# School allows speech on one side of an issue and not the other - Homosexuality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2004, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497 "2004-04-22T20:22:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/201 "2004-04-28T17:32:14Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > That’s all we know for sure because WND is the only place this is being reported. I’ll admit I’m making some leaps, but I doubt the principal would have called him to the mat if he hadn’t done something more extreme to call attention to his shirt. I don’t think we’re getting the whole story from WND. Right. And that damn Matthew Shepard **must** have done something to get beat up like that. I don’t think we are getting the whole story. :rolleyes: > [@Homebrew](#): > > People who make comments like > > > [@](#): > > > > “This is not just an attack on me,” he told me, “it’s an attack on America’s family, from a religiously fueled school system of secular humanism, which by the way offends Bible-believing Christians with its evolutionary propaganda and anti-Christian bigotry. The homosexuals can have their Day of Silence, but **Christians are really the ones that are denied the right to even speak. We’re silenced in the face of public affairs, being labeled as bigoted, homophobic, intolerant, mean and fundamentalists** , just to name a few.” > > don’t silently wear t-shirts. This one seems to have done no more than that. And did you notice that you proved that the bolded part of his statement is completely true, at least by intent? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Tobio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@Tobio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tobio)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/202 "2004-04-28T18:03:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > My last post got me thinking about this and I don’t mean to single you out \*\* matt\_mcl \*\* but you hate the difference in the way the two are treated but look at this thread. People have been ripping christians becuase the actions of a minority and it has been largely overlooked but if someone said that Islam was a hateful and murderous religion while citing the Islamic terrorism they would have been quickly rebuked. **People**? as in plural? The vast majority of us, with one notable exception, have specifically made the point that this little shit does not represent normal Christians. Guess what, most Christians wouldn’t wear this shirt, nor make the ignorant statements this idiot made. _This_ kid is exactly the sort who does attack gays, not because he’s a Christian, but because he’s a mean spirited dumbfuck. I find it bizarre, and disturbing, that some people interpret calling this jackass what he is as an attack on Christianity- this kind of shit is entirely _un_-Christian. His actions are not the actions of a Christian, but those of a meanspirited dumbfuck. While the kid’s actions may be protected by a strict interpretation of the law, his intentions are unmistakeable. Personally, whatever the law may say I don’t see how telling the kid to take off the T-shirt infringes his right to free speech in any way. He can still wear the shirt on his own time, when other people aren’t forced to be in the same area as him. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/203 "2004-04-28T19:35:54Z")
> [@Tobio](#): > > Personally, whatever the law may say I don’t see how telling the kid to take off the T-shirt infringes his right to free speech in any way. Hopefully this is yet another example of the dismaying hyperbole that pervades this thread. Otherwise, you really need to study up on freedom of speech. Whether you think his speech SHOULD be infringed in this case, it is incontrovertibly infringement to tell him not to wear the t-shirt in school. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Tobio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@Tobio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tobio)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/204 "2004-04-28T19:51:00Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Hopefully this is yet another example of the dismaying hyperbole that pervades this thread. Otherwise, you really need to study up on freedom of speech. Whether you think his speech SHOULD be infringed in this case, it is incontrovertibly infringement to tell him not to wear the t-shirt in school. No hyperbole. The law may say that it is an infringement, but in this case the law is observably wrong. Nothing prevents the kid from wearing that T-shirt after class, where those he intends to belittle and attack can just walk away from him. Nothing prevents him from preaching on the streetcorners. No one has prevented the kid from speaking his mind (or lack thereof) in any way. He is just not allowed to do it when it interferes with the education of others. Was the kid sent to jail for his T-shirt? Was his T-shirt confiscated so that he can’t wear it on his own time? Was he even so much as told not to wear the T-shirt away from school? How can you say his right to free speech was infringed, when nothing prevents him from spewing his hateful message to _Word Net Daily_? And I remind you that we only have one side of the story, and _WND_ is certainly a biased source. I don’t take their word for what happenned. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/205 "2004-04-28T19:59:50Z")
