I imagine the t-shirt is as threatening to gays as gay marriage is to straight marriage. Threats in either case seem to be very much in the eye of the beholder.
And perhaps you could explain how freedom of speech is not a distraction when you agree with it (as in the National Day of Silence).
Regards,
Shodan
Not really. I have pointed out that if you simply read the book that these pseudo-Christians love so much you find the threat right there. I don’t have to dream up wild hypotheticals comparing fundies to dogfuckers to find some kind of threat.
Hell, I have friends with broken bones from bigots like these- I don’t have to imagine a threat.
For one thing, the national day of silence is silent. :rolleyes: For another thing no protest of any sort was going on during class time, while this ignorant son of a bitch continued to display his message of hate.
The verse on the kid’s shirt is inextricably linked to the verse that calls for the death by stoning. It’s part of the same message. Just because the verse specifically mentioned on the klanbrat’s hate shirt doesn’t specifically mention stoning does not disconnect it from the other portions of the hate book that do call for the stoning of innocent gay people.
Not that Dork cares. Because he values the “right” of a Klanbrat to harass gays more than he values the lives of gay people.
>For one thing, the national day of silence is silent. For another thing no protest
>of any sort was going on during class time, while this ignorant son of a bitch
>continued to display his message of hate.
At my school, there were posters in the hallways, and bright red shirts were worn saying “What will you do to end the silence”. Shirt vs. Shirt.
Why don’t you just say that protests that you agree with are fine, those that you don’t are “klanbrats” and viable targets for all sorts of truth-stretching slander.
Or the fact that, I dunno, he didn’t threaten anyone might clue me in to the fact that he didn’t intend to threaten anyone. Similarly, the fact that he COULD have chosen to include the threatening verse and didn’t might clue me in to that fact.
Some people do follow the Bible literally. You’re perfectly welcome to “take that as a threat,” but it’s entirely unreasonable to do so. Furthermore, I challenge you to find a single controlling authority in law that would treat a nonthreatening phrase as a threatening phrase, based on the phrases’ proximity in a book to one another.
It is not, in short, a threat. A distraction? Sure, but a legal one, as evidenced by Tinker.
Daniel
I think the problem is that the law requires the “reasonable person” standard. Those who are determined to find some reason to outlaw speech with which they disagree have a vested interest in not being reasonable.
You might as well force the students to speak on the NDoS because ACT-UP says that “silence = death”.
Why are gays and their supporters so interested in presenting themselves as so emotionally fragile that they cannot be in the same school as someone who disagrees with them? If you are such a hothouse flower as that, you aren’t getting far into adulthood no matter how many t-shirts you ban.
Show me a threat, and we can take action. Show me a t-shirt you don’t like, and I shrug my shoulders.
Some people agree with you, some disagree, most don’t give a shit. Pitching a fit over it doesn’t gain you anything. The ones who agree already agree, the ones who disagree don’t change their minds, the rest just think you’re being hysterical.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not a student, I was unaware of that. IMHO neither side should be allowed to disrupt classtime like that.
Why don’t you just admit that you hate gays rather than whining about freedom of speech? That’s what bothers me- all of you who defend this little shit-stain will be mysteriously silent when free speech is infringed that doesn’t have anything to do with hate mongering.
I find it a little suspicious that so many of these same voices crying out about free speech fall silent when it doesn’t involve bigots.
The question remains unanswered: if a “Gays are evil” shirt is acceptable/not disruptive/insufficient to have the kid sent home, is a “Jews are evil” shirt acceptable/not disruptive/insufficient to have the kid sent home?
And why is a “Please do not hurt gay people” shirt equivalent to a “Gay people are evil” shirt? None of this has yet been adequately explained.
Please, honey. :rolleyes: Gays aren’t the ones whining about how they’re being “oppressed” because some people are protesting violence.
First, Spectrum, if I have anything else to say to you, it’ll be in the Pit. Your last response was repulsive.
matt, there’s only one difference I see between “gays are evil” and “Jews are evil”: the latter was clearly forbidden by the student manual, and per Derby receives a higher level of support from the courts. However, lacking clear evidence that such shirts (or symbols) had disrupted school events and/or caused violence at school events in the past, I’m not sure the courts would forbid the “Jews are evil” shirts. In other words, except for the manual’s forbiddance of the “Jews are evil” shirt, I would defend it exactly as much as I’m defending this asshole’s shirt.
And I do NOT think that “please do not hurt gay people” is equivalent to “gay people are evil.” The two messages are different and not analogous, and I disagree with folks who are saying that they are. However, the fact that they’re not analogous does not invalidate the fact that they’re both protected speech.
Finally, I’m a little appalled. Several gay-rights advocates are suggesting expanding the power of a rural school system in the Bible Belt to limit the freedom of expression of its students, out of some belief that such an expansion of power is going to be used, on balance, to help gay students. Have y’all never been to the Bible Belt? Have y’all never talked with anyone who grew up gay in a Bible Belt school?
Trust me: if you expand the powers of school administrations to limit students’ freedom of political expression, that is NOT going to be used to help gay students, on balance.
Daniel
Narrow that brush, buddy. Not all gays are acting as unreasonable as spectrum (who, incidentally, has a quick message in the Pit awaiting him), and this gay supporter is definitely interested in presenting gays as normal people–some of whom are wannabe tinpot dictators, and some of whom really are interested in individual freedoms.
