Pupil seemingly expelled for reporting illegal immigrant

[Cedoria]

Well go talk to other people if it's their arguments you dislike. But I don't speak for them, nor they for me.

On the contrary, we DO have evidence of threatening conduct, it's just conduct you seem determined to ignore on the grounds of it not being 'serious' enough. How you come by this position is your own business.

But once again, if you're arguing with me, argue the points I make, not the ones that others have made that you project upon me for your own purposes. Thanks.

If you have evidence that this conduct is serious then present it.

The links provided by Wallenburg strike me as serious. You obviously don't agree, but I don't think there's much of a question that threats of both rape and torture qualify as 'serious', especially when the individual in question is on record as doing it more than once, and has a consistent pattern.

Obviously you don't think they were serious, but that's your issue.

[Donut section]

If you have evidence that this conduct is serious then present it.

The links provided by Wallenburg strike me as serious. You obviously don't agree, but I don't think there's much of a question that threats of both rape and torture qualify as 'serious', especially when the individual in question is on record as doing it more than once, and has a consistent pattern.

Obviously you don't think they were serious, but that's your issue.

One was in response to an immigrant bashing an old woman, and is not an uncommon response.

The other is less severe than common greetings in some online community's.

As long as neither were said in person on the school premises it is not the duty of the school to respond.

[Des-Bal]

The links provided by Wallenburg strike me as serious. You obviously don't agree, but I don't think there's much of a question that threats of both rape and torture qualify as 'serious', especially when the individual in question is on record as doing it more than once, and has a consistent pattern.

Obviously you don't think they were serious, but that's your issue.

The statements he made were as read NOT a threat of torture. He presented a counterfactual and stated that he would enjoy visiting harm on someone who beat an elderly woman into a coma.

The threat of rape you're referencing is totally without context and specifically about "raping" some unknown person's calves. The issue is not whether or not rape is serious, my instinct is not to take too long explaining this because you're being deliberately obtuse but let's clear up any ambiguities right now. "I'll kill you" could be a serious threat. Let's look at it in two different scenarios.

Alice is Bob's coworker and long time friend, they are at an office party.
Bob: Hey Alice, I'm going to eat your cupcake!
Alice: I'll kill you.

This is not a serious threat.

Alice is a stranger who walked into Bob's store with a baseball bat and stared at him for ninety seconds without blinking.
Bob: What are you going to do with that baseball bat?
Alice: I'll kill you.

This is a serious threat.

The statement has not changed, the context has. We do not have the context of his statement, all we know is that the threat was absurd and it was made on Reddit.

[Vassenor]

Incorrect. Most terrorist attacks in the US have been white males, nominally Christian.

No mostly Islamic as they are political attacks. They have been school shootings done by mentally ill people who were often white or black but that's not terrorism

Let's see your data then.

[Des-Bal]

Let's see your data then.

I'll share some of mine.

http://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_Ide ... ov2017.pdf

Important data broken down more digestibly than the blanket statement "most terror attacks in the US have been white males." Since 2010 islamic attacks have been dominating the board. They also seem to be substantially deadlier than other categories.

[Salandriagado]

A pupil who followed reported an illegal immigrant was expelled for reporting the illegal immigrant. Political correctness taken too far? Do you think the school abused its power? I just saw this on youtube and it had me wondering. He seem to had a racist reddit account but it was reporting an illegal that got him in trouble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2ynTvYGNJE

He's illegal

That means he broke the law

You should report criminals

He did the right thing

The school was wrong

Being in the USA without documentation is not a criminal offence.

Nah, it's pretty morally-depraved what that expelled kid did.

What report a criminal?

Being an undocumented immigrant continues to not be a criminal offence. This is at least the third time in this threat that this has been directly pointed out to you.

[Vassenor]

A pupil who followed reported an illegal immigrant was expelled for reporting the illegal immigrant. Political correctness taken too far? Do you think the school abused its power? I just saw this on youtube and it had me wondering. He seem to had a racist reddit account but it was reporting an illegal that got him in trouble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2ynTvYGNJE

He's illegal

That means he broke the law

You should report criminals

He did the right thing

The school was wrong

So aside from the OP insisting it's the case, what evidence do you have that he was expelled solely for reporting on a classmate?

