New Mexico bans "Lunch shaming"

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Actually yes it kinda is.

No it isn't.

We have protected classes of speech for a reason. Not every form of speech is protected speech.

[Crockerland]

Help people with lunches if they can't afford it? Yeah!


But forbidding freedom of speech on your veiws on it is a for me. I don't support doing it, and Inthink people who do it are jerks. But banning people from staying stuff? Really, that violates first admenment.

The entire text of the bill can be read here, please show us where it restricts freedom of speech.

[The Liberated Territories]

So the state now legislates stuff that should be common sense for schools?

[Donut section]

Actually yes it kinda is.

No it isn't.

We have protected classes of speech for a reason. Not every form of speech is protected speech.

Protected speech is not free speech.

Free speech is the uninhibited use of speech.
Protected speech is whatever some government allows.

Very much not the same thing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it isn't.

We have protected classes of speech for a reason. Not every form of speech is protected speech.

Protected speech is not free speech.

Free speech is the uninhibited use of speech.
Protected speech is whatever some government allows.

Very much not the same thing.

Then the United States does not have "uninhibited use of speech", then, and doesn't have free speech.

It has protected speech, but not free speech.

[Donut section]

Protected speech is not free speech.

Free speech is the uninhibited use of speech.
Protected speech is whatever some government allows.

Very much not the same thing.

Then the United States does not have "uninhibited use of speech", then, and doesn't have free speech.

It has protected speech, but not free speech.

I know, it's one of the reasons it doesn't have a legitimate government.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then the United States does not have "uninhibited use of speech", then, and doesn't have free speech.

It has protected speech, but not free speech.

I know, it's one of the reasons it doesn't have a legitimate government.

I say it is fine as it is, and the legitimacy of a government comes from its people, not from whatever an outsider decides it to mean.

[Donut section]

I know, it's one of the reasons it doesn't have a legitimate government.

I say it is fine as it is, and the legitimacy of a government comes from its people, not from whatever an outsider decides it to mean.

Hopefully not an outsider for too much longer.

[Rio Cana]

Yeah, those kids with six-figure earning parents NEED free school lunch! It's one thing if you absolutely cannot afford lunch(Below the poverty line). But if someone has parents earning a decent income, they do not need taxpayer-funded lunch. They can pay for it.

Good idea. More taxpayers money will be saved for the politicians to steal. Never mind, better to spend the money on the kids then let the politicians get there hands on it.

[Imperializt Russia]

1) not socialism
2) learn what socialism is

1) what socialism amounts to
2) text book definitions rarely match reality, so go learn what socialism is

What you seem to be describing is a pretty old and lazy demonisation of people partially or heavily reliant on the welfare state.
The welfare state is not socialist. Fundamentally so.

The welfare state, by its very nature, is a social democratic policy to support those left behind in a capitalist system.
Not. Remotely. Socialist.

What the fuck are you even saying with this second "point"? That because you can't be remotely fucked enough to consider that critiquing socialism maybe should involve a passing understanding of the ideology, it doesn't matter?

freedumb of speesh!

"Freedom of speech" isn't licence to just say whatever shit passes through your head. What this law is in relation to, is to stop school administrators from using methods to publicly identify and/or shame children who cannot afford school meals and have accounts run empty or physically not afford them.

Methods include, a hand-stamp, having your meal thrown away for daring to try and have one, and being forced to perform medial labour to "work" for a meal.
These are cruel and demeaning punishments for the crime of being poor and hungry, in a school of all fucking places.

This is not "freedumb of speesh". It's not even about fucking speech.

Ohh.
I though it meant that other kids were saying stuff like "You can't afford it? Ha ha!" Which is kinda jerky but should still be allowed. Forcing people to do stuff for like you mentioned is a big no no. Is that even legal? Forcing kids to do stuff like that.

Not anymore

"Freedom of speech" isn't licence to just say whatever shit passes through your head.

Actually yes it kinda is.

Freedom of speech is, at its most basic, the freedom from political persecution from voicing political opinions.
Its fundamental purpose is to protect you from unjust repercussions from the state, for criticising the state. The original amendments of the constitution were, of course, in response to grievances from things imposed upon the Colonies by the Empire.

It is the right to voice dissent.
It is not the right to say what you wish on any topic without repercussion, whether judicial or social.

I say it is fine as it is, and the legitimacy of a government comes from its people, not from whatever an outsider decides it to mean.

Hopefully not an outsider for too much longer.

Hello Ms. Rand.

[Katganistan]

Enduring simple bullying builds character

I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who claims something like this has almost never actually been bullied in school.

Some people who espouse this sort of thing, in my experience, are the same ones who bully others.

No.
Have a progressive system with pre-paid lunch tickets instead. The kids from lowest-income families get them for free. Kids from low-income get a discount, and kids from middle-to-high income pay for the full price. But no money at school: only pre-paid tickets.

That would still come with a bunch of administrative costs to figure out who pays how much for their tickets. It's inefficient to have that bureaucracy.

