I am incredibly insulted that you’d imply I’d use that cheap Vic 20 knockoff the Commodore 64. If it doesn’t have a cassette tape drive, it’s not a real computer.
Daniel
This thread is a very useful way to blow off steam. For example:
Asshole.
Daniel
He somehow fails to see the difference between your opinion of the legality in a given scenerio and your opinion of gays and those who hate them.
Miracel of miracles–I agree wholeheartedly with Shodan.
Sorry, Spectrum, but in the good old US of A, we tolerate the speech we despise. Sure, the kid meant to elicit a reaction, but so what? He has a Constitutionally protected right to express his views on a t-shirt in school, no matter how loathsome those views are.
You have to protect free expression to maintain a free society, and putting up with bigoted jerks airing their dimwitted opinions is a small price to pay.
but in the world of spectrum anybody who points that out must surely side with the despised :rolleyes:
You know when you’ve got Gobear and Shodan on the same team, you’ve got a real winner. 
I’m going to reprint from Blaron’s earlier post:
So this brilliant little statement (from Gobear) is nonsense: “He has a Constitutionally protected right to express his views on a t-shirt in school” (bolding mine).
Got it? Good. Now if you boys don’t like it, please feel free to contact the ACLU.
I think, giving Shodan the benefit of the doubt, that this comes down to the two opposing statements: “Homosexuality is healthy and acceptable” vs. “homosexuality is a sin”. The fact that the school has decided that the former is acceptable (and consistent with its educational mission) whereas the latter is not, is something that irks him. Fine. But it is up to the school, not you, to decide this – unless the Supreme Court rules that the promotion of “homosexual pride” has no place in our public education. But I doubt that it ever will.
And the Supreme Court has already ruled on the Pledge, as well as separation of Church and State in school.
As for Gobear, I think this is just way over his head. 
Oh, and as to the OP, I can understand where people get angry and nasty when discussing this issue. I don’t think that spectrum ought to label folks who disagree with him – but I do understand the sentiment behind it.
I frankly don’t think this is simply about the student saying “Homosexuality is a sin”. I think he said it to make the broader point that the school should not condone the idea that “homosexuality is okay.” And if people are arguing that the school should not condone this, then tempers will flair. On both sides people feel very strongly about this, and it’s hard not to get emotional over the issue.
I too had one of them Sinclair Spectrum computers once. Great computer. Never did feel like fucking it though? Is this an out-of-the-closet technophilie thread?
Dare I send you to a cite with a bunch of other offensive T-Shirts? Well, this is the Pit…Fuck Yeah!
Hey, Leander, big news for you, pal.
I’m gay.
This is not a fun game to play, this is my real life. Because I am concerned for my own right to free expression, I have to support it for everyone, or I am no better than any fascist who wishes to expunge thoughts he hates. And I guarantee that censrship sooner or later bites the censor in the ass.
I could also refer to Tinker v. Des Moines and write an impassioned post on the First Amendment rights of minors, but frankly I’d rather tell you to go fuck yourself
Holy shit - now I am worried.
The first sentence is wrong; the second is correct. The fact that the school is picking and choosing which of two opinions can be expressed does irk me. But this isn’t about homosexuality.
If you want a statement to which I object, I posted it in the other thread.
It might irk you as well if you consider the consequences. Don’t like saying “under God” in the Pledge? Tough nougies - the school gets to decide what you say or don’t say. How about “creationism is correct”? Sorry - all students are required to affirm their belief in the same in order to graduate. How about “Bush is a great President”? Same thing.
Don’t like it? Tough toenails, twinkle toes - the administration gets to decide what is and is not the school’s educational mission. Students get to shut up and do as they are told.
So shut the fuck up.
Or else the First Amendment still applies, in which case the kid gets to keep his t-shirt on. As well as National Day of Silence.
Regards,
Shodan
You should be.
I’m sorry it irks you. I hope you’ve written the ACLU…
The first two have been dealt with in the courts. I’d be interested in seeing any school board in the country approve that last one…though I’m sure some teachers have an agenda, whether it’s for or against the current president.
Exactly. So unless this case goes to the courts, I suggest you do the same. Or petition the school board yourself.
Nope, wrong again. Like I said, if you’re right, then I fully expect you to write to the ACLU, or maybe take up the cause yourself. If you’re certain that you’re right, either put up or “shut the fuck up.”
And Gobear, I know you’re gay. But you’re also exceptionally stupid…and frankly, you’re the only gay person on this board I know that gives gays a terribly bad name.
Sad, really…
:eek:
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
I’m sorry, that simply does not compute.
I sometimes have run-ins with Gobear, but for the most part he is a super-cool guy and definitely not stupid, NOR someone who is “giving gays a terribly bad name.”
Sorry, you just lost all credibility with me with that statement.