[Uiiop]

He's illegal

That means he broke the law

You should report criminals

He did the right thing

The school was wrong

Being in the USA without documentation is not a criminal offence.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about "Ought" not "Is" here. So legality by itself isn't the right tack. These types obviously treat this as worse than jaywalking even though they are same kind of offence.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I think apart from tourists and temporary workers most people shouldn't be allowed to permeant migrate here unless they got married or had a kid or something.

...why?

[Cedoria]

The links provided by Wallenburg strike me as serious. You obviously don't agree, but I don't think there's much of a question that threats of both rape and torture qualify as 'serious', especially when the individual in question is on record as doing it more than once, and has a consistent pattern.

Obviously you don't think they were serious, but that's your issue.

One was in response to an immigrant bashing an old woman, and is not an uncommon response.

The other is less severe than common greetings in some online community's.

As long as neither were said in person on the school premises it is not the duty of the school to respond.

Whether it is an uncommon response or not is beside the point. Sixty million Frenchmen can be wrong.

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily imply it lacks severity.

I disagree, the school is entitled to respond if they feel said student is either A) A threat to others in the community, or B) Negatively impacting the school and its reputation.

He's not being prevented from expressing his view, but the school is choosing not to be associated with them, that's fine. I wouldn't employ somebody who said those things, because that person would reflect badly on myself. Do I not have the right to choose whom I associate with as well?

[Vassenor]

One was in response to an immigrant bashing an old woman, and is not an uncommon response.

The other is less severe than common greetings in some online community's.

As long as neither were said in person on the school premises it is not the duty of the school to respond.

Whether it is an uncommon response or not is beside the point. Sixty million Frenchmen can be wrong.

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily imply it lacks severity.

I disagree, the school is entitled to respond if they feel said student is either A) A threat to others in the community, or B) Negatively impacting the school and its reputation.

He's not being prevented from expressing his view, but the school is choosing not to be associated with them, that's fine. I wouldn't employ somebody who said those things, because that person would reflect badly on myself. Do I not have the right to choose whom I associate with as well?

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, after all.

[Cedoria]

The links provided by Wallenburg strike me as serious. You obviously don't agree, but I don't think there's much of a question that threats of both rape and torture qualify as 'serious', especially when the individual in question is on record as doing it more than once, and has a consistent pattern.

Obviously you don't think they were serious, but that's your issue.

The statements he made were as read NOT a threat of torture. He presented a counterfactual and stated that he would enjoy visiting harm on someone who beat an elderly woman into a coma.

The threat of rape you're referencing is totally without context and specifically about "raping" some unknown person's calves. The issue is not whether or not rape is serious, my instinct is not to take too long explaining this because you're being deliberately obtuse but let's clear up any ambiguities right now. "I'll kill you" could be a serious threat. Let's look at it in two different scenarios.

Alice is Bob's coworker and long time friend, they are at an office party.
Bob: Hey Alice, I'm going to eat your cupcake!
Alice: I'll kill you.

This is not a serious threat.

Alice is a stranger who walked into Bob's store with a baseball bat and stared at him for ninety seconds without blinking.
Bob: What are you going to do with that baseball bat?
Alice: I'll kill you.

This is a serious threat.

The statement has not changed, the context has. We do not have the context of his statement, all we know is that the threat was absurd and it was made on Reddit.

The fact it was made on Reddit is hardly the point, and as you yourself correctly state, we do not know the context.

Ergo, it's probably not wise to jump on the bandwagon and start having a go at the school when, very likely, they are aware of the context of this person's full behavior and we are not.

Schools are not stupid, they keep records of students who consistently misbehave or threaten. If those threats are part of a pattern of long-term behavior (as circumstantial evidence seems to indicate they might be), then they are justified in their action.

Of course this only works if you assume he WAS expelled as a consequence of the threats, and not whatever likely bogus reasoning the OP is pulling to try and disingenuously make this an issue.

Without context, do you assume a threat is serious, or not? Personally, when directed at me, I assume serious unless circumstance makes it likely to be otherwise.

[Des-Bal]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, after all.

This argument is a stupid justification for ignoring the issue of whether or not abridging free speech is okay by pointing out that it's legal.

