# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/41 "2004-04-23T20:14:11Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Incidentally, **Shodan** , how does it feel to be tag-teaming with a dyed-in-the-wool pinko? 😉 > > Daniel Wow! I’ve been waiting to join the club for years! I never woulda thunk it. I guess though that I’ll have to allign the rest of my views with the Pink Party as well. **goes off to get advice from SDMB resident pinkos** 🙂 ---
**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 23, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/42 "2004-04-23T20:15:35Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > **Left Hand of Dorkness** , > > I’m still not seeing how this is political speach. Even if it’s entirely religious speech, it’s still protected. Did you read the supreme court decision? Near as I can tell, even if it were a screed about a local doughnut shop, it’d still be protected. > [@](#): > > [Here](http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/youth/tremblay/main.html) is a study which claims that homosexual teens are particularly at risk for suicide and suicidal tendancies. Creating a space where all students feel welcome and accepted is the responsibility of the school. Just as I would repremand a student for calling someone else a “dirty jew,” “stupid redneck,” or “fuckin’ fattie,” I would repremand a student for calling another “abominable homo,” “fag,” etc etc. > > You tell **lissener** that that speach is not directly harmful, but I think a very strong case could be made suggesting that it is. There’s a difference, surely you can see, between calling a kid “abominable homo” and wearing a shirt that declares homosexuality to be an abomination. It’s the same difference between saying, “the war in Iraq is an unjust war” and saying, “Your daddy is a murderer!” to the child of a soldier. As for your study, would you point me to the specific clause in it that says that shirts with Bible verses drive kids toward suicide? Correlation does not equal causation, and this is a huge stretch: it seems far likelier to me that it’s attitudes from family members that drive kids to suicide. > [@](#): > > So if I’m running for office on a platform that states that gays are evil, I’m allowed to go into a school and walk down the halls shouting ‘gays are evil’? I want you to think very carefully about this, and tell me whether you think my position requires my allowing this. On its face, this seems like a very stupid and disingenuous question to me, and I’m having trouble believing that you’re asking it both thoughtfully and sincerely. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/43 "2004-04-23T20:16:24Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > There’s a difference, sure, but that difference is not constitutionally relevant. Experts get no special consideration in the first amendment. > > Daniel Isn’t there a huge difference between asking a person to explain the views of a group and having someone express those views? A teacher could say, for example, that the neo-nazi party thinks Jews are pigs, but could not say, “Jews are pigs”? I’m not trying to be daft here, but I feel like I’m just not articulating my point clearly. ---
**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 23, 2004, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/44 "2004-04-23T20:30:01Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Wow! I’ve been waiting to join the club for years! I never woulda thunk it. I guess though that I’ll have to allign the rest of my views with the Pink Party as well. My apologies if I’m misunderstanding you, but you DO understand that I was calling myself a pinko, not calling you one, right? **Shodan** and I so rarely agree on anything in Great Debates taht I had to comment on it. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Isn’t there a huge difference between asking a person to explain the views of a group and having someone express those views? A teacher could say, for example, that the neo-nazi party thinks Jews are pigs, but could not say, “Jews are pigs”? Yes, there’s a difference between the two things you just said. Here’s the thing, however: **teachers don’t have freedom of speech in the same way that students do**. If a teacher wore that t-shirt, I’d have no trouble with firing the teacher for inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. People in the workplace may have their free speech limited by their bosses precisely because they’re not obligated to be at that job. Students are compelled to be at school, and so they consequently receive greater free-speech protection. The distinction you’re drawing, between a teacher’s lesson and a teacher’s declaration, has no bearing on the student’s right to freedom of expression. That said, there was a teacher at my high school who was a raging lunatic conservative. Before **Shodan** gets offended, let me explain: I heard him tell black students that slavery was the best thing that ever happened to their ancestors. He told my girlfriend at the time, a lesbian (don’t ask), that homosexuals should be imprisoned. He was the kind of guy who voted for Jesse Helms only because Helms was likelier to win than a real conservative would be. And he was a fantastic teacher. I suspect that half or more of the horrible things he said were to promote debate: he was a consummate troll, who would challenge his (predominately liberal) students with outrageous positions and hold them until the students formulated a rational response to them. In some ways, he probably did more for liberal causes at the school than some of the liberal teachers: by forcing students to think clearly about their opposition to his claims, he formed good liberal thinkers. Even my lesbian girlfriend really respected him. Perhaps my experience with him is part of why I’m not afraid of odious bigoted views in a school environment: when they’re clearly exposed, they’re all the easier to combat. