Imagine if a local militia cel determined that not only the Principal and cop at that scene were Domestic Enemies, but the entire Board imposing an extortionate policy to violate citizen rights.... That's where law seminary byproducts get nervous, as RTKBA exists for cases where courts and lesser political bodies don't constrain themselves to the law, and need extrajudicial help ending those abuses. Is our society overdue to have more effective remedies against corrupt school and other public officials, that reduce cases that justify messy remedies outside judicial jurisdictions?
Simply calling anyone racist isn't defamation. "xxxx is a member of the KKK" could be. One is a statement of fact, the other is entirely subjective. In any case, even if it clearly were defamation, that wouldn't have justified the response. We don't get to obstruct speech after declaring our opinion that it's defamatory. That's a civil suit.
@@LibertyWarrior1776 Being stated as it is, it's blatant attempt to remove an individual from their (non-elected) position without any concrete evidence. Do you believe your rights trump other citizens?
Imagine if a local militia cel determined that not only the Principal and cop at that scene were Domestic Enemies, but the entire Board imposing an extortionate policy to violate citizen rights.... That's where law seminary byproducts get nervous, as RTKBA exists for cases where courts and lesser political bodies don't constrain themselves to the law, and need extrajudicial help ending those abuses.
Is our society overdue to have more effective remedies against corrupt school and other public officials, that reduce cases that justify messy remedies outside judicial jurisdictions?
thin blue line....
I thought I couldn’t like this channel any more than I already did, then you brought Phoenix Wright to the table.
Which school in Knox county was this?
What about defamation?
And that's the magic question that would be blatantly ignored.
Simply calling anyone racist isn't defamation. "xxxx is a member of the KKK" could be. One is a statement of fact, the other is entirely subjective.
In any case, even if it clearly were defamation, that wouldn't have justified the response. We don't get to obstruct speech after declaring our opinion that it's defamatory. That's a civil suit.
What about it? It's an opinion.
@@LibertyWarrior1776 Being stated as it is, it's blatant attempt to remove an individual from their (non-elected) position without any concrete evidence. Do you believe your rights trump other citizens?
What if the principal isn't actually racist?
One still has the Right to their own opinion. And can protest based on said opinion.