years. And while I am all for student free expression, I question whether similar leeway would have been accorded by the College to, say, a group of extremist Jewish students who put up a plaque for the Rabbi Meir Kahane Community Center, or a group of extremist Italian students who name their den after John Gotti Sr. or some other mafia don.

Let the two sides duke it out in court! They deserve one another!

My only concern is that CCNY/CUNY might capitulate to pay the students a settlement to end the litigation. But if that happens, I am sure that the New York Daily News and other publications will not hesitate to further embarrass CCNY.