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/45 "2004-04-23T20:30:29Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Isn’t there a huge difference between asking a person to explain the views of a group and having someone express those views? A teacher could say, for example, that the neo-nazi party thinks Jews are pigs, but could not say, “Jews are pigs”? > > I’m not trying to be daft here, but I feel like I’m just not articulating my point clearly. No, from a Constitutional point of view there is no difference. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is OK to explain the views of some third party as long as you don’t share them. This is pretty much the same as revoking the First Amendment, since no one would be free to advocate seriously for a position they felt strongly about. It would be like saying that only those who did not support gay rights could join in the National Day of Silence. This kid has a position on gay rights. Those who joined the NDoS have a different view. Both sides get to express their views in the school, or neither do. You can’t, in other words, pick and choose **based on content** that one side gets to speak and the other doesn’t. There is a very high standard that has to be met before you lose the right of free speech. It hasn’t been met. And it is unfair (in my view) to assume that this kid was speaking out in favor of violence against gays, and to use that as a reason to stop his speech. If you are allowed to interpret his speech that way, it is equally valid to assume that the National Day of Silence is speaking out in favor of indiscriminate sex and homosexual recruitment. If the NDoS gets to say, “No, no - we are **only** in favor of equal rights for gays”, then this kid also gets to say, “No, I don’t advocate or support violence against gays (or gay suicide, or whatever). I just think that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, and should not be encouraged.” And then both sides get to make their case in the free marketplace of ideas. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/46 "2004-04-23T20:51:49Z")
Ah, so I’m no pinko after all. Oh well. 🙂 I just typed up a long reply, which was the very moment the SDMB decided to swallow it whole. I guess I’ll try again, though it’ll be a bit abbreviated: > [@](#): > > There’s a difference, surely you can see, between calling a kid “abominable homo” and wearing a shirt that declares homosexuality to be an abomination. It’s the same difference between saying, “the war in Iraq is an unjust war” and saying, “Your daddy is a murderer!” to the child of a soldier. I disagree. It seems to me a more apt comparrison would be “soldiers murder” and “your daddy is a murderer”. And, The difference is that it is not an attack on a student. > [@](#): > > As for your study, would you point me to the specific clause in it that says that shirts with Bible verses drive kids toward suicide? Correlation does not equal causation, and this is a huge stretch: it seems far likelier to me that it’s attitudes from family members that drive kids to suicide. Excellent point, and I agree. But, it seems that even though there is no correlation, and any number of factors could be the cause, why not create a safe space in the schools, especially if the home life of the child does not offer him or her the safety and support it ought? > [@](#): > > I want you to think very carefully about this, and tell me whether you think my position requires my allowing this. On its face, this seems like a very stupid and disingenuous question to me, and I’m having trouble believing that you’re asking it both thoughtfully and sincerely. Hm… well, let me ask this a different way. Is it okay for anyone to walk down the halls of a school saying “gays are evil” to anyone he or she meets? If so, how come, and if not, why not? And as to your new posts: **LHoD** , Ok, then what if it was a student saying that? It relates to my last question right above this. Speach certainly _is_ regulated in a school to some degree. What are the guidelines? It’s obviously a fuzzy line, but I think this falls on the wrong side of it. **Shodan** , It’s not that you can’t believe it, it’s that there’s a difference between educating about beliefs (whether or not you hold them), and expressing them in a way that’s potentially harmful to the students (which is also up for debate). Also, this kid has said nothing about ‘gay rights’. Nothing about homosexual marriage, or inheritance, or right to live together, or right to adopt or anything. He has said “homosexuality is a sin”. Comments on morality or on sin or on what is in his opinion abominable behavior do not by definition relate to rights. If he has opinions on gay rights he should express them as opposed to making what amounts to no more than ad hominem attacks on gays. ---
**Author:** ![Thingol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Thingol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thingol)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/47 "2004-04-23T20:52:23Z")
The shirt violates all speech policies in public schools I know of around here – which is only a few, but they’re very well researched and consistent with current law. That said, I do believe the school erred by allowing the Day of Silence to be recognized in this particular way, which is clearly disruptive if I’m reading this situation correctly. Allowing students to refrain from speech outside of the classroom is fine (say, hallways and cafeteria). But allowing them to effectively not participate in class indeed disrupts the class. The cause is noble. The execution was improper. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/48 "2004-04-23T20:54:05Z")
