School allows speech on one side of an issue and not the other - Homosexuality

[vanilla]

Some people think that simply stating your belief that homosexuality is a sin will be outlawed, considered hate sppech.
IMHO< this is really wrong.
I don’t think there should be any special days at schools myself.
Except No Homework Day or some such.

[depocali]

"Saying the KKK is a great American institution would not be acceptable becuase the KKK has historically advocated and carried out violence against blacks. Saying that homosexuality is a sin is different becuase it is not advocating violence against homosexuals. If he wore a shirt that said something to the effect of “kill all the evil fags” there would be no question that its inappropiate. "

abomination

\Abom`ina"tion, n. [OE. abominacioun, -cion, F. abominatio. See Abominate.] 1. The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred; abhorrence; detestation; loathing;

2. That which is abominable; anything hateful, wicked, or shamefully vile; an object or state that excites disgust and hatred; a hateful or shameful vice; pollution.

Antony, most large in his abominations. --Shak.

3. A cause of pollution or wickedness.

Syn: Detestation; loathing; abhorrence; disgust; aversion; loathsomeness; odiousness. --Sir W. Scott.
Now I may be wrong, but calling someone detestable, shamefully vile, hateful, etc. could paosibly be a little more than ‘neutral’ speech. No it doen’t say “kill all the evil fags”, instead it says homosexuals are worthy of hate, shamefully vile, loathsome, in essence sub-human. Now it may a bit difficult to understand the sublte difference between allowing people to debate whether a position is right or wrong, and allowing people to use hate speech and incite feelings that debase human beings.

I believe the school acted prudently, now if the student had limited his actions to quoting the 2nd and 3rd quotes from the bible he would be an ass, but he would be expressing an opinion, by using the first quote (paraphrased, I may add) he is actually out of the bounds of the kind a of free speech that should be protected in apublic shool. It is different to have a day of silence for the abuses against homosexuals, the dead in the Congo, or in Iraq, and having someone wear a T-shirt that strips a human being’s right to exist. You may disagree with the rights of homosexuals, with their choices, moral virtues, etc, but they are members of the human race nd as such, at least, they have inalienable human rights.

[depocali]

Cite from the King James Bible

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
That is what the student placed on his T-shirt

[Horatio_Hellpop]

Not all opposing viewpoints deserve the same weight as the views they oppose. I shudder to think a modern medical school would give equal weight to the “four bodily humours” theory as to the “cell pathology” view of illnesses and their treatments. An educator has to give full weight to the view he or she endorses as the objective truth.

Clergymen who disagree with the school about homosexual behavior have their own forum–the pulpit–from which to express themselves without interruption.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Hamish

But I have the same problem with this that I had during the whole Eminem controversy. People were lining up to defend the man’s right to freedom of speech who would never have, say, defended a neo-nazi or white supremacist band. Radios and clubs would play Eminem which would never have played racist rockers.

Same deal here. I have no doubt that, manual or not, a teenager showing up on Yom ha-Shoah with a “The Jews Killed Jesus” t-shirt would probably have been expelled, even if he didn’t advocate violence.

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.

At least, I think I would; from the little I know about Eminem, he claims he’s singing in-character and doesn’t believe many of the things he sings about. If this is the case (I have no idea whether it is and frankly don’t care enough to do more research into it), then just like I don’t condemn The Cure for their song “Killing an Arab” or condemn Pink Floyd for their song “In the Flesh,” I wouldn’t condemn him for in-character homophobia.

Even if he’s singing sincerely, however, I’d grant him the same distinction that I’d grant Neo-Nazis: while discouraging stations from playing his music, I’d defend his legal right to his music. And for what it’s worth, I think this kid is far closer to a Neo-Nazi band than to Eminem: he can’t claim he was wearing the shirt in-character.

On what basis would you expect the school to expel the “Jews killed Jesus” student?

Incidentally, had the kids been quicker on their feet, just think how they could have coopted the t-shirt asshole’s message: every time they passed him that day, they could silently bow their heads, like mourners at a funeral. Here they are trying to make a point about how gay kids are oppressed, and this asshole is helping them make their point–why not take advantage?

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Krokodil

Not all opposing viewpoints deserve the same weight as the views they oppose. I shudder to think a modern medical school would give equal weight to the “four bodily humours” theory as to the “cell pathology” view of illnesses and their treatments. An educator has to give full weight to the view he or she endorses as the objective truth.

First, we’re not talking about objective truth here: we’re talking about two sides to a political debate. Granted, I find one side of this debate to be odious, but the opposing side has justice and ethics on its side, not objective truth.

Second, we’re not talking about an authority figure spouting the odious side of the debate: we’re talking about a student wearing a shirt with the odious side spelled out on it. Even if we were talkinga bout a matter of objective truth, a student should still probably be allowed to wear a shirt proclaiming something objectively wrong. I wouldn’t send home a student whose shirt said, “Mahatma Gandhi ate babies!” either.