Not really. In my school system, anyhow, parents need to fill out lunch forms every year regardless of their income. Those forms are read at the school and students given free lunch if they fall below $income. It's only adding one more computer sort for if you fall below $y income.

If bullying is good for children, why should only the poor kids get this particular kind of bullying? Surely you'd want every child to have equal access to that wonderful "character building". So set up a rota, where each week it's the turn of one child in the class to be bullied and they all get a turn, and the other children are given demerits for conduct if they fail to bully the victim of the week.

Yes that's absurd, and deliberately so. It's the logical consequence of your absurd belief that bullying is beneficial to the victims of it.

My preferred system would have teachers bullying children. We can't rely on children to bully each other in a properly character building manner, and we couldn't allow some children to get through school without being bullied. So train the teachers to subject children to just the right amount of abuse and harassment and violence. Sure, some people might think it looks bad to have a child huddled in the corner crying while their teacher screams at them about how weak they are, and maybe some people's problem will really be that the rich/popular/cool kids are getting it just as bad as everyone else, but if we accept the premise that bullying is good for children then these are the lengths we have to go to.

Oh thank God. I thought I was going to have to be respectful and firm but kind to them for the rest of my career.

[Victoriala II]

Enduring simple bullying builds character.

Or leaves psychological scars that never heal.

Ever

Situations like that tend to be relative between kids, actually

[Katganistan]

Clearly people don't understand what lunch-shaming is.

It is when the SCHOOL, not other kids, refuses to give a child food because they don't have the money, OR tells them to throw the lunch they've already been handed away because they can't pay for it, OR stamps 'lunch money' onto their wrist because they didn't have enough money, OR otherwise punishes a child for being hungry.

Clear now?

Continue.

[Big Jim P]

New Mexico is the first state in the United States to make it expressly illegal to single out or humiliate a child who cannot pay for his or her lunch at school.


Gov. Susana Martinez (R) signed The Hunger-Free Students’ Bill of Rights into law on Thursday, The New York Times reports. The bill is aimed at ending the practice of “lunch shaming.” It also outlines procedures for schools to collect debts and helps families in signing up for federal free or reduced-price meal assistance

All I can say is It's far too cruel to take away a child's food because their parents can't afford to pay. I have a radical idea though, how about we make all school lunches free? Can't study, or do pretty much anything on an empty stomach. And it would insure kids get at least one healthy meal. What say you NSG?

Make the lunches (breakfast too even) part of the overall cost of running the school. It would add little to the cost, and as most schools are funded through property taxes, the wealthy (who own more property) would pay more, while the poor (owning little or no property) would pay little or nothing.

[Imperializt Russia]

New Mexico is the first state in the United States to make it expressly illegal to single out or humiliate a child who cannot pay for his or her lunch at school.


Gov. Susana Martinez (R) signed The Hunger-Free Students’ Bill of Rights into law on Thursday, The New York Times reports. The bill is aimed at ending the practice of “lunch shaming.” It also outlines procedures for schools to collect debts and helps families in signing up for federal free or reduced-price meal assistance

All I can say is It's far too cruel to take away a child's food because their parents can't afford to pay. I have a radical idea though, how about we make all school lunches free? Can't study, or do pretty much anything on an empty stomach. And it would insure kids get at least one healthy meal. What say you NSG?

Make the lunches (breakfast too even) part of the overall cost of running the school. It would add little to the cost, and as most schools are funded through property taxes, the wealthy (who own more property) would pay more, while the poor (owning little or no property) would pay little or nothing.

This is a more progressive stance than I would have expected from you, Jim.

In any case, an aggravating factor standing in the way of this is the continued strangling of funds out of public schools, especially under the new administration - whose head of education has a penchant for for-profit charter schools which would further jeopardise this possibility.

[Big Jim P]

Make the lunches (breakfast too even) part of the overall cost of running the school. It would add little to the cost, and as most schools are funded through property taxes, the wealthy (who own more property) would pay more, while the poor (owning little or no property) would pay little or nothing.

This is a more progressive stance than I would have expected from you, Jim.

In any case, an aggravating factor standing in the way of this is the continued strangling of funds out of public schools, especially under the new administration - whose head of education has a penchant for for-profit charter schools which would further jeopardise this possibility.

In case you missed the memo, I tend to think for myself rather than follow any party line.

In any event, making the cost of meals part of the overall cost of operations doesn't eliminate the possibility of using vouchers and allowing parents a choice in what schools to send their kids to. In fact, that could be used as a selling point. both in the availability and quality of the meals.

[Katganistan]

freedumb of speesh!

"Freedom of speech" isn't licence to just say whatever shit passes through your head. What this law is in relation to, is to stop school administrators from using methods to publicly identify and/or shame children who cannot afford school meals and have accounts run empty or physically not afford them.

