So I'm stuck doing group work about free speech and buffer zones. We are looking at Snyder vs Phelps and the Massachusetts abortion buffer zone rulings. I am paired with Student Who Can't Write, whom despite having lived in Kansas her whole life, has never heard of Fred Phelps.

She also has no reference for the issue of abortion outside of "it's sad and I don't want protesters there." Yay for that,but for gods sake HAVE YOU NO KNOWLEDGE, ANY AT ALL, EVEN ONE FUCKING IOTA, ABOUT ANYTHING?

Seriously, I had to spoon feed her the cases, the issues, the ramifications, and all she could say was "this is stupid and I don't understand."


Also I told myself and the teacher that I was not in the mood to debate abortion, and I would happily stay on topic with free speech and assembly. Student Who Can't Write just wants to just talk abortion.


Abortion prevents child abuse. Many unwanted children will not be born. Even someone who considers it homicide should be able to see that death is preferable to years of slow torture.

It also means that people who have not thought of using any of the assorted readily-available means of contraception have a way to keep from reproducing, and the next generation will average out as better at considering consequences.
I for one think that from this day forth all decisions with regards criminal justice should be made in accordance with whether or not your classmate thinks it is sad.

... in many ways this almost seems fairer than the 'They with the deepest pockets tend to win' system we currently have.

.... something, something, DANGER ZONE, something.
I've had to do group work with someone who just sat their looking at her phone. This was in a group of about 5 people, so even if she had been being subtle about it (she wasn't) it would have still been obvious. I tried to engage her to ask what she thought about the subject and she said something non-committal like 'I dunno, it's weird...' and in the end I had to point blank ask her to put her phone away. I felt like her fricking teacher.
I'm still trying to understand how a 100-foot buffer zone around a polling place is sufficiently narrowly tailored to justify abridging the very core of the free speech right, but a 35-foot buffer zone around a clinic is insufficiently narrowly tailored to justify abridging non-core speech. I should probably read the Mass. case.
Ha, I thought about you ALL DAY in school today. This month's flavor of learning is Criminal Procedure, where we talk about the specific legal procedures of arrest, evidence, and trial. Also how cases move through the court system. LATIN, THERE IS SO MUCH LATIN!!!
I had quite possibly the coolest criminal procedure prof ever born. Why I loved those classes.
Good for the friggin goose.. should be good for the gd gander. Then again this is also the same court who said it was okay to picket at funerals, because apparently free speech means you can shove your ideas down someone's throat.. unless of course you are a SCJ or at the voting booth. Nice.
I'm beginning to suspect that their "reasoning" is that the government doesn't have a "compelling interest" in protecting certain people (patients, grieving families) from other people's verbal abuse. Which is bullshit, but about the answer I would expect from justices who have only a cavernous void where their empathy should be.
How old is she

I only ask because usually college students are under 25 many as young as 19 or so. I'd be damned surprised if anyone that age had an opinion on abortion rights beyond "it's bad because Jesus says so" or "its good because it's a woman's body". Unless you are an activist or are directly affected by abortion, that's about as far as the societal dialogue goes.

I'm also not surprised she didn't know who Fred Phelps was. I bet if you showed her a picture or said, "god hates fags" it would ring a bell with her. Again, if she were an activist or gay, she would probably know more because it would affect her personally.

Part of the function of college (theoretically, at least) is to help its students think about the big questions in life and society.
It amazes me that in this day and age that there are so many people who are simply too stupid to function in the real world. Did she pick criminal justice because she thought it would magically transform her into a member of the Special Victims Unit?
It actually doesn't surprise me that there are so many stupid people now. This crap goes on because society unfortunately tolerates stupid people. Instead of people going "look you fucking moron," they make excuses for stupid people, and in some cases, actually *reward* them for being stupid. How else would idiots like Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson succeed? That is, they sell their crap to people dumber than they are. Along those lines, I think that all warning labels should be removed, and the problem would then solve itself. Stupid people would remove themselves from the gene pool...and not be able to taint the rest of us. Society would benefit :)