:rolleyes: That’s the problem with those who insist on interpreting everything in legalistic terms.
Due to a loophole in the school dress code the kid may be allowed to wear a shirt attacking gays while he could not wear a shirt attacking any other minority group. Fine, but that’s not the way it should be. If this kid wants to brand himself as a complete moron he should be free to do so, but on his own time.
The purpose of school is to educate these kids, it was probably a well intentioned mistake to have the day of silence interfere with school. Disruptive political speech should not be allowed to interfere with education.
Your eyes are gonna get stuck that way, friend.
I’m not interpreting it in legalistic fashion: I’m interpreting it in a way that protects everyone. Freedom of speech isn’t some legalistic silliness: it’s a bedrock principle that keeps authoritarians from trampling our rights. The problem is that the guys in power aren’t trustworthy enough to deserve the power to limit folks’ freedom of speech. You sacrifice the principle, you sacrifice a lot more than the sensibilities of a couple of mentally unstable people. And unnecessarily, since there are better responses to asshole speech than trying to suppress it.
Some examples:
- As I suggested before, the students involved in the Day of Silence could have silently covered their heads as if warding off an attack when passing this guy in the hall. Sometimes a bit of theater is powerful.
- Teachers could have used the t-shirt to teach a lesson on homophobia.
- Friends of gay students could quietly confront the asshole in the T-shirt, tell him that he does not represent Jesus.
- Students could write guest commentaries for the local newspapers on the incident.
- Folks could roll their eyes at him, mutter, “dumbass,” and ignore his little stunt.
None of these set him up as a martyr for free speech; all of them expose him as a dumbass.
And lest you think I’m being overdramatic by saying he’s a martyr for free speech, try Googling this guy’s name. His story is all over the Web on conservative sites now, and he’s being lauded as some kind of hero. You think that makes the gay kids at Watauga High feel especially safe? If Fred Phelps decides to visit Watauga, like he tends to do whenever gay rights remotely make it into the news, how will those kids feel? If other homophobes at the school decide to support this fool’s martyrdom by wearing identical