> [@Tobio](#): > > No hyperbole. The law may say that it is an infringement, but in this case the law is observably wrong. > Nothing prevents the kid from wearing that T-shirt after class, where those he intends to belittle and attack can just walk away from him. Nothing prevents him from preaching on the streetcorners. No one has prevented the kid from speaking his mind (or lack thereof) in any way. He is just not allowed to do it when it interferes with the education of others. Whose education did the shirt interfere with? So far, all I can see is the PRINCIPAL interfered with the kid’s education due to the shirt. > [@](#): > > And I remind you that we only have one side of the story, and _WND_ is certainly a biased source. I don’t take their word for what happenned. So are you basing your opinion on what you _think_ might have happened, or on the facts that have presented thus far? You are, of course, free to do either, but I think it’s important to make the distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/206 "2004-04-28T20:15:21Z")
> [@Tobio](#): > > No hyperbole. The law may say that it is an infringement, but in this case the law is observably wrong. If you sincerely believe something so bizarre, I’m not sure how to continue the discussion with you. > [@](#): > > And I remind you that we only have one side of the story, and _WND_ is certainly a biased source. I don’t take their word for what happenned. No reminder necessary; if you’ve read the thread, you’ve seen me make exactly this point multiple times. I’ve never rescinded the disclaimer I attached to my first post here. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Tobio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@Tobio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tobio)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/207 "2004-04-28T20:19:18Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > Whose education did the shirt interfere with? So far, all I can see is the PRINCIPAL interfered with the kid’s education due to the shirt. You mean the Principal who’s job it is to interpret and enforce the dress code? I can certainly see why you would take a punk ass kid’s side of the story, rather than a professional educator’s. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > So are you basing your opinion on what you _think_ might have happened, or on the facts that have presented thus far? You are, of course, free to do either, but I think it’s important to make the distinction. I am working on the assumption that we aren’t getting the whole story. For Christ’s sake, _Fox News_ has higher standards of journalistic integrity than _WND_. The fact that legitimate conservative news sources haven’t picked this story up indicates to me that there is more to it than we’ve heard. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/208 "2004-04-28T20:52:01Z")
> [@Tobio](#): > > You mean the Principal who’s job it is to interpret and enforce the dress code? I can certainly see why you would take a punk ass kid’s side of the story, rather than a professional educator’s. :rolleyes: > I am working on the assumption that we aren’t getting the whole story. For Christ’s sake, _Fox News_ has higher standards of journalistic integrity than _WND_. > The fact that legitimate conservative news sources haven’t picked this story up indicates to me that there is more to it than we’ve heard. So now he’s a “punk ass kid.” Gee whiz, how can I argue with that logic? Seriously, now. I’m taking the “punk ass” kid’s side because _based on the current available information_ the principal was acting **illegally**. You can extrapolate all you want. Hey, maybe the kid had a bowie knife strapped to his leg with a sign that said “The End is Near for the homosexual blasphemers!” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/209 "2004-04-28T21:32:59Z")
> [@Tobio](#): > > People? as in plural? The vast majority of us, with one notable exception, have specifically made the point that this little shit does not represent normal Christians. > [@Homebrew](#): > > The Religious Right crouches the entire debate in terms of warfare and violence. It’s no wonder that incidences of violence against homosexuals are increasing. But I’m sure you’ll argue that these aren’t “real Christians” doing the attacks. Surely hearing the dire warnings of impending doom from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk had no bearing on the attitude that violence against homoseuxals is okay. I’m sure the thugs who killed Billy Jack Gaither in 1999 “Just cause he was queer” don’t consider themselves Christians despite saying "I am a believer of God, and I never have forsaken him. And I’ve tried to follow in the right steps. I know I’ve not always been faithful for him. " I think thats a pretty clear condemnation of christians. Homebrew says that the Religious Right i.e. christians commit “warfare and violence” and the rest of his post says that he doesn’t think they aren’t “real Christians”. I think by notable exception you mean \*\* spectrum \*\* so I don’t need to rehash that argument. Homebrew+spectrum= 2 posters i.e. 2 people ergo the plural. Franky it doesn’t matter if it was one, two, or ten posters that said things like that. If I said all muslims or even a significant minority of muslims wanted to exterminate the jews I would be jumped all over and rightly so. Conversely if I said a significant minority of christians want to exterminate homosexuals I should be jumped all over. I haven’t seen this happening in this thread (outside my post) if theres a post that I missed please point it out. > [@Tobio](#): > > No hyperbole. The law may say that it is an infringement, but in this case the law is observably wrong. > Nothing prevents the kid from wearing that T-shirt after class, where those he intends to belittle and attack can just walk away from him. Nothing prevents him from preaching on the streetcorners. No one has prevented the kid from speaking his mind (or lack thereof) in any way. He is just not allowed to do it when it interferes with the education of others. > Was the kid sent to jail for his T-shirt? Was his T-shirt confiscated so that he can’t wear it on his own time? Was he even so much as told not to wear the T-shirt away from school? How can you say his right to free speech was infringed, when nothing prevents him from spewing his hateful message to Word Net Daily? It doesn’t matter when or where the government prevents someone from expressing their opinions the government is still infringing on the students rights. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/210 "2004-04-28T21:39:47Z")