It is particularly ill made here because when you're talking about the government that is literally, EXACTLY what it is. The state imposing consequences on you for your free speech is exactly what the first amendment is supposed to stop.

[Cedoria]

Whether it is an uncommon response or not is beside the point. Sixty million Frenchmen can be wrong.

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily imply it lacks severity.

I disagree, the school is entitled to respond if they feel said student is either A) A threat to others in the community, or B) Negatively impacting the school and its reputation.

He's not being prevented from expressing his view, but the school is choosing not to be associated with them, that's fine. I wouldn't employ somebody who said those things, because that person would reflect badly on myself. Do I not have the right to choose whom I associate with as well?

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, after all.

Basically, but even so, it's not like he was thrown into prison or subjected to a lynching. The state did not technically violate his right to free expression, the school simply decided (seemingly, on the evidence we have), that they didn't want this person's opinions to be associated with their school. Fine, I wouldn't hire people who made racist remarks in public forums either (although that's not just a reputational concern, but more of a character one. People like that are seldom able to work well with other people with diverse experiences and backgrounds).

Allowing somebody to have their say is NOT the equivalent of requiring other people to associate with their views or subject themselves to hearing it. Fine, if he's insistent being a particularly obnoxious twit, he can still do it, just elsewhere. No law prevents him from doing so, school's action notwithstanding.

[Cedoria]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, after all.

This argument is a stupid justification for ignoring the issue of whether or not abridging free speech is okay by pointing out that it's legal.

It is particularly ill made here because when you're talking about the government that is literally, EXACTLY what it is. The state imposing consequences on you for your free speech is exactly what the first amendment is supposed to stop.

It's a bit of a stretch to say it's the 'state' imposing this consequence.

Sure, it might be a 'state' school in one sense, but I find it highly unlikely that Education Department bureaucrats personally had anything to do with the decision, or have anything to do with it in any such cases.

Very likely, it was done by the local school admins and staff.

You may also note, the government CAN sanction your speech, particularly as somebody who is a government employee, under certain circumstances. Making threats, generally being an obnoxious jerk, or impacting the well-being of everybody else in the school, probably qualifies.

Legally, you'd be technically correct, but it's a bit of a stretch in this case.


Still, at least we've stopped arguing the ludicrous point that he was expelled for reporting an illegal immigrant, I still haven't seen a shred of evidence for that.

[Donut section]

One was in response to an immigrant bashing an old woman, and is not an uncommon response.

The other is less severe than common greetings in some online community's.

As long as neither were said in person on the school premises it is not the duty of the school to respond.

Whether it is an uncommon response or not is beside the point. Sixty million Frenchmen can be wrong.

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily imply it lacks severity.

I disagree, the school is entitled to respond if they feel said student is either A) A threat to others in the community, or B) Negatively impacting the school and its reputation.

He's not being prevented from expressing his view, but the school is choosing not to be associated with them, that's fine. I wouldn't employ somebody who said those things, because that person would reflect badly on myself. Do I not have the right to choose whom I associate with as well?

There is nothing there that can decisively be called a threat. Was my point.

No but he is being punished for his views, and not by a private organisation that has the freedom to choose what views are acceptable.

If he acted in an aggressive manner those views can be relevant to a decision of expulsion but are not cause for expulsion themselves.

[Cedoria]

Whether it is an uncommon response or not is beside the point. Sixty million Frenchmen can be wrong.

Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily imply it lacks severity.

I disagree, the school is entitled to respond if they feel said student is either A) A threat to others in the community, or B) Negatively impacting the school and its reputation.

He's not being prevented from expressing his view, but the school is choosing not to be associated with them, that's fine. I wouldn't employ somebody who said those things, because that person would reflect badly on myself. Do I not have the right to choose whom I associate with as well?

There is nothing there that can decisively be called a threat. Was my point.

No but he is being punished for his views, and not by a private organisation that has the freedom to choose what views are acceptable.

If he acted in an aggressive manner those views can be relevant to a decision of expulsion but are not cause for expulsion themselves.

Are they not? You don't think being persistantly aggressive can be a cause for expulsion?

I strongly suggest you go and attend some schools then. You'll quickly find that such behavior is exactly the sort of thing that gets you expelled.