Oh, and I’m off the computer now for a while, but I’m enjoying this discussion. I’ll check back later tonight. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/49 "2004-04-23T21:06:00Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > **Shodan** , > > It’s not that you can’t believe it, it’s that there’s a difference between educating about beliefs (whether or not you hold them), and expressing them in a way that’s potentially harmful to the students (which is also up for debate). OK, I assume this means you are objecting to the form this student chose to express his beliefs. Is that different from what the NDoS is doing? It seems to me that you are objecting to the message the student has chosen to express, and want it to be sanctioned because of what he is saying. The NDoS, on the other hand, is OK with you, and their (symbolic) speech is thus allowed. This is content-based censorship, and thus illegitimate. Unless you are saying that you would also sanction a student who wore a T-shirt saying, “Freedom for gays!” or “Join the National Day of Silence”. > [@Eonwe](#): > > Also, this kid has said nothing about ‘gay rights’. Nothing about homosexual marriage, or inheritance, or right to live together, or right to adopt or anything. He has said “homosexuality is a sin”. Comments on morality or on sin or on what is in his opinion abominable behavior do not by definition relate to rights. If he has opinions on gay rights he should express them as opposed to making what amounts to no more than ad hominem attacks on gays. Comments on morality and sin, in this instance, are religious speech. Still protected. And, as I mentioned earlier, it is unfair to interpret his speech as “_ad hominem_s” on gays unless you can also interpret the National Day of Speech as also attacks on fundamentalists. If you see what I mean. I also have to go home and collapse. I will also be back if I can manage it. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 23, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/50 "2004-04-23T21:19:42Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Ah, so I’m no pinko after all. Oh well. 🙂 Oh, you can be a pinko if you like; I’m just not calling you names :). > [@](#): > > Excellent point, and I agree. But, it seems that even though there is no correlation, and any number of factors could be the cause, why not create a safe space in the schools, especially if the home life of the child does not offer him or her the safety and support it ought? > … > > Hm… well, let me ask this a different way. Is it okay for anyone to walk down the halls of a school saying “gays are evil” to anyone he or she meets? If so, how come, and if not, why not? > … > Ok, then what if it was a student saying that? It relates to my last question right above this. Speach certainly _is_ regulated in a school to some degree. What are the guidelines? It’s obviously a fuzzy line, but I think this falls on the wrong side of it. In order to answer all these questions, I refer you again to _Tinker vs. Des Moines_, quoted extensively above and linked to in its entirety. I agree substantively with this Supreme Court decision, and think its application to this situation is both obvious and in keeping with what I’ve been arguing here. If you disagree, it might be helpful to point to either the parts of Tinker you disagree with, or to explain how you think Tinker supports your viewpoint. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/51 "2004-04-23T21:25:26Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > we’re talking about a statement of hate and abhoration towards gay people. It’s not politics, it’s religion and/or prejudice. > > . So then you ARE saying the Bible is hate literature. Should we ban it? ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/52 "2004-04-23T21:28:44Z")
> [@Thingol](#): > > The shirt violates all speech policies in public schools I know of around here – which is only a few, but they’re very well researched and consistent with current law. {snip} Allowing students… to effectively not participate in class indeed disrupts the class. {snip}The execution was improper. Same here re policies. And this case is actually doubly disruptive, in that students who choose not to remain silent are at risk of being construed as supporting, tolerating, or being indifferent to violence against homosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![depocali](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9a140/32.png) [@depocali](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/depocali)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/53 "2004-04-23T21:55:32Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > In order to answer all these questions, I refer you again to _Tinker vs. Des Moines_, quoted extensively above and linked to in its entirety. I agree substantively with this Supreme Court decision, and think its application to this situation is both obvious and in keeping with what I’ve been arguing here. If you disagree, it might be helpful to point to either the parts of Tinker you disagree with, or to explain how you think Tinker supports your viewpoint. > > Daniel I don’t disagree with Tinke, as it is still good law, however I believe that Tinker is not necessarily the controlling precedent here. In [BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 403 v. FRASER, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/478/675.html) the court distiguished some speech from that protected under Tinker: > [@](#): > > Under the First Amendment, **the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school.** It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of \*\*vulgar and offensive terms \*\* in public discourse. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions…Given the school’s need to be able to impose disciplinary sanctions for a wide range of unanticipated conduct disruptive of the educational process, the school disciplinary rules need not be as detailed as a criminal code which imposes criminal sanctions. I guess then it all comes down to whether or not one believes that the quote is offensive. I believe I’ve made myself clear in that I do believe the Leviticus 18:22 to be offensive speech. This may be ploitical and protected, but not in a public school environment. It is different from that same student petioning or demonstrating before the school board. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/54 "2004-04-23T22:02:17Z")