Daniel

[lissener]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

. . . I wouldn’t send home a student whose shirt said, “Mahatma Gandhi ate babies!” either.

“Mahatma Gandhi ate babies” is not addressing or referring to anyone present: it’s referring to a specific individual, long dead to boot. “Homosexuality is a sin” is a non-veiled attack on the humanity of a real person standing right there reading it. It’s a reminder to a young person standing there reading it that he/she lives in a world that considers him to be less than fully human. It supports a mindset that provides a fertile atmosphere for hate and hate crimes against the very real person standing right there reading it.

It is actively damaging to a real human being.

It’s still speech, and there are contexts in which it’s totally protected, regardless of its validity. But a school is not such a place. A reminder: the First Amendment is not absolute nor unshaded. People think the only exceptions to FA protection are “Fire” in a crowded theater. But, just as an example, the FA does not protect speech spoken under oath on a witness stand, nor speech made for purposes of advertising. Those forms of speech are limited and regulated every day.

The public school is not an open marketplace. The safety of the kids–physical and mental–is more important than abstract absolutes regarding the FA.

[Shodan]

@Krokodil

Not all opposing viewpoints deserve the same weight as the views they oppose.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

@Krokodil

Clergymen who disagree with the school about homosexual behavior have their own forum–the pulpit–from which to express themselves without interruption.

So if clergy should use pulpits, what should students use?

Besides - if it was a National Day of Silence, why didn’t the gay supporters just not talk to the kid?

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@lissener

“Homosexuality is a sin” is a non-veiled attack on the humanity of a real person standing right there reading it. It’s a reminder to a young person standing there reading it that he/she lives in a world that considers him to be less than fully human. It supports a mindset that provides a fertile atmosphere for hate and hate crimes against the very real person standing right there reading it.

Given that Christians believe all humans are sinners, this is patently untrue. As for providing a fertile atmosphere for hate and hate crimes, that may or may not be true; however, it’s not relevant. It is not in itself a crime, nor is it a threat of a crime.

It is actively damaging to a real human being.

It causes no physical harm, and while it may cause emotional harm, many forms of protected speech do this.

A reminder: the First Amendment is not absolute nor unshaded. People think the only exceptions to FA protection are “Fire” in a crowded theater. But, just as an example, the FA does not protect speech spoken under oath on a witness stand, nor speech made for purposes of advertising. Those forms of speech are limited and regulated every day.

Thanks for the reminder, but it’s unnecessary. This kid was not speaking under oath; he was not advertising a product. He was expressing a political opinion, and that’s the most protected form of free speech.

The public school is not an open marketplace. The safety of the kids–physical and mental–is more important than abstract absolutes regarding the FA.

Wearing this shirt did not endanger the mental safety of kids. Indeed, I’d argue that suppressing free speech in this manner would endanger their mental safety, by not preparing them for the odious and hateful opinions they’re going to encounter outside the school. Kids who encounter this shirt in the school can respond to it in an academic manner; it can be the focal point of a lesson. It is incorrect to say that you protect mental safety by suppressing free speech.

Again, the cure for the ills of free speech is more free speech, not less.

Daniel

[lissener]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Given that Christians believe all humans are sinners, this is patently untrue. As for providing a fertile atmosphere for hate and hate crimes, that may or may not be true; however, it’s not relevant. It is not in itself a crime, nor is it a threat of a crime.

Never said it was.

It causes no physical harm, and while it may cause emotional harm, many forms of protected speech do this.

Yes; this is not protected speech.

Thanks for the reminder, but it’s unnecessary. This kid was not speaking under oath; he was not advertising a product. He was expressing a political opinion, and that’s the most protected form of free speech.

It doesn’t help the flow of this debate to pretend that I was limiting unprotected speech to the examples offered.

Wearing this shirt did not endanger the mental safety of kids. Indeed, I’d argue that suppressing free speech in this manner would endanger their mental safety, by not preparing them for the odious and hateful opinions they’re going to encounter outside the school. Kids who encounter this shirt in the school can respond to it in an academic manner; it can be the focal point of a lesson.

And people who have no bread can eat cake.

It is incorrect to say that you protect mental safety by suppressing free speech.

Which is why that’s not what I say. To reduce it to universal generalities is to obfuscate the truth of the specific situation.

Again, the cure for the ills of free speech is more free speech, not less.

If you repeat “freespeechfreespeechfreespeech” over and over and over again it becomes meaningless. You offer it as the only support of your argument, as if it’s an undebatable trump. As the examples given above, this is not true.

[Eonwe]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

First, we’re not talking about objective truth here: we’re talking about two sides to a political debate.

I’m going to yell here even though this is the staid and logical realm of GD:

WHERE IS THE POLITICAL DEBATE!?!?!?!?

We’re not talking about benefits bestowed upon gays by the government here, we’re talking about a statement of hate and abhoration towards gay people. It’s not politics, it’s religion and/or prejudice.