Without further context, it's hard to know if it's a serious threat, but I'm not going to presume it's some liberal conspiracy just because some (rather questionable) internet sources decided to drum up a stink about it. To think that everything has some sort of hidden motive is the mindset of a paranoiac. More likely, he was an arsehole behaving badly and the school finally had had enough. It happens.

Schools do have some right to decide what views are expressed and what aren't. They deal with children, children generally are subject to some constraints that adults are not. Whether the school is state-funded or private is entirely missing the point.

[Des-Bal]

It's a bit of a stretch to say it's the 'state' imposing this consequence.

Sure, it might be a 'state' school in one sense, but I find it highly unlikely that Education Department bureaucrats personally had anything to do with the decision, or have anything to do with it in any such cases.

Very likely, it was done by the local school admins and staff.

You may also note, the government CAN sanction your speech, particularly as somebody who is a government employee, under certain circumstances. Making threats, generally being an obnoxious jerk, or impacting the well-being of everybody else in the school, probably qualifies.

Legally, you'd be technically correct, but it's a bit of a stretch in this case.


Still, at least we've stopped arguing the ludicrous point that he was expelled for reporting an illegal immigrant, I still haven't seen a shred of evidence for that.

No it's really not. The arms of the state are called the state. If a police officer breaks up your church meeting that is the State shutting you down. It doesn't MATTER if the president signed off on it.

It doesn't matter if the government can sanction speech what matters is that it can't here.

Edit: We have no idea why he was expelled, maybe they thought he was a ghost- they never gave a reason.

[Donut section]

There is nothing there that can decisively be called a threat. Was my point.

No but he is being punished for his views, and not by a private organisation that has the freedom to choose what views are acceptable.

If he acted in an aggressive manner those views can be relevant to a decision of expulsion but are not cause for expulsion themselves.

Are they not? You don't think being persistantly aggressive can be a cause for expulsion?

I strongly suggest you go and attend some schools then. You'll quickly find that such behavior is exactly the sort of thing that gets you expelled.

Without further context, it's hard to know if it's a serious threat, but I'm not going to presume it's some liberal conspiracy just because some (rather questionable) internet sources decided to drum up a stink about it. To think that everything has some sort of hidden motive is the mindset of a paranoiac. More likely, he was an arsehole behaving badly and the school finally had had enough. It happens.

Schools do have some right to decide what views are expressed and what aren't. They deal with children, children generally are subject to some constraints that adults are not. Whether the school is state-funded or private is entirely missing the point.

What evidence is there that he has been persistently aggressive? For all we know he could be teachers pet?

Two posts on the internet are not indicative of actual behaviour. And the fact he got the illegal deported is a sign of good character.

In effect you are building a straw man representation of this kids activity from contextless evidence.

While my own schooling only went till I was eight I don't believe that a school is going to expel someone without a series of minor grievances or one major one. If there was there would be some evidence of this. Even a "he was a troubled student." In the reporting of this.

I cannot think of a point of view so horrible that it on its own is reason for expulsion.

[Vassenor]

Are they not? You don't think being persistantly aggressive can be a cause for expulsion?

I strongly suggest you go and attend some schools then. You'll quickly find that such behavior is exactly the sort of thing that gets you expelled.

Without further context, it's hard to know if it's a serious threat, but I'm not going to presume it's some liberal conspiracy just because some (rather questionable) internet sources decided to drum up a stink about it. To think that everything has some sort of hidden motive is the mindset of a paranoiac. More likely, he was an arsehole behaving badly and the school finally had had enough. It happens.

Schools do have some right to decide what views are expressed and what aren't. They deal with children, children generally are subject to some constraints that adults are not. Whether the school is state-funded or private is entirely missing the point.

What evidence is there that he has been persistently aggressive? For all we know he could be teachers pet?

Two posts on the internet are not indicative of actual behaviour. And the fact he got the illegal deported is a sign of good character.

In effect you are building a straw man representation of this kids activity from contextless evidence.

While my own schooling only went till I was eight I don't believe that a school is going to expel someone without a series of minor grievances or one major one. If there was there would be some evidence of this. Even a "he was a troubled student." In the reporting of this.

I cannot think of a point of view so horrible that it on its own is reason for expulsion.

