I’m with you.

what’s an ass throat?

Students at public schools have First Amendment protections, but cannot engage in speech that is disruptive or that violates viewpoint neutral school policies. So no, he’s not correct.

The dumbest thing here is that this kid has basically admitted to wearing the confederate sweatshirt to be disruptive and to troll his classmates and the administration, which invites the school to suspend him.

The case law on schools regulating statements and symbols, I think, is pretty clear that if the school can demonstrate an actual disruptive effect (30 student complaints about it probably qualifies), they can tell the student to stop wearing the offending clothing or risk suspension.

Kick Ass 2 was even more problematic. In fact, I’m not sure if it’s Matthew Vaughn or the fact that he adapts Mark Millar works, but a lot of the stuff he does is problematic.

I think this is correct, but I’m not sure the two men were actually ever expelled.

They could sue her for defamation of character for making false public statements that probably amount to defamation per se (i.e., in a category so egregious they don’t need to even prove damages, the statements are so inherently damaging), as well as probably a host of other stuff. Not sure they could sue the school…

Neighborhood patrols are a gateway drug to Klan rallies

“I can’t exactly go to HR, since that’s his wife.”

Why do you think they hadn’t seen the video? We shouldn’t give politicians or law enforcement a pass when they act like hosts in Westworld (“doesn’t look like anything to me”), so the follow up here is - “well let’s watch the video and then you can tell me what you think,” like that Dutch journalist did to Pete…

This is true - most interactions are good, and there are plenty of cops who are totally cool, bring a lot to the table, help improve communities, etc.

Yeah, knowledge of the existence of a contract would be necessary in an intentional interference with a contract claim. And to be clear, the homeowner would be the one with a claim here, not the investor. I don’t know if that claim is viable, but it is certainly interesting to think about.

That is also not to say there…

It would be hard to prove intentional interference with contract, but it’s not too far off here. You’ve got most of the elements for a prima facie case - 1) a contract between the home owner and the investor, 2) (and this is key) the Karen knowing that there is a contract, 3) Karen acting maliciously to screw with the…

It shouldn’t surprise us when we encounter lawful evil characters with INTs over 14 and who used WIS as a dump stat.

That makes no sense - if she were some hardcore environmentalist, she would be complaining about their general use of charcoal, not their use of a charcoal grill outside the designated BBQ area.

Flip flops are fine anywhere if your name is Cameron.

That’s not part of Porcelain Mamba’s game

Yeah, I’ve also heard Zhui Meng or variations on it as an exclamation meaning “yeah right” or “how farfetched”