It’s dude. And please read either your words or mine more carefully. Your charge was: “Free speech clearly wasn’t meant for views I personally disagree with” That is not my position and I will not dance with your scarecrow.
True. And at one point exposure to belief other than Christianity was considered harmful. Societal standards and beliefs change over time. That means judgment of harm will change over time. We cannot expect school administrators to apply the standards of tommorrow; we should not allow them to apply the standards of esterday; we should suport them in applying the standards of today.
I disagree, apparently the Supreme Court also disagrees since they have seen fit to let this precedent stand. Perhaps you would like to actually present an argument in support of your view. Something more compelling than “belief can change so you should never make a judgment based upon belief”, I hope.
Nobody has unfettered rights under the First Ammendment. Nobody ever has. Do you truly not understand that?
No, it becomes bullying when the other teachers become fearful. Which they did.
Please. We do this all the time. Use of the n-word is always context- and motive-dependent. All hate crime legislation is dependent on attributing motives to animus. You and the principal are asserting that “liking” a video is bullying. What do you base that on? How do you know that not one of the 9 kids hit “like” because he intended to draw attention to something he found unconscionable? If you don’t like my wording of “making windows into kids’ souls,” tell me what standard you’re actually using to determine the kids were being malicious. Arguing my diction but ignoring my point is a rather disingenuous tactic.
I’ve already acknowledged that within the school, words can be forbidden. And sure, some words are worse than others. School should be free from that sort of thing. But the kids who “liked” the video did nothing illegal, didn’t do it in the school, and didn’t threaten anyone. According to the article linked in the OP, the wording used was “Don’t tread on me, Faggot.” I don’t think that’s even threatening. Obnoxious, ugly, bigoted, all yes. But not threatening. I’m not trying to craft a defense of the perpetrators, I fully support their suspensions. But the “likers” not only didn’t do anything illegal, didn’t do anything on school grounds, but didn’t (IMO) threaten either.
I don’t actually care about the bounds of social media- I’m tempted to fall back to pointing out that facebook and smartphones have no place within the school. And no matter, a kid could get his Mein Kampf screed published in “Bigoted Douche Daily” and another kid could carry a copy onto campus- in a sense the same thing as Facebook infiltrating the school.
Suppose the perpetrators had instead published an editorial in Bigoted Douche Daily and said all sorts of bad things about LGBT, and ended with the line “Don’t Tread on Me, Faggot.” And suppose the other nine had linked to it/liked it/whatever on their Facebook pages. Who gets suspended? I realize I’m throwing out hypotheticals, but I’m trying to understand what limits the schools authority has. Cause from here we start asking if students have the right to anti-LGBT religious views and a whole host of other things that, while I don’t personally agree with, are large and significant views within society and which are absolutely protected speech.
No - these teachers do not exist. They are figments of your imagination.
The word “bully” does exist. It has a meaning. That meaning is not “something that makes one afraid.” You are straining ridiculously to salvage a poor analogy. Why not simply address the facts of the case. I have stated my position very explicitly. Please be so good as to address them instead of telling bedtime stories about teachers who lackthe power to park without fear.
Motive is an element of many criminal statutes, not just hate crimes. Why is this case so unique that you believe we should apply special standards of “SOUL KNOWLEDGE” bfore we can make a judgment?
I don’t. How do you know one of them did? I believe we each have access to the same facts of the case. Absent additional evidence I conclude that these students know that “liking” a political statement on a social media platform is a standard manner for demonstrating support of the statement and **not{/b] a standard maner for demonstrating that one finds teh statement unconscionable. Much as I judge, without additional evidence, that the person writing “Don’t tread on me, faggot” was not expressing support for the LBGT community.
Why do you feel human judgment is sufficient for the one but not the other?
Exactly one of us has laid out an explicit argument devoid of strained analogy or hyperbolic rhetoric. It was not you.
Nobody. The specifics of a case are important, which is why these arguments by analogy become frustrating (and often pointless). For the actual case in question an act of vandalism and intimidation occurred on school grounds, thus allowing a reasonable conclusion that this specific political statement was likely to disrupt schol activites. Thus the principal was justified in taking action to prevent that disruption.
Your hypothetical does not contain teh saem factual elements. Facts matter.
OK, but I see a difference only in the actions of the first two (the ones who defaced the poster). To me, the other nine are the same.
You are very focused on this particular case, which is fine, but I care about policy. And I think that allowing the suspensions of the nine in this case enables the suspensions of the nine in my hypothetical, which could be the next case. We’ve extended the reach of the school’s authority and sliced a bit off of the first amendment rights of the students.
And I realize your point about the courts limiting students’ speech, but I suspect that the ruling only applies to speech at the school, and not outside (though I admit I am not familiar with the specifics of the case/ruling).
I care about both, but the facts we have are about this case. The policy gets applied to those facts. The policy, in fact, defines teh standard by which we should judge the facts.
I’m honestly not sure how I could state my position more plainly, including the standard of judgment that guides when administrative action is warranted. But instead of addressing that standard people seem fixated on the idea that spinning hypotheticals with different facts will somehow illuminate a flaw in the application of the standard to these facts.
Hey - argue that it is the wrong standard. Argue that it is the right standard but has been improperly applied in this case. But I’m done discussing about hypothetical other cases.