Politics has not a thing to do with this particular case.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@lissener

It doesn’t help the flow of this debate to pretend that I was limiting unprotected speech to the examples offered.

Listen, bub, don’t misrepresent me in claiming I was misrepresenting you. I was pointing out that political speech IS the strongest form of protected speech, and that’s what this kid was doing: making political speech.

Don’t believe me? Let’s look at a similar case:

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen said the Ann Arbor School District acted improperly in the case of a Roman Catholic student who wanted to express her views on homosexuality.

The case is “about tolerance of different, perhaps, ‘politically incorrect’ viewpoints in the public schools,” Rosen wrote.

At the 2,700-student Ann Arbor Pioneer High School, students held a Diversity Week in March 2002 that included discussions on race, religion and sexual orientation.

One panel organized by the Gay/Straight Alliance included six religious leaders and was titled “Religion and Homosexuality.” The panel was arranged with the belief the leaders supported the view that religion and homosexuality aren’t inconsistent – and that all were “welcoming and affirming” of gay rights.

Betsy Hansen, a member of Pioneers for Christ, asked that an alternative viewpoint be added to the panel: that in her view, the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. The district refused.

As I said, this student’s speech should be protected and condemned.

None of the rest of your post rises to the level of an argument.
Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Eonwe

WHERE IS THE POLITICAL DEBATE!?!?!?!?

We’re not talking about benefits bestowed upon gays by the government here, we’re talking about a statement of hate and abhoration towards gay people. It’s not politics, it’s religion and/or prejudice.

Are you serious? Of course it’s a political statement, although it also has religious underpinnings: the kid is obviously suggesting that the Day of Silence advances an inappropriate cause. (The kid is dreadfully wrong, of course). Whether it’s a statement of hate is irrelevant; although the kid would probably deny that it’s such a statement, I think that’d be delusional.

But don’t believe me: look at Tinker vs. Des Moines School District:

@The Supreme Court

The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, [508] to hair style, or deportment. Cf. Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District, 392 F.2d 697 (1968); Pugsley v. Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247, 250 S. W. 538 (1923). It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to “pure speech.”

The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners’ interference, actual or nascent, with the schools’ work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.
…
The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. **But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom–this kind of openness–that is [509] the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society. **

…
It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol–black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation’s involvement [511] in Vietnam–was singled out for prohibition. **Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible. **
…
When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on [513] the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without “materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” and without colliding with the rights of others.

Lissener’s claim that this speech is not protected is nonsense.

Daniel

[Eonwe]

Left Hand of Dorkness, I’d say there’s a difference between an expert (clergy) talking about and explaining a religious viewpoint and a student expressing that viewpoint carte blanche.

[Shodan]

@Eonwe

It’s not politics, it’s religion and/or prejudice.

And religious speech is protected speech. So, unpleasantly enough, is prejudiced speech. lissener summed up pretty much the only kinds of speech that aren’t protected.

This kid’s speech falls under the heading of “everything else”. Ergo, it is protected speech.

Unless you can demonstrate either[ul][li]The state has some compelling interest in suppressing this speech, or [*]There is some principle at stake beyond “how dare that little bastard disagree with me”.[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Eonwe

Left Hand of Dorkness, I’d say there’s a difference between an expert (clergy) talking about and explaining a religious viewpoint and a student expressing that viewpoint carte blanche.

You would be wrong.

If only experts are allowed to speak on topics such as these, why were the other students allowed to express themselves thru the National Day of Silence?

In any case, you are mistaken. The First Amendment applies to all citizens, not just experts in various subject areas.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Eonwe

Left Hand of Dorkness, I’d say there’s a difference between an expert (clergy) talking about and explaining a religious viewpoint and a student expressing that viewpoint carte blanche.

There’s a difference, sure, but that difference is not constitutionally relevant. Experts get no special consideration in the first amendment.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Incidentally, Shodan, how does it feel to be tag-teaming with a dyed-in-the-wool pinko?

Daniel

[Shodan]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Incidentally, Shodan, how does it feel to be tag-teaming with a dyed-in-the-wool pinko?

Daniel

Considering how you’re doing, I am proud of the company.

Regards,
Shodan

[Eonwe]

Left Hand of Dorkness,

I’m still not seeing how this is political speach. Forgetting what the kid may or may not believe as the reason for the Day of Silence (advance the homosexual political agenda or whathave you), and in fact forgetting the Day of Silence all together, there’s a question as to whether or not such speach can pose a risk to students.

Here 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.

Are you suggesting that these ought to be acceptable in a school setting? If not, then I guess I’m not understanding you. You say it’s political and therefore protected? 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’m also not clear as to what makes ‘homosexuality is sin’ and ‘hell is real’ political statements.

Shodan,

I guess I’d ask you kind of the same thing. It seems very clear to me that there are certain things that are not ok speach in a public school setting. How is this not hate speach?