You specifically attacked posters from this board, in the post I was responding to, not Fox, not people in your town, not congress. And you hinted at them staying silent later when gay rights will be threatened. Your response is irrelevant.
As is your right, but the principal apparently was thinking something very similar. I don’t think it’s a stunningly good position (they’d have done much better to put it in the rules that they were extending students protection on the basis of sexual orientation), but I don’t think it’s indefensible either.
Well, this would be far from the least clear school rule I’ve ever seen! Most student handbooks are not diamond-like in their sparkling clarity.
I’m sorry, I guess my last post wasn’t diamond-like in its sparkling clarity either. What I meant was that, contrary to what the student said in his quote, it is possible to consider homosexuals to be in some ways a “third gender” – or rather a third and fourth gender, although the student’s quote mentioned only males so he doesn’t seem especially worried about lesbians either.
Homosexuals are obviously not a third and fourth sex. However, being attracted to members of your own sex means you do not perfectly match the current culturally expected social/behavioral/mental states for members of your sex. No matter how masculine a man or feminine a woman you may otherwise be, you’re not conforming to gender roles in that one way.
When the school made gender a protected class, did they mean for that protection only to extend to people who comformed completely to expected gender norms? Of course not. If a T-shirt with a message to the effect of “Girls shouldn’t play sports, that’s for boys! Girls should be baking cookies!” would be forbidden, then “Boys shouldn’t have sex with boys, that’s for girls! Boys should be having sex with girls!” should be too. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” looks a lot like “Boys shouldn’t have sex with boys, that’s for girls! Boys should be having sex with girls!” to me.
A question to ponder for those who’ve taken the side of constitutionally protected free speech: The courts have ruled that certain types of speech, such as those which are linked to violence, are unprotected. Take cross burning. [url=“http://slate.msn.com/id/2075301”]This article argues that the symbol of the burning cross has such a history of violence and intimidation behind it that it now of itself conveys threats, and therefore is not necessarily protected. So, the question becomes, does the boy’s shirt make reference to a similar message?
I’m not sure what the relative correlation between said verse and violence is. I don’t know how many incidents of message-followed-by-violence are needed before the message loses it’s protected status. But I do know that there are more than a few incidents in which this message was followed with violence (see the gaybashing thead, ask some of the participants in this thead).
In a way this whole issue is ironic. If everyone knew the extent of gaybashing, there would be considerably fewer claims that this is protected speech. Of course, if everyone knew this, there would be no need for the DoS and no protest in the first place.
I think we agree that it’s a poor argument. I rather suspect the principal was thinking, “How can I justify shutting this asshole up?” and the gender argument was the best he could come up with. That doesn’t make it a very good argument; indeed, it presupposes that the principal adopted a controversial and rather postmodern approach to gender. I’ve been to Boone, North Carolina–it’s about an hour away from me–and I’m doubting the principal at Watauga High is a disciple of Baudrillard :).
Note, as I’ve pointed out in previous court cases, that Confederate flags could be forbidden by the school only because there was ample evidence that in the past the display of confederate flags had led to violence; even if the student in question had displayed something saying, “girls are stupid” or “women are wickedness incarnate and steal your precious bodily fluids,” the school would be on shaky grounds forbidding it, absent the evidence that such displays had led to violence in the past. Derby established two criteria for banning those flags: the student clearly knew they were forbidden, based on the manual and on conversations he’d had with administrators; and the administrators knew they’d caused disruption in the past.
Amending the manual to include sexual preference would meet the first of these criteria, but I’m not sure the second criterion would apply for any of the current bans in the manual.
Daniel
It is up to you to prove that any such correlation exists, and that’s going to be a very, very uphill battle. I suspect you’ll find quite the opposite: most assholes who go around beating up on gay people don’t know their Bible very well at all. The assholes who quote homophobic Bible verses tend not to sully their hands. It’s similar (I wildly speculate) to the relationship between the Council of Conservative Citizens and the Ku Klux Klan.
