Oh, boo-hoo…I’m getting piled on. What a surprise.
First, gobear is just an angry little fella. Nothing to get all worked up about folks. He’s like a little puppy who’s been kicked around all his life – I’ve never met anyone so angry, hateful and yes, stupid. I knew the usual suspects would show up to defend him. That doesn’t change the fact that he’s just a widdle copy editor who seems to think he’s something more. Sorry, buddy, but you’re not. Get over it.
And second, if you are all right then prove it!! Just show me where the school does not have the right…show me where they are being forced to allow the boy to wear the shirt.
If you’re right then I fully expect you to either put up or shut up. Got it?
And for Left Hand’s sake, I’ll not continue this “debate” here. But please, for the love of God, someone just show me a cite that the school is being overturned…
Oh, and if I “ascribed a motive” to Shodan and his argument, then I apologize. I don’t know your motives for arguing this way, and while I can guess, I shouldn’t. So I’m sorry for that.
(And the second sentence of mine you quote should read “I think, giving Shodan the benefit of the doubt, that this (for him) comes down to…” So it’s not contradictory…but it may be “ascribing motive”…so I’ll just retract the whole damn thing.)
I’m definitely not a “usual suspect” and yet I am here to defend him.
If you know past history, you’ll know that he and I have not always seen eye to eye and you’ll know that we’ve gotten really annoyed with each other on occassion. I think he’s a cool guy overall, but yes, he can really PISS ME OFF sometimes, (and I piss him off) and all of that certainly is no secret.
So, with all that said, I have to add this: no way is he stupid, no way does he “give gays a bad name.” And as others have mentioned already, what is this “give a bad name” bullshit anyway? We’re all individuals here.
As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility in this matter.
dude, I have no clue why you have such a hard-on for me, but I’m not going to have sex with you so stop flirting already.
Sinse you are either too lazy or too dim to read the copious cites of legal precedent dealing with school First Amendment cases that have already been given, there isn’t any point in providing you with even more evidence for you to ignore while asking, “Where’s the evidence?”
Go to the other thread, you rude little man, and you’ll see copious evidence depicting why, if the student decides to fight the case in court, the student will probably, eventually, win. The fact that the courts haven’t overturned the school’s decision within a week of the event is hardly significant.
So, let’s see here. On one hand, gobear cites numerous legal precedents and outlines clearly and succinctly why they allow the student to wear his t-shirt, and leander’s only response is “You’re ugly and you have a stupid job.” This is like watching Mike Tyson beat up Stephen Hawking. It’s the most one-sided debate in SDMB history that didn’t involve at least one bonafide troll. I mean, it’s hardly news that leander is an idiot, but this is pathetic even by his standards.
I think you need to consider the following questions, with regards to Tinker:
Did the “speech” disrupt, or intend to disrupt, the school or the school’s activities?
Was the “speech” hate speech?
Did the “speech” violate the rights of other students?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then the school has the right to censor the speech.
The Michigan case, which appears to be identical to this case, is actually not. The issue was whether an opposing viewpoint could be aired in a forum intended to celebrate “diversity week.” The judge, rightly so, felt that any censorship of opposing viewpoints was absurdly contradictory to the concept of diversity. This is not the same as a student expressing a viewpoint which is intended to disrupt a school activity. Also, it appears that the girl at Pioneer merely wanted someone from the Catholic Church to offer up their view on homosexuality, on a panel where various folks were meant to offer up opposing viewpoints. This is different than someone going around saying “homosexuality is a sin.”
Let me put it another way, which may simplify things for some of you:
Let’s say that a school has a point during a day set aside, a “moment of silence” if you will, to recognize the death of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. Would it be alright if a student wore a t-shirt that read, “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him” (John 5:16-18, KJV). What about a t-shirt that read, “The Holocaust is the big lie.”
Would that be alright?
Now, going back to the Michigan case, would it still be alright if – during a forum on the death of Jesus – a religious leader put forth the argument that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus? What if – during a forum on the Holocaust – someone wanted to argue that it never happened?
Now do you still not see the difference??
(on preview: I’d take Hawking over Tyson anyday… )
Well, it appears that after all this hootin’ and hollerin’ this issue may find a resolution. Apparently, the AFA has taken up the cause.
Here are two further articles: The first is from the Watauga Democrat newspaper; the second is from the AFA.
From the AFA (Agapepress):
And a few highlights from the newspaper article:
So maybe we’ll get our answer after all. If the principal doesn’t back down, and the student can convince these attorneys to go forward, maybe we’ll all get to see our great justice system at work. And then you can all say, “I told you so.” Or not.
Found an interesting editorial from the folks at the Watauga Democrat. Apparently, they’ve been getting some letters and e-mails “questioning [their] objectivity”.
This part of the quoted editorial is demonstrably wrong:
It seems the writer of the editorial did not read the Tinker decision either.
It is the Supreme Court who “makes the call” on how the First Amendment applies, not school administrators. Unless those arguing against the student’s t-shirt would also be willing to submit to a decision by Childers that a National Day of Silence is too disruptive to be allowed, and that he was therefore suspending anyone who took part in it.
Under the Tinker decision, unless some demonstrable disruption occurred as a result of a silent protest, it has to be allowed. And no, “He’s disagreeing with me!” does not count as disruption.
Assistant: Hello, Justice Souter’s office. May I help you?
Principal Childers: Yes, this is Principal Childers. Is the Justice available?
A: No, I’m sorry, he’s out jogging at the moment. May I help you?
PC: Um, well…we’ve got a student here who’s wearing a t-shirt that we think may cause a disturbance. Also, we find it offensive and derogatory to certain students. What should we do??
A: I’m not sure I understand. Why are you calling us?
PC: Well, someone told me we weren’t allowed to make a decision. So we’re calling you.
A: What exactly does the t-shirt say?
PC: It says that homosexuality is a sin. And that Hell is real. And that Jesus is the answer.
A: Um, I’m not sure Souter’s the right Justice for the job…maybe you ought to call Scalia…let me see if he’s back from his vacation…
Cute response, Shodan. I do think that, althought the principal made the wrong decision, he didn’t make an egregiously wrong decision. This case is not exactly like any other case we’ve looked at so far, inasmuch as no other political protest (Tinker et al) promised eternal damnation for political opponents. A small-town principal may well not follow Supreme Court decisions closely enough to make the correct spur-of-the-moment decision in a case like this.
I hope he’s reversed, but I harbor no resentment against him.
You are probably right, and my response was completely over the top. This is, after all, the Pit.
But our freedoms are most safe when all of us are just as upset at the attempted banning of opinions with which we disagree as when we agree. When, for instance, the American Family Institute is just as vehement in protecting some pro-gay message as the ACLU is in protecting this kid’s t-shirt.
Which, to your (and gobear’s) credit, you have consistently done in this case.
)