I’m sure that there is room for debate on the school t-shirt thing, but I don’t think that gobear, Shodan, LeftHandofDorkness, etc., are “anti-gay” or stupid for not agreeing with the rest of y’all.
Hmph, this from someone who namedrops David Hume as a cite against skepticism. . .
Stupid I may well be, but I at least know better than to quote another poster’s unsupported opinions as a substitute for citing actual legal precedents. I prefer to do my own research, thank you.
Leander cited Blalron’s quote from Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) that the First Amendment rights of public school students " are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings’ " and must be " applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." However, there are other cites and precedents to be examined.
First, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) established the precedent that students have freedom of expression as long as they pose no interference with normal school activities.
This landmark case has served as a test for school First Amendment cases ever since.
After the massacre at Columbine High School in 1998. school officials throughout the several states, with the approval of the Rehnquist court, have sought to roll back student freedoms. So far, the rationale used by the lower courts has been that speech deemed harmful or threatening can be banned, as in Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District, in which the expulsion of a student who wrote a letter containing a rape fantasy was upheld by the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme court has ruled that vulgarity and lewd speech unrelated to any political viewpoint may be banned (Bethel School District. No. 403 v. Fraser) Fraser is usually cited as the defining precedent covering patently offensive speech, but in this case it doesn’t seem to apply, because the t-shirt in question was not lewd and it did express a political viewpoint. The offending t-shirt was not part of any school-sponsored activirt, so Hazelwood, as quoted by Blalron and dimly grasped by Leander doesn’t apply either.
More germane to the discussion is the decision in Barber vs. Dearborn (2003), in which the U.S. District Court held that the Deearborn school district violated a student’s Tinker rights by sending him for wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt.
Barring lewd or provacative speech that threatens to disrupt school activities or the immediate threat of violence contained in speech, strudents have the right to unfettered freedom of expression. The t-shirt worn by the student in the thread that spawned this contained only Bible quotes that condemn homosexuality. No sane person could construe “Homosexuality is sin (Leviticus 18:22),” “Hell is REAL (Revelation 21:8),” “Jesus is the Answer! (Romans 10:9-10),” and"Shout for Joy!" (Psalm 132:9) as a specific threat to student safety or in any way disruptive.
Mind, IANAL and it is, I’m sure, easy to find a precedent I missed that will trip me up.
But it ain’t gwine to be the lazy and illiterate Leander who’ll do it.
Some folks might find thisarticle on the trend to silence student expression thought-provoking.
Oh, and for Leander’s sake. . .
Duh, tell me about the rabbits again, George.
Thank you for the kind words, Yosemitebabe, and thanks also for reminding me of **Leander’s words, “and frankly, you’re the only gay person on this board I know that gives gays a terribly bad name.”
Hmm, what is the word for someone who judges an entire group for the actions of one member of that group? Oh, stupid me, who cannot rmember the term one uses to describe a person who regards his own faith and views as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked.
Wicket, ticket, spigot, b. . . b. . Shoot, I’m too dull to figure it out.
You must have missed Snark and Kirkland (both since gone), then. The notion that gobear is exceptionally stupid … well, posited by you that’s no petard he’s been hoisted onto by your hands;)
That sounds vaguely dirty…
And I agree. gobear is anything but an embarrassment to the gay community on the Dope. We don’t always agree, but I’ve never had a personal problem with him.
Has the SDMB warped into some bizarro world? Is there something in the water? Because now we’re apparently supposed to believe that LHoD advocates anti-gay violence, and that gobear is a fool who gives gays a bad name. I’ve felt unfairly accused of things by gobear in other threads, but I know for sure he’s not giving gay people a bad name around here, and he’s pretty damn far from being stupid.
For that matter, spectrum isn’t giving gays a bad name either - most of us are sane enough to realise that one person doesn’t speak for an entire community.
Well, let’s see.
So far both gobear and Left Hand of Dorkness have cited Tinker to show what the Supreme Court has ruled regarding student expression. So I won’t bother redundantly pointing out that Blalron and leander are both incorrect in their understanding of what the Supreme Court rules. So leander’s apparent assumption that the ACLU is in charge of interpreting the Constitution has been adequately eviscerated.
As to his nonsense about gobear and stupidity, methinks gobear’s post rebuts that with an admirable mix of thoroughness and concision.
FWIW, leander, you said two things in succession -
You might have a stronger argument if you could refrain from self-contradiction.
If you are going to give me the benefit of the doubt, try to give me as much benefit as you do the student. This isn’t about homosexuality, it is about the First Amendment. If you want to ascribe motives to other posters, try harder to keep them straight.
Or simply keep posting in the same vein you have to date. You are digging your own hole plenty deep enough already.
Regards,
Shodan
Although I do think it’s better to have this argument in GD rather than the Pit, I’ll step in long enough to point Leander to the GD thread, in which I showed that Blalron’s cite, when read in full, unambiguously does not apply to this case.
Daniel