Methods include, a hand-stamp, having your meal thrown away for daring to try and have one, and being forced to perform medial labour to "work" for a meal.
These are cruel and demeaning punishments for the crime of being poor and hungry, in a school of all fucking places.

This is not "freedumb of speesh". It's not even about fucking speech.

Ohh.
I though it meant that other kids were saying stuff like "You can't afford it? Ha ha!" Which is kinda jerky but should still be allowed. Forcing people to do stuff for like you mentioned is a big no no. Is that even legal? Forcing kids to do stuff like that.

"Freedom of speech" isn't licence to just say whatever shit passes through your head.

Actually yes it kinda is.

Actually, no, it's not. Freedom of speech means you can't be arrested for saying you think $public official is a corrupt so and so. It doesn't mean that you can verbally abuse people, tell lies about them (libel and slander, don'tcha know) or incite violence or panic.

It also doesn't mean that other people have to tolerate listening to shitty ideas, and can tell you exactly what they think without being told 'you can't say that, I have freedom of speech'. And, it does not protect you against being fired, if what you say about your job is prohibited (non disclosure agreement being violated, proprietary secrets being leaked, etc.) or makes your company look bad.

[The Central Outback]

How about we just make it so everyone can get free lunch, even outside of school?

Paying for lunch will be looked down upon.

Also, those who say "freedumb of speesh" will be reminded that we carry a punishment for spreading pseudoscience.

"Lel you can't tell meh to sterp saying yuor a failure I have freedumb of speesh"

P.S. WANNA SEE A SOCIALIST STATE!? LOOK AT MY COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!

[Ryock]

Ohh.
I though it meant that other kids were saying stuff like "You can't afford it? Ha ha!" Which is kinda jerky but should still be allowed. Forcing people to do stuff for like you mentioned is a big no no. Is that even legal? Forcing kids to do stuff like that.

Actually yes it kinda is.

Actually, no, it's not. Freedom of speech means you can't be arrested for saying you think $public official is a corrupt so and so. It doesn't mean that you can verbally abuse people, tell lies about them (libel and slander, don'tcha know) or incite violence or panic.

It also doesn't mean that other people have to tolerate listening to shitty ideas, and can tell you exactly what they think without being told 'you can't say that, I have freedom of speech'. And, it does not protect you against being fired, if what you say about your job is prohibited (non disclosure agreement being violated, proprietary secrets being leaked, etc.) or makes your company look bad.

I think some people are upset because they feel that there is a double standard. For example, you could be fired from your job for making comments against homosexuality. However, it would be illegal to fire someone for making comments in favor of homosexuality.

[Imperializt Russia]

Can you demonstrate that this would be the case?

Even if so, it's not on the simple difference between "anti-gay" and "pro-gay" (or other insert group), rather the context behind it.
After all, isn't Chick-Fil-A's CEO still there after all the awful shit he's said over the years?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Clearly people don't understand what lunch-shaming is.

It is when the SCHOOL, not other kids, refuses to give a child food because they don't have the money, OR tells them to throw the lunch they've already been handed away because they can't pay for it, OR stamps 'lunch money' onto their wrist because they didn't have enough money, OR otherwise punishes a child for being hungry.

Clear now?

Continue.

Pointed that out a while back, but you know - this is NSG. If we didn't get off on tangents, or only read the last couple posts before chiming in, it just wouldn't have the same charm.

Seriously though, not opposed to property taxes covering free lunches/breakfasts for kids, so long as we get a say in where they're getting that food and making sure it's a) actually good food and b) nutritious enough without being a bore or the sort kids won't eat anyway. Am concerned about sources and quality. Truth, would rather see local options be used where they could be, where possible. Helps everyone out. That said, pretty sure a good portion of our tax money gets misused as is, so would also like to be sure we're seeing a breakdown of where its spent every quarter. Probably exists somewhere now, but couldn't tell you where to look.

Accountability - can be a good thing.

[Ifreann]

My preferred system would have teachers bullying children. We can't rely on children to bully each other in a properly character building manner, and we couldn't allow some children to get through school without being bullied. So train the teachers to subject children to just the right amount of abuse and harassment and violence. Sure, some people might think it looks bad to have a child huddled in the corner crying while their teacher screams at them about how weak they are, and maybe some people's problem will really be that the rich/popular/cool kids are getting it just as bad as everyone else, but if we accept the premise that bullying is good for children then these are the lengths we have to go to.

Oh thank God. I thought I was going to have to be respectful and firm but kind to them for the rest of my career.

Oh no, apparently that way weakness and fragility lie. Awful stuff.

[Luminesa]

Oh thank God. I thought I was going to have to be respectful and firm but kind to them for the rest of my career.

Oh no, apparently that way weakness and fragility lie. Awful stuff.

Again, if that's what you and Kat are into, go right ahead.

[PaNTuXIa]

this seems kind of pointless but okay

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Oh no, apparently that way weakness and fragility lie. Awful stuff.

Again, if that's what you and Kat are into, go right ahead.

Methinks your sarcasm meter is borked.