Fuck you, Spectrum

Fuck you, spectrum,

Daniel

Sorry, you’re not my type.

I prefer people who don’t support the “rights” of those protesting in favor of violence against gays.

If I want a knife stuck in my back, I’ll go hang out with my parents, thank you very much.

Ryan, you won’t find much support by those who support the constitution.

I support the constitution, I also support gay rights. Therefore, I support the rights of the idiots who protest against gays and wear T-shirts with anti-gay messages on them.

If you are in fact gay, you should also respect that. The constitution has won more than its fair share of rights for our GLTV population.

Sam

Spectrum, what is your problem?

The argument in the thread was about whether or not the t-shirt should have been considered to have been threatening or to have incited violence. In my opinion the boy was clearly attempting to incite hostility but just because LHoD doesn’t agree with that doesn’t mean he is supporting what the boy had to say. If he wants to believe that the boy was merely using the right of free speech then so be it. But in no way has he said that he supports the “right to harass gays” as you so eloquently put it. Don’t attack the guy because he stands up for the rights that his country bestows upon its citizens.

Spectrum, for what it’s worth here’s my advice:
Step back and take a deep breath. I’m assuming that like far too many of us you have some personal experience with anti-gay violence, but I think you may be a little to close to it now. Not everyone who disagrees with you supports the actions and intentions of people like that. FWIW, I disagree with LHoD but he obviously doesn’t support violence against gays.
I wish you peace, and would just ask of others that they realise that for a great many of us this is not some academic game. When dealing with issues like this that seriously affect our lives, it is sometimes hard not to take it personally.

A valid pitting of Spectrum.

Klanbrat was a dumbshit. Dork recognized that but also recognized a dumbshit’s right to prove his dumbshittedness via free speach.

Bubba
Officially on record as fighting with Dorkboy on other issues.
…and dumbshittedness should be in the dictionary.

Tobio, I know this isn’t an academic game; while I’m not going to present my credentials to you, I know better than to think this is an Ivory Tower manner. That’s part of why it’s so repulsive to me that spectrum implies I don’t care about the lives of gay people.

And I do appreciate your involvement in the thread: while you disagree with me, you know how to keep the disagreement civil and respectful, and to acknowledge that two decent people can passionately disagree on an issue like this.

That spectrum can’t reach that level of understanding, can’t drop his massive egotism long enough to see outside his own viewpoint, simply means he’s not worth talking with.

Daniel

I am not an egotist. I am just someone who, unlike you, knows enough about the situation to recognize that this kid meant to do a great evil with his shirt, and that any decent society cannot abide by that.

There is no freedom of speech to call for violence against other people.

Do you know what a solemn responsibility freedom of speech is? Things like this are tragic, but they’d be more tragic if we didn’t see them and couldn’t address them openly. You can’t just have it when the speech is going your way, because one day it won’t be going your way, but you may still be in the right, and won’t deserve the persecution. Like the experience of gays, oh, ten years ago. How quickly we forget our battles.

Left Hand of Dorkness has never conducted himself with anything less than honor and decency.

spectrum, on the other hand, might be better off over in the With Gays like these, who needs Enemies? thread.

This issue seriously affects my life, and my life is made better with Leftie as an ally. Get a fucking clue.

Left Hand of Dorkness has always presented himself (to my knowledge) with fair-mindedness and with a decidedly pro-gay stance. There is no way that I will believe that he advocates violence against gays. Not in a million—no, a kajillion—years.

The issue being discussed is an issue about the Constitution.

The disciplinary action taken against the student lines up perfectly with the Constitution.

HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

Sorry, but the issue being discussed in the other thread is how the school can choose to discipline a student for taking one side in the debate, but not the others. In other words, if it is not disruptive to symbolically express support for gay rights by participating in the National Day of Silence, it is also not disruptive (and therefore not in conflict with the educational mission of the school) to speak symbolically as the student did. You could even argue (and someone did in the other thread) that participating in a National Day of Silence is more disruptive of the educational mission of a school than a simple t-shirt. A day-long silence has greater impact on the ability of students to participate in class, and therefore learn, than a t-shirt with which some disagree.

