desert dude
Well-Known Member
The assaulted child in this case was not "at school", she was exercising her right to political speech in a public space. Your implication that kids have no constitutional rights is not nearly as cut and dried as you make it out to be.knowledge cannot be useless. it is perspectivally and contextually bound, certainly, but it is not totally without use.
the child has no civil right to freedom of speech until she's 18. that's why you can't claim freedom of speech as a student in school when you curse out your teacher.
Now, if you'll please stop harping on the "useless" degrees. no one forces students to enroll in non-vocational coursework. you fuckers think the reason to go to school is to get a better job. it isnt. (unless it is a VOCATIONAL SCHOOL). that is a poor reason to pursue a LIBERAL ARTS degree. if you pursue one with the hope of employability, you are a moron, and deserve the outcome you procure. whether you personally agree with this professor's work is immaterial, particularly since you aren't routinely involved in the research in which she is involved.
Take your righteous rage elsewhere: it is poorly thought out, and a woefully ignorant attempt at railing against something you perceive to be contrary to your own way of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights
"
[h=3]United States law[/h] Further information: Timeline of children's rights in the United States, International child abduction in the United States, and Child labor laws in the United States
Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution, as enshrined by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of that amendment is to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born.[SUP][4][/SUP] This was reinforced by the landmark US Supreme Court decision of In re Gault (1967)."