Daniel
How is it reasonable to allow someone to protest in FAVOR of violence?
Perhaps because we’re pretty much the most at-risk-for-suicide group there is amongst teenagers? Not that a gay-basher like yourself would care.
Given your history on gay issues your “action” would probably be to buy the klanbrat a congratulatory cookie.
By this logic, are not the mere words “I am a Christian” in effect hate speech?
>How is it reasonable to allow someone to protest in FAVOR of violence?
Cite for it favoring violence? The guy was expressing a perfectly valid religious viewpoint, just as the protesters (which, as mentioned, are not just “anti-violence” as they are portrayed) are expressing a perfectly valid political viewpoints.
I grew up in the Bible Belt, that’s how I know this little shit intended his message as a threat. I know people like that, a friend of mine was beaten to the point his skull was fractured by people like that.
We’re not talking about regular churchgoing Christians here. We’re talking about that small subset who focus on the bloodthirsty and hatefilled passages to justify their own bloodlust while ignoring that Jesus greatest commandment replaced Levitican law, and that the J-man himself had some pretty harsh words for those who used a legalistic interpretation of scripture to attack others. Those, like Vanilla, who believe “we are all sinners” are not the ones who would wear this shirt, and are not the type who would interpret a protest of violence as “promoting the gay agenda”.
This asshole’s intentions are perfectly clear.
as an aside:
The Bible, as used by dumbfucks like this, can be used as hate literature. The Bible as a whole, taken in context, is not hate literature- but by cherry picking the most hatefull and bloodthirsty parts of it it is being used as such.
His shirt was obviously a call to violence. Mama’s little bigot was protesting a protest calling for an end to violence against gays – that means he was protesting IN FAVOR of violence against gays.
If NDOS was about gay rights, you might have a logical leg to stand on, but it’s not. It’s not about gay marriage or employment security. It is solely about stopping anti-gay violence, and this little poster child for abortion protested an anti-violence message. He protested in favor of violence. That sort of thing cannot be acceptable in any free society.
It’s not proximity, it’s content. Quote 1 says “gays are an abomination.” Quote 2, a few paragraphs later, says “kill gays because they are an abomination.” Those two statements are clearly joined at the hip. To express support of one is to express support of the other.
Most Christians do not take the Bible literally. Hell, most Christians don’t even read it regularly. And they’re most likely better people for that fact. No good can come from immersing yourself in the backwards mindset of ignorant ancient people. The New Testament is one thing, but folks who take the Old Testament seriously are quite imbalanced in the head.
This may be so, but nonetheless I find the assumption that anyone believing homosexuality to be a sin must be in favour of violence against homosexuals to be a false one. Indeed, pretty much all of the evangelical christians I’ve met, and I’ve met quite a few, believe that homosexuality is a sin (an opinion with which I utterly disagree). I can assure you that I have yet to meet one who believes that death by stoning is acceptable. I realise that there are some who do, but by far the most frequent viewpoint I encounter is “love the sinner, hate the sin”. No matter how misguided this philosophy might be, I have a hard time categorising it as hate speech, let alone advocacy of violence. This said, none of the evangelicals with whom I’m acquainted would likely wear this sort of t-shirt either; they’d think it rude.
Incidentally, I think you’re continuing to misrepresent the Bible. It doesn’t say the individual is an abomination, it says the behaviour is. You and I both believe this distinction to be an irreality, but there are many people who genuinely believe it to be true. Certainly they’re misguided in their attempts to stop people “being homosexual”, but again, I can’t see that it’s hate speech or advocacy of violence. FWIW, this particular argument is one of the main reasons I’m not a Christian - I strongly felt (and maybe still feel) that a God existed, but could not understand how this position was compatible with what I understood a God to be. As a result of the conversations I’ve had, however, I do know how sincerely some people believe in “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Maybe this guy is one of them, maybe he’s not; I’d agree that printing out and wearing a sloganeering t-shirt doesn’t bode well.
I guess it all depends on the history of violence at that particular school. While I would be uncomfortable in general with a broad-brush condemnation of society’s supposed anti-gay violence tendencies, seeing as I am a member of society and do not advocate violence, I would let that percieved slight slide if there is something worth protesting at that school. Otherwise the Day of Silence is both offensive and preaching to the choir.
OTOH, I would almost certainly be more offended by the counter-protesters shirt. It’s clear that he wasn’t advocating violence, but, to me, is borderline hate speech. However, that sort of speech should not be restricted any more so than those who are proclaiming the “Correct message” should be, except when it is an actual incentive to violence.
However, I could imagine a situation where I would be less offended by the t-shirt. For instance, if the school was an environment where society’s supposed discrimination was constantly remarked upon, without cease. Radical victim chic claims constant, unwashable soul-stains just as easily as some forms of religion do. Fortunately, it is exceedingly rare.
That’s very disingenuous. My objection to the proceedings up to this point is the same as Hamish’s: that there is a double standard between Queer people and members of other oppressed groups. No race or nationality and very few religions are faced with this kind of controversy regarding protection from unambiguous attacks in schools.
I am undecided about whether or not this kind of thing should be allowed overall, but if it is forbidden w.r.t. Jews, it should be forbidden w.r.t. Queers. Point final.