Thank you for your last two posts, guys. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
However, I have one last question for you:
Setting aside our disagreement on what may or may not cause a disturbance, do you think a principal should be allowed to censor speech which may be considered derogatory to other students (based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation)?
No - unless it causes a disturbance.
Maybe I can make it clearer - the default value is that the principal not interfere with any student expressing his opinion. If he wants to do that, he has to have a really strong and unambiguous case.
And I don’t think you can establish that by interpreting the opinions with which you disagree in such a way as to necessarily involve threats of violence or criminal behavior.
It isn’t fair to do that with the National Day of Silence, so it isn’t fair to do that with the kid’s t-shirt. Unless you are willing to allow a principal to outlaw participation in the NDoS because it shows support for gays having sex with teen-age boys, you can’t allow him to outlaw a t-shirt because it means the wearer wants to burn crosses or gay-bash.
“Homosexuality is sinful” is a religious opinion. So is “God has no problem with homosexuality”. Neither opinion can be definitely established anymore than any other opinion. So the US has wisely decided not to try to involve itself in telling people which one is right. You can hold either opinion, and advocate for yours and against the other if you want. But you may not even attempt to prevent someone else from doing the same on the other side.
We don’t have to like it, or even agree with it. But we cannot silence it.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, you seem to be arguing two different things here.
First, that the school does not have a right to censor speech that is considered derogatory towards other students (based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation). And second, that the speech in question is not derogatory.
I believe you’re wrong about the first, but the second is certainly debatable. There are plenty of examples of speech that would NOT cause a disturbance in school, but which are still prohibited because they are consider hate speech, or offensive, or derogatory. And these same examples are allowed in general society (though you might get an ass-whooping for them).
Now, if you believe that the phrases on the t-shirt are NOT derogatory or offensive to gays, then that is an opinion you have. Others (obviously) disagree.
I am arguing that I don’t care whether people consider the phrases on the t-shirt derogatory or not. They fall under the category of “protected speech”.
Certainly it is debatable whether they are or not. But that debate is not resolvable, and therefore, since it is religious/political speech, it is protected.
If you want to put it in those terms, the school does not have the right to censor speech it interprets as derogatory to some students only.
As I mentioned, maybe the National Day of Silence is “derogatory” to those who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. Too bad. The gay kid mentioned inLeft Hand of Dorkness’ other thread, who wanted to run on a gay platform for student body president or whatever - he can do that too (in my opinion).
But if one group can express its views, so can all the others. If The Young Republicans can have a booth at the student fair, so can the Spartakus League. If you allow National Days of Silence to express the thought that homosexuality is just peachy, you have to allow t-shirts that say it isn’t.
I don’t think I can make it any clearer. People can express their opinions in public. Even if you don’t like them, and therefore label them as “derogatory” or whatever you like. You cannot silence someone because you disagree with their message.
The kid wasn’t burning a cross. He wasn’t threatening anyone. He wasn’t getting in anyone’s face. Neither were the participants in the National Day of Silence.
Therefore, you have to let them do it. In both cases, or neither case.
That’s the principle. “what if” doesn’t enter into it all that much.
The kid can do what he did, because he has that right under the Constitution. Everybody does. Everybody.
Everybody.
Regards,
Shodan
So, do you feel that the school’s rule is illegal: “Clothing or emblems which are offensive to any race, gender or religion shall not be worn.”
Or is it the fact that it is “religious/political speech” that makes it protected?
Because I can only assume that you wouldn’t allow hate-speech in school. And derogatory speech towards some students (say, blacks) may not be offensive to others – but it is certainly not allowed.
As currently interpreted, yes. Or rather, the selective application of the rule, such that “anything I don’t like is offensive” is what is illegal. As I said earlier, you can interpret the National Day of Silence in such a way as to be offensive to fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.
That too.
What I am trying to avoid, and I assume you are as well, is to label every opinion that those in power disapprove “offensive” or “hate speech” and ban it. You can do that with pretty much anything, on any side of the issue.
Look, I said earlier that I can’t make it any clearer. The statement, “Homosexuality is morally wrong, and offensive to God” is protected speech. So is the statement, “Homosexuality is not morally wrong, nor offensive to God”. Neither statement can be censored if expressed in a non-disruptive way. Censoring one but not the other is wrong.
Labelling it “derogatory” or “offensive” or “hate speech” doesn’t make any difference. You are saying the same thing, but using different words. All of these terms are shorthand in this case for “I don’t like what you think, so you can’t say it.” Which is what the First Amendment addresses, and outlaws.
People can express themselves in school as long as it is not disruptive. This kid’s t-shirt was not any more disruptive than the National Day of Silence - probably less so. Therefore, picking him out to be silenced and allowing the NDoS is discriminatory and illegal.
Regards,
Shodan