<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 1-X = Y</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.filteringcraig.com/2003/06/24/1-x-y/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.filteringcraig.com/2003/06/24/1-x-y/</link>
	<description>Where all the kids want to meet!</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:36:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.filteringcraig.com/2003/06/24/1-x-y/#comment-480</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2003 01:01:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.craiglyndall.com/?p=177#comment-480</guid>
		<description>Alright, then maybe I'm conflating them.  Either way, I just like to say "conflating."  Conflating, conflating, conflating.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alright, then maybe I&#8217;m conflating them.  Either way, I just like to say &#8220;conflating.&#8221;  Conflating, conflating, conflating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jarodius</title>
		<link>http://www.filteringcraig.com/2003/06/24/1-x-y/#comment-479</link>
		<dc:creator>jarodius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:27:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.craiglyndall.com/?p=177#comment-479</guid>
		<description>Chris... I am confused... were they supposed to be teaching civics in school?  I thought that school was a minimum security prison.  Wow, teaching civics... that sounds like the idea of a raving lunatic!  They would never do that.  That might lead to *thinking*.  Don't want them damn sheep thinking.  Do you know what kind of trouble that can lead to?  What do you want?  A revolution?  Crazy mixed up kids.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris&#8230; I am confused&#8230; were they supposed to be teaching civics in school?  I thought that school was a minimum security prison.  Wow, teaching civics&#8230; that sounds like the idea of a raving lunatic!  They would never do that.  That might lead to *thinking*.  Don&#8217;t want them damn sheep thinking.  Do you know what kind of trouble that can lead to?  What do you want?  A revolution?  Crazy mixed up kids.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FilteringCraig</title>
		<link>http://www.filteringcraig.com/2003/06/24/1-x-y/#comment-478</link>
		<dc:creator>FilteringCraig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:56:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.craiglyndall.com/?p=177#comment-478</guid>
		<description>I don't think I am conflating them.  I thought it was a commentary on how they come together and conflict.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think I am conflating them.  I thought it was a commentary on how they come together and conflict.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.filteringcraig.com/2003/06/24/1-x-y/#comment-477</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2003 21:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.craiglyndall.com/?p=177#comment-477</guid>
		<description>Craig, you're conflating two different fundamental ideas.  The first is free speech.  The issue is not whether it is convenient to uphold free speech, but rather whether some institutions have a compelling organizational interest to abridge it.  You argue, correctly, that free speech should not be fully protected in the context of a school, because the school has a compelling interest in providing a certain environment and some speech undermines that interest.  Same goes for companies.  Same goes for lots of different scenarios.  The second principle is that of equal protection under the law.  See the 14th Amendment.  This is a fundamental principle, if not a founding principle, and I think there is a very compelling argument to be made that school rules should be applied fairly (equally) to all students.  To be clear:  I agree that the offending T-shirt from the article should not be worn to school.  The school administrators were correct to tell the student to change clothes.  If, however, they do not do the exact same thing to a student who wears the opposite message with the intention of shocking and offending a smaller and less vocal group of students, they are teaching a very poor civics lesson indeed.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Craig, you&#8217;re conflating two different fundamental ideas.  The first is free speech.  The issue is not whether it is convenient to uphold free speech, but rather whether some institutions have a compelling organizational interest to abridge it.  You argue, correctly, that free speech should not be fully protected in the context of a school, because the school has a compelling interest in providing a certain environment and some speech undermines that interest.  Same goes for companies.  Same goes for lots of different scenarios.  The second principle is that of equal protection under the law.  See the 14th Amendment.  This is a fundamental principle, if not a founding principle, and I think there is a very compelling argument to be made that school rules should be applied fairly (equally) to all students.  To be clear:  I agree that the offending T-shirt from the article should not be worn to school.  The school administrators were correct to tell the student to change clothes.  If, however, they do not do the exact same thing to a student who wears the opposite message with the intention of shocking and offending a smaller and less vocal group of students, they are teaching a very poor civics lesson indeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