The fact that you consider the Religous Right the same as All Christians says more about you than me. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/211 "2004-04-28T21:54:37Z")
Color me confused then didn’t you say that the religious right wanted to wage warfare and violence on homosexuals. Then you said that I would say these aren’t “real christians” in a sarcastic manner which implied that you thought they were real christians. What am I misunderstanding? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/212 "2004-04-28T22:43:42Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > No, because that would be considered personally intimidating, and in the last decade the Supreme Court has been pretty insistent that any activity that even hints of direct threat can be banned or punished by school authorities. > > However, that doesn’t apply in this instance. I fail to understand why so many bizarre hypotheticals are being posed as if they are supposed to serve as rebuttals. Irrelevant “what-ifs” are not a valid line of legal argument. It wasn’t intended to serve as a rebuttal. It was a genuine question. But I’m not convinced that the difference between “Homosexuals are going to Hell” and “Homosexuals like you, John Doe, are going to Hell” is that great. > [@](#): > > - > > Am I the only person who actually believes in the saying, “I detest what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it”?\* Maybe so. I don’t believe you have the right to call Jane Doe a big fat 'ho in school, and I don’t believe you have the right to tell people they’re bound for eternal damnation in school. You’re not going to catch me defending at all, much less to the _death_, anyone’s “right” to be a school bully. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/213 "2004-04-29T14:59:15Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What am I misunderstanding? The Religious Right are Christians. So are Quakers and Unitarians. But they’re not the same kind of Christian. One of those groups wants to deny me equal rights, and in some cases even my life. The other doesn’t. I condemn one kind but not the other. So it’s inaccurate to say that I made a “pretty clear condemnation of christians”. > [@](#): > > If I said all muslims or even a significant minority of muslims wanted to exterminate the jews I would be jumped all over and rightly so. Conversely if I said a significant minority of christians want to exterminate homosexuals I should be jumped all over. Wrong. If you said “all” Muslims you’d be rightly corrected. But if you said a significant minority, then we’d actually agree. I think it’s probably true that a significant minority wants to “exterminate” Jews. And I don’t expect to be “jumped all over” for that statement. Considering the treatment homosexuals receive in even relatively tolerant Egypt, I wouldn’t be surprised if researchers found that even a majority of Muslims worldwide support execution of homosexuals. In both cases it’s religious bigotry, like that expressed by the kid in the OP, that creates the environment where violence against others is considered acceptable. When the somewhat liberal Anglican and United Methodist churches are pushed to the brink of scism because some people want to fully accept homosexuals into the spiritual life of the church, then it’s clear that homosexuals aren’t yet treated with the same level of respect as others. When the largest Protestant demonination in the U.S. agrees with the Pope that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed full and equal rights, then it creates an atmosphere where we are seen as lesser individuals. History teaches us that nations create stereotypes of the enemy to make them seem lesser or even non-human to make the violence of war more palatable. Could you drop a bomb that kills millions of Mr. Miyagis? It’s much easier to drop that bomb on a million “Jap” Tojos. Likewise when you create a society that sees homosexuals as less equal, it’s not much of a leap for the more strident members of that society to cross the line to violence. Afterall, they’re not fully equal so it’s not as bad as violence against a peer. School bullying is the first step on the trip to [the results of reports like this:](http://www.avp.org/publications/media/20040311_NCAVP_HateViolence.htm) > [@](#): > > For Immediate Release > March 11, 2004 > As Nation Absorbs Supreme Court Decision and Marriage Debate Anti-LGBT Hate Violence Rises > > Data shows 24% increase in incidents since Landmark Lawrence v. Texas Decision > > New York – The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) reported today that anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender hate violence rose 24% in the six months following the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case, which struck down sodomy laws across the nation. The Court’s decision released in late June 2003 was widely hailed as an unqualified victory by LGBT rights advocates. However, the data released today