I have a question for the people that believe this kid should not be allowed to wear his shirt. If his shirt said the same things except instead of citing homosexuality as a sin he cited pre-marital sex as a sin should he be allowed to wear it? ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/55 "2004-04-23T22:11:51Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I have a question for the people that believe this kid should not be allowed to wear his shirt. If his shirt said the same things except instead of citing homosexuality as a sin he cited pre-marital sex as a sin should he be allowed to wear it? Depends on the wording. I don’t believe it would violate our policies per se, since it is not inherently disruptive. But a shirt that said, for example, “Fornicators will burn in hell” would probably not pass muster. ---
**Author:** ![depocali](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9a140/32.png) [@depocali](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/depocali)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/56 "2004-04-23T22:12:42Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > So then you ARE saying the Bible is hate literature. > Should we ban it? No. However, the bible is a very old document that has certain teachings we no longer follow or that clash with our current norms, if we take these comments out of context and decide that quoting them allows us to demean others, this could be ‘hate speech’. I submit some examples for your perusal. Education > [@](#): > > “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Timothy 2:11-14). Wives > [@](#): > > “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in every thing” (Ephesians 5:22-24). “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord” (Colossians 3:18). Baby Girls > [@](#): > > “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days . . . But if she bare a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks” (Leviticus 12:1-5). Now I believe most rational humans now see these ase rules of a different time and place, and adjust to living with them. However, if I go around saying this I am disseminating hate speech, regardless of its source. I can just see the T-shirt this kid will wear on March 8 ([International Women’s Day](http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/women/womday97.htm) Women are unfit to teach (1 Timothy 2:11-14) Women obey your man (Ephesians 5:22-24) (1 Corinthians 11:3) Or girls are dirtier than boys (Leviticus 12:1-5) Somehow I don’t see his mom helping him with these… ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/57 "2004-04-23T22:26:52Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I have a question for the people that believe this kid should not be allowed to wear his shirt. If his shirt said the same things except instead of citing homosexuality as a sin he cited pre-marital sex as a sin should he be allowed to wear it? Not the same thing. “Homosexuality” refers to a person; “Premarital sex” is a behavior. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/58 "2004-04-23T22:29:20Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Not the same thing. “Homosexuality” refers to a person; “Premarital sex” is a behavior. Uhm no homosexuality refers to the behavior of being homosexual. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/59 "2004-04-23T22:40:07Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Hmm. There’s a difference between defending Eminem’s freedom of speech and defending a radio station that plays him, as I know you know; for myself, I’d defend the one but not the other, and indeed would discourage stations from playing him. No argument here. That was the point I was (clumsily) trying to make. I have no problem with government tolerating the rights people to express all manner of vile and ignorant beliefs. What irritates me are those instances where homophobia is treated as a lesser prejudice than racism, anti-Semitism, or sexism. Currently my country has a hate speech law doesn’t include anti-gay hate speech. There’s talk about adding it. That puts me in an odd position. As a life-long gay activist, it irritates me that the government considers hatred directed at me as less than hatred directed at other groups. OTOH, I don’t think restricting speech helps. I’m a civil libertarian and a writer, and I’ve never seen any censorship law, however well-intended, come to any good. > [@](#): > > On what basis would you expect the school to expel the “Jews killed Jesus” student? I’m certain a student at my high school would have been expelled for a shirt like that. But on reflection, I don’t really know much about this school, so you’re right. I have no reason to expect that my school is a representative sample. OTOH, it happens often enough that homophobia is treated as more acceptable than racism, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it happened here. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497/60 "2004-04-23T22:45:02Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Uhm no homosexuality refers to the behavior of being homosexual. To avoid the brewing semantic argument that explodes whenever this point is made, allow me to point out that when we talk about “homosexuality,” we’re usually refering to the desires (love, companionship, sexual desire), and not the sexual act. For me, a person can be homosexual even if they never have homosexual sex, if all or most of their romantic/sexual desires are turned towards the same sex. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/school-allows-speech-on-one-side-of-an-issue-and-not-the-other-homosexuality/241497.md?page=4)