Neither was being disruptive. Neither should have been sanctioned. By sanctioning one but not the other, the school is signalling that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

Certainly students do not enjoy an equal footing with adults in terms of their civil rights. But the school cannot pick out one set of students, and allow them to exercise rights that are denied to others. Especially not if that selection is done based on the content of the student’s opinions.

Regards,
Shodan

You’re absolutely wrong, Shodan. Try reading this line again:

“A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission”

Thus, a school has every right to censor what it considers “speech…inconsistent with its…mission.” That is the very essence of the argument. The school has the right to choose, even in cases where the gov’t may not.

If the school decides that anti-gay rhetoric is antithetical to the mission of the school, then it of course may censor it. If it decides that pro-gay rhetoric is something that ought to be encouraged, again it has that right.

It says nothing of interferring with the educational process, only with the educational mission. Important difference.

Now, whether you agree with its decision is certainly up to you – but clearly it has the right to pick and choose. And, IMO, it should.

Regards, regards, regards…

The issue is not “gay rights”, as you well know. The issue being protested was violent attacks against gays. Within that context, of course a counter protest is going to be recieved as a threat of violence.

Thanks to several people who have supported me here; it’s good to know that I’m not actually coming across as a gaybasher.

Blalron, Shodan, et al, may I suggest that the other thread is a great place to discuss the constitutional issue? I just had to get something off my chest in this thread.

Daniel

I’ve responded to Blalron and Tobio in the other thread.

Daniel

The trouble is that the school is acting as the agent of the government in this case. They are therefore acting on behalf of the government when extending First Amendment rights to one set of students, and denying them to another.

And the principles under which the school can decide what is their “educational mission” are well-established. And they do not include silencing some students for non-disruptive speech, and defining other non-disruptive speech as verboten based on a whim, or their agreement with the one but not the other.

If you want to allow public schools to decide on their own what is inconsistent with their mission, then you will need to accept that students can be forced to recite the Pledge of Alliegence and include the phrase, “under God”, or pretty much anything else. The admiinstrators would be within their rights to force students participating in the National Day of Silence to speak, if they decided that silence was against their mission. See the problem? It seems to be mostly a question of whose ox is being gored. It so happens that the administrators have chosen to try to silence an opinion that they dislike - not because it is disruptive, but because they dislike it. It seems that their motives are other than a desire to continue their educational mission.

Unless they define their mission as the right to suspend or revoke the First Amendment at the whim of those in power.

Regards,
Shodan

“Fuck you spectrum”

I hate commodore 64 owners. Leave the little black rubber keyed speccy alone ya bollix.

Actually, I don’t know that, and neither do you.

The website for the National Day of Silence makes no mention of limiting their protest to violence against gays. They are speaking out against what they term “discrimination” in general. I would expect that the students would classify violence against gays as a form of discrimination, certainly. I would also expect they would include other things that have nothing to do with physical violence - gay marriage, for instance.

It is possible to disagree on topics that have nothing to do with gay-bashing, and not be conveying a threat of any sort. Therefore, the idea that a counter-protest is necessarily a threat of violence is silly.

Sorry, but you have no right to tell other people what they think, and then try to outlaw their protest because of what you want them to be saying. The kid’s t-shirt made no threats, and created no disruption in the class. The only disruption came from the fact that those in power disliked what he believed - and abused their power to try to stop him from exercising his rights.

As I said in the other thread, if you allow your political opponents to define what you are “really” saying, it is childishly simple to define their message as violent - and ban it.

“That t-shirt obviously is really meant to encourage gay-bashing. Ban it!”

“That pro-life message is really meant to encourage bombing abortion clinics. Ban it!”

“That National Day of Silence is really meant to encourage the rape of teen-age boys. Ban it!”

See the problem? And do you really think the last one would be such a hard sell someplace like Utah?

Regards,
Shodan

Spectrum is correct. This is too sensitive a subject to let speech go unregulated.

However, there are differences in opinions as to what constitues harmful speech. The rules will not be enforced consistently unless regulated from a centralized body.

Therefore, I propose that the job of determining what speech in school with regard to homosexuality is allowed and what is repressed go to the Attorney General, John Ashcroft.

I think Spectrum will be pleased with this appointment.