My speculation could be wrong–but we can never put the onus on the speaker to prove that his words AREN’T a threat. The onus is on you to show why this speech is so exceptional that it shouldn’t be protected.
Make your case. Cite cases in which these specific verses have been quoted in conjunction with violence against homosexuals.
Daniel
To the posters in this thread who are acting like queer people and our supporters are overreacting to this:
I’m in favour of this kid’s moral right to free speech, but I think it’s undeniable that he was a total bastard in the way he exercised it.
One – It’s disingenous to act like he just showed up to school one day with a t-shirt emblazoned with religious slogans. He wasn’t wearing it for Groundhog Day, people. He didn’t even wear it for Gay Pride Day or National Coming Out Day. He wore it on a day – and for a day – that protested violence against GLBT people.
Two – There are a lot of Biblical quotes this kid could have picked. Leviticus 22 calls homosexuality an abomination and urges the community to cast us out (that’s how I interpret “cut off,” at any rate). Conspicuously absent is “love the sinner, hate the sin,” which could at least be construed as a rejection of violence.
Sorry - I thought when you brought up the topic of “citizenship” in general, that you wanted to talk about citizenship in general.
OK, let’s talk about schools.
Correct. Because chewing gum and playing your Walkman would be disruptive in school. Participating in a National Day of Silence, or wearing a t-shirt, is apparently not.
See the distinction? A vow of silence, and wearing a t-shirt, are both forms of symbolic speech. Chewing gum is not. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow the one but not the other.
What is not appropriate is to say, “Symbolic, non-disruptive speech is OK, providing I agree with it.” This is content-based censorship, and schools have to reach a much higher standard than “we don’t like that you think this”.
There has to be some imminent threat of violence - which there was not - or some disruption created - which there was not - before the schools can stop students from participating in a National Day of Silence. And, once they allow it for the NDoS, they can’t forbid it for a t-shirt expressing a different opinion.
If it is truly disruptive for a student to be made award that some disagree with his opinions on homosexuality, then the organizers are disrupting the school by organizing the NDoS. If it is not disruptive, the student should be allowed to make others aware that he does not agree with their opinions on homosexuality either. With a t-shirt, or some other non-disruptive, non-threatening form of symbolic speech.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Or, equal rights for all, to put it another way. All.
Regards,
Shodan
Total agreement. (In fact, in the WND article, he talks about the school’s “evolutionist propaganda,” even more sign of what a nutjob he is). Being a civil libertarian often means defending peoples’ rights to be complete asses.
Daniel
This argument makes sense, but it would mean the court rules that some quotes from the bible is unprotected speech because it has a long history of being connected to violence.
Would any court even remotely envision making such a statement? Wouldn’t it be interpreted by many as meaning that the courts condemn the bible? Wouldn’t it cause a massive turmoil? To sum up, is it really possible that an american court rules that the content of the bible can be non protected speech?
And similarly I would consider that to be a case of extreme assholism. Taking blatant discrimination against a group as an opportunity to kick them while they’re down is a shitty thing to do, no matter what.
These people always claim to be opposed to the gaybashing that is inspired by their dehumanising words, but where are their protests of it? We can judge them by their actions, and they invariably fall silent when it comes to their supposed disaproval of gaybashing.
Bullshit. He may be legally protected, but there is no fucking way I’m going to pretend that his words are not intended as a threat when they clearly are. Whatever the law may say, this little shit clearly intends to intimidate gay students.
Just because most of these pseudo-Christians are too cowardly to follow the words they preach does not mean that the dehumanizing effect of their words, and the direct calls for violence in Leviticus, are not directly responsible for the violence that gay folks face.
No argument.
What’s clear to you isn’t clear to me.
“Directly responsible” means something different in your world than in mine. I’d say there’s a strong argument that he’s indirectly responsible (or shares in the responsibility), but the only person directly responsible for the violence a gay person faces is the person wielding the club.