represents clear evidence of the ‘backlash’ predicted by many in the LGBT anti-violence movement even as they celebrated the Lawrence decision. > > In six of ten regions surveyed in preparation for NCAVP’s annual report documenting hate violence against the nation’s LGBT community, there were notable increases in incidents from the beginning of June through the end of December. > > “In the six months of 2003 from the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision through the end of the year, NCAVP member organizations charted a 24% increase in anti-LGBTH incidents when we compared the same time period in 2002,” said Clarence Patton, NCAVP’s Acting Executive Director. This included a 120% increase in Chicago, a 133% increase in Colorado, a 43% increase in New York, and a 14% increase in San Francisco. Even more significantly, in a number of these regions, significant downward trends reversed themselves after the Lawrence decision, resulting in a total increase in incidents for the full year" added Patton. > > “It’s important to remember that at the same time this spike in hate violence was occurring, the nation was discussing, arguing and staking out positions on issues from sodomy to the cultural significance of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, The L Word, Boy Meets Boy and Ellen’s return to network television, in addition to ongoing bread and butter issues for us like marriage, civil rights, civil unions and job protections. Those working in anti-violence organizations are responding to this backlash against our community in light of all of all this heightened visibility everyday and it is essential that those communities and leaders support anti-violence organizations across the country and develop responses where there are none,” said Patton. > > “At the end of the day, the fact is that those who hate us are running scared because we have made progress in this society, in the Supreme Court, in the nation’s media and culture wars, and we will successfully fight back bigoted and mean-spirited Constitutional amendments designed to codify our second-class citizenship. To dissuade us from seeking our civil rights and places as full citizens of the United States, fear compels the monsters that engage in hate violence to redouble their efforts. The message being sent is, ‘Stay in your closets; and don’t you dare ask to be treated as human beings,’ but that message will continue to be ignored by this community” said Patton. ---
**Author:** ![depocali](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9a140/32.png) [@depocali](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/depocali)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/214 "2004-04-30T17:30:23Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > Am I the only person who actually believes in the saying, “I detest what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it”? No, I believe generally the same. I, however, see the case a bit differently than Left Hand, Shodan and others in that I believe that legally the Principal was justified, they believe that legally he wasn’t. As to the appropriateness of political discourse in public schools, I guess I agree that there should be general freedom of speech, but I understand that schools can and should be able to restrict some of the more virulent speech. This does not mean that I believe less in free speech, than I believe that public shool should be a forum for ideas to be exchanged, not insults to be exchanged. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/215 "2004-04-30T17:38:03Z")
\>Likewise when you create a society that sees homosexuals as less equal, it’s \>not much of a leap for the more strident members of that society to cross the \>line to violence. Afterall, they’re not fully equal so it’s not as bad as violence \>against a peer. School bullying is the first step on the trip to the results of \>reports like this: Your cite proves no such thing; it does not say or show that the increase in violence is linked to the decision. If one accepts its thesis that “It’s important to remember that at the same time this spike in hate violence was occurring, the nation was discussing, arguing and staking out positions on issues…”, one would be arguing that there should be no debate. Is that a position you want to defend? ---
**Author:** ![burundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burundi)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/216 "2004-05-01T16:14:11Z")
> [@depocali](#): > > No, I believe generally the same. I, however, see the case a bit differently than Left Hand, Shodan and others in that I believe that legally the Principal was justified, they believe that legally he wasn’t. As mentioned in the other thread, the student is apparently appealing to the American Family Association for legal assistance. We’ll find out which side of the freedom-of-speech right he falls on under the Supreme Court law. Personally, I think that ethically and legally the principal was in the wrong; the student was only in the right legally. I think that this issue is going to blow up in the principal’s face, and the likeliest outcome of the principal’s meddling will be that the school never allows another Day of Silence Celebration, in a misguided attempt to suppress hate speech by also suppressing anti-hate speech. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/217 "2004-05-01T16:20:17Z")
> [@burundi](#): > > Personally, I believe by which **burundi** means, “Left hand of Dorkness believes.” I swear, one of these days I’ll remember to log her out before shooting my mouth off in Great Debates. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497.md?page=10)