What evidence is there that he was expelled just for reporting another classmate?

[Donut section]

What evidence is there that he has been persistently aggressive? For all we know he could be teachers pet?

Two posts on the internet are not indicative of actual behaviour. And the fact he got the illegal deported is a sign of good character.

In effect you are building a straw man representation of this kids activity from contextless evidence.

While my own schooling only went till I was eight I don't believe that a school is going to expel someone without a series of minor grievances or one major one. If there was there would be some evidence of this. Even a "he was a troubled student." In the reporting of this.

I cannot think of a point of view so horrible that it on its own is reason for expulsion.

What evidence is there that he was expelled just for reporting another classmate?

Who is arguing that point here?

[Vassenor]

What evidence is there that he was expelled just for reporting another classmate?

Who is arguing that point here?

That has literally been the premise of this thread since page one.

[Donut section]

Who is arguing that point here?

That has literally been the premise of this thread since page one.

That's not what I asked.

[Cedoria]

Are they not? You don't think being persistantly aggressive can be a cause for expulsion?

I strongly suggest you go and attend some schools then. You'll quickly find that such behavior is exactly the sort of thing that gets you expelled.

Without further context, it's hard to know if it's a serious threat, but I'm not going to presume it's some liberal conspiracy just because some (rather questionable) internet sources decided to drum up a stink about it. To think that everything has some sort of hidden motive is the mindset of a paranoiac. More likely, he was an arsehole behaving badly and the school finally had had enough. It happens.

Schools do have some right to decide what views are expressed and what aren't. They deal with children, children generally are subject to some constraints that adults are not. Whether the school is state-funded or private is entirely missing the point.

What evidence is there that he has been persistently aggressive? For all we know he could be teachers pet?

Two posts on the internet are not indicative of actual behaviour. And the fact he got the illegal deported is a sign of good character.

In effect you are building a straw man representation of this kids activity from contextless evidence.

While my own schooling only went till I was eight I don't believe that a school is going to expel someone without a series of minor grievances or one major one. If there was there would be some evidence of this. Even a "he was a troubled student." In the reporting of this.

I cannot think of a point of view so horrible that it on its own is reason for expulsion.

1: I highly doubt it. The evidence so far indicaates otherwise.

2: We don't even know he got an illegal deported, only that he claimed to have. If we are to believe your argument (that his posts on the net are full of shit and not serious), then I question whether there's evidence of any character at all there.

3: Perhaps, but that's still more evidence then that presented by those who say it was about his alleged reporting of an illegal. It is evidence, even if it's small, and probably is only a small part of the story.

4: You can't? Well then you need to broaden your thinking about the horrible views people can have.

[Donut section]

What evidence is there that he has been persistently aggressive? For all we know he could be teachers pet?

Two posts on the internet are not indicative of actual behaviour. And the fact he got the illegal deported is a sign of good character.

In effect you are building a straw man representation of this kids activity from contextless evidence.

While my own schooling only went till I was eight I don't believe that a school is going to expel someone without a series of minor grievances or one major one. If there was there would be some evidence of this. Even a "he was a troubled student." In the reporting of this.

I cannot think of a point of view so horrible that it on its own is reason for expulsion.

1: I highly doubt it. The evidence so far indicaates otherwise.

2: We don't even know he got an illegal deported, only that he claimed to have. If we are to believe your argument (that his posts on the net are full of shit and not serious), then I question whether there's evidence of any character at all there.

3: Perhaps, but that's still more evidence then that presented by those who say it was about his alleged reporting of an illegal. It is evidence, even if it's small, and probably is only a small part of the story.

4: You can't? Well then you need to broaden your thinking about the horrible views people can have.

1. The point is that there's no context to the evidence to prove it. So there's no reason to think your suspicions are not based entirely on your own prejudices.

2. Exactly. So what did he actually get expelled for?

3. Evidence of what though, without context we could have evidence of a strong sense of dark humour. Without knowing what the evidence points to it's not really evidence is it?

4. I highly doubt that, I grew up as a teen homeless. I've experienced some of the worst views people have and it was always the actions based on those views that were bad. I've seen a neo nazi marry an Asian woman. And we have no evidence that he held any views other than anti immigrant and pro law biases. Neither of which are bad on their own.