Well - the courts did that years ago, but you are correct. The interest of the state to provide a safe and effective place of education is deemed compelling enough to restrict the rights of students to speech that disrupts that education. I agree with that position (as I have written repeatedly.)
Then please do me the courtesy of reading the link I provided or researching some fo the recent cases. Recent courts have invariably (in each case I researched, at least) upheld the proposition that speech not made on campus can justify administrative punishment, even when ruling that the facts of a particular case may have failed o meet hte standard for restriction. (There is also some dispute among circuits about exactly how that standard should be applied.) And the Supreme Court has ths far refused to hear any appeal that could update the 1969 precedent to reflect modern social media.
Good. Define “bully” in this case, since this is the only relevant case; not by what it does not mean, but by what it does.
Motive is far more important in this case because motive DEFINES the misconduct. Defacing a poster is one infraction, adding “faggot” made it worse.
Hitting “like” is NO INFRACTION, unless it betokens some sinister motive. You and the principal have decided that it DOES betoken some sinister motive, therefore you support suspensions. You’ve already conceded it would not be bullying if they were drawing attention to an unconscionable act. It’s just that you’ve decided they weren’t doing that.
Some of these words have more than one syllable. My apologies to anyone unable to comprehend them in context, but I am uninterested in linking to dictionary definitions for common vocabulary.
I know. That’s why I just said, “It’s possible to think a particular punishment is inappropriate or too harsh, without endorsing the act that’s being punished - as this very thread demonstrates.”
I think there’s a definite threat implied in the phrase, “Don’t tread on me.” It’s a Revolutionary war slogan that’s been widely adopted by some of the slightly fringey elements of the 2nd Amendment supporters, and it’s meant to be understood as a warning against people who are perceived to be trampling on one’s rights. That the phrase is often accompanied by theimage of a coiling rattlesnake makes the threat more explicit. The latest rhetorical gambit by the anti-gay rights lobby has been trying to recast the debate as an infringement on their religious rights. The message here is pretty clear: if “faggots” don’t stop trampling his “rights,” there will be a violent response.
To be clear, I don’t think this is a legally actionable threat. But I also don’t think school discipline needs to be held to the same standards as the justice system.
Well, you should care about it, because it’s radically altering how we have to approach these issues. You can argue that a student shouldn’t be looking at Facebook at school, and I agree, but the fact that one student is breaking school rules doesn’t give another student a free pass for breaking them, too. If a kid sneaks a cigarette in the bathroom, and is beaten up by a bully while he’s in there, you don’t let the bully go because the kid he beat up shouldn’t have been smoking.
In that case, I don’t think school discipline would be appropriate, as nothing in their actions connects to their school in anyway.
But in the case under discussion, we have one group of student who are willing to violate the law and damage school property to intimidate gay students, and another group are willing to publicly endorse both the crime, and the threat. The school and the student body are directly linked to both events, and I think it’s proper that the school discipline them for both actions.
Since when is the Internet “private”? Which is why the analogy with a private conversation at the mall is not a valid comparison.
And I’m surprised at the “freedom of speech” arguments. Constitutional freedom of speech has nothing to do with codes of conduct that may be imposed by institutions and organizations on their members, especially with regard to bullying and harassment, and most especially in schools where life lessons are supposedly being taught. The principal was absolutely right.
You know, that logic is impeccable. In fact I think we ought to apply it everywhere. We can start with the recent riots. Let’s round up everyone who showed support for the rioters on social media and arrest them. I mean, why should cheering spectators who didn’t actually do anything illegal enjoy immunity?
Unfortunately for your glib and facetious analogy, any such supporters were not high school students subject to the standards of conduct of their institution, nor were they engaged in an activity in which said institution has a direct and important interest because it involved the sensitive matter of bullying and intolerance. Nor was anyone “arrested”. There are rules of conduct in this forum too, and you won’t get very far comparing the consequences of breaking the rules to “arrests” or drawing analogies with totalitarianism or playing the “constitutional protection” card.
I asked a question earlier, and i didn’t see any responses…But those who are vehemently against the school’s actions – would you feel the same if, instead of the LGBT poster, it was simply a picture of a student running for class office, perhaps? Would a bunch of kids liking a video and caption saying "don’t tread on me, faggot " be seen as different if it were directly targeted toward a classmate? Would that be seen as bullying behavior?
Furthermore I suspect many institutions make use of social media themselves, and have a school page and maybe groups / teams for specific interests.
So the hard distinction of saying whatever is online is outside of the school is probably not so clear-cut.
At the least someone posting up hate speech might have a “Goes to [blah] High School” and the school badge next to it.
(And of course in this case the actions were on school property).
To be fair to those with First Ammendment concerns, public schools are not voluntary participation organizaions. They are run by the State, supported by tax dollars, and attendance for students is mandatory (though alternative schooling can be sought by parents - a child cannot simply stop attending school without consequence.) First Ammendment considerations do apply.
However, those considerations are never absolute, and with regard to schools have a number of additional fetters (dress codes, etc.) that reflect the important mission of public education and are more restrictive than would be acceptable for all adult citizens. One of thoose fetters includes speech that disrupts the environment for safe and secure learning by the student body.
I do agree with you, though, that folks who are arguing First Amendment reach with analogies of arrest and non-student behavior are misguided in their zeal. Those analogies neither illuminate nor illustrate anything important to this case.