But as long as you agree that he’s legally (by which we mean constitutionally) protected, I don’t disagree with you on what an asshole he is.
Daniel
See, the relevant difference between this guy and Mark Austin is that this guy sounds awesome.
Both of them get their freedom of speech protected, however. Or, rather, both of them are facing administrations that are trying to squelch freedom of speech, and both of them ideally should prevail over the administration.
As I said: you give administrations in the Bible Belt the right to suppress freedom of speech about homosexuality, and it’s gonna be used to suppress the freedom of speech of gay students.
Thanks for the link, Ryan!
Daniel
Very true.
And yet the ACLU seems much less interested there.
Regards,
Shodan
Priceless. 
No, I said their supposed concern with free speech is false, and I did not attack anyone here specifically.
I’m unable to search here, and I feel bad picking only one poster, but compare vanillas post here with what she says here.
I can guaran-fucking-tee you that anyone who gets their news from World Net Daily is not concerned about this issue on free speech grounds.
Having thought on the issue some more I still feel that this little fucker should have been kicked out of school, but I don’t feel the school should have anything to do with the day of silence either. Both are disruptive to education, which is what the purpose of school is supposed to be- the day of silence should have been after school.
Nice snipe there, but the issue was resolved in two days, and there’s no indication that they went to the ACLU for help, so no dice on the implication that the ACLU is biased.
Tabio, I despair of understanding you. You post that the kid may have been legally protected, and then you post that you still think he should have been kicked out of school. By whom, the mafia?
Daniel
Well then I’m afraid it’s going to sound like everyone is saying “you just don’t understand” and making an appeal to emotion. But you don’t seem to grasp the experience of being gay or a minority. Victims of bigotry can recognize the cues and hints made by those who would oppress. By citing Leviticus, regardless of the particular verse, he is not so subtly incorporating the entire Mosiac Law which clearly states that homosexuals are to be stoned. Chapters and verses aren’t in the original and are only there for convenience. I wonder, though, if he’d advocate his own stoning if he’s ever rebellious against his dad.
I don’t think anyone here, including spectrum, would say he should never be allowed to wear the t-shirt. But by wearing it to school on that particular day, he was being intentionally inciting. He clearly meant to disrupt and cause emotional, if not physical, harm. I think the administration was correct.
This may the most absurd statement on this board in weeks. 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. "
You can sound like that. I’m afraid, however, that due to emotion, YOU don’t understand. The guy’s an asshole, but there’s a difference between being an asshole and making threats.
Daniel
He should never be allowed to wear it to school, since schools should not allow any message with any shred of hate in it. He should be allowed to wear a shirt that says “Jesus loves you,” or “John 3:16” or any other message that is religious but bears no component of hate. He should even be allowed to have his own little “day of silence” to remind people that Jesus loves them.
Similarly, gay students should be allowed to wear shirts that say “Gay is okay,” “Don’t beat up gay people,” or whatever. They should not be allowed to wear shirts that say “Christians suck,” or “Straight people are losers.”
In school, messages of tolerance and understanding should be condoned, messages with even the smallest fragment of hate should be banned. The job of a school is to educate people, and pushing tolerance is an acceptable — no, mandatory — element of educating children. And part of pushing tolerance is condemning hate.
The klanbrat’s t-shirt could easily push some at-risk gay teens into a deep depression, and depressed gay teens have lamentable habit of attempting suicide, and many are quite good at it. The lives and mental health of those gay teens are more important than the klanbrat’s “right” to free speech in a school.
Now, in the town square, say anything you want. Wear any stupid shirt you want. Hell, burn a cross for all I care. Have a “Gay people are maggots” festival. Or a “The Jews Killed Jesus” honkey tonk. But not in schools. Schools MUST be a safezone for at risk children, and there no children as at risk as gay teens in this hateful, horrible, worthless nation.
Anyone who would put a principle, any principle, ahead of the mental health and lives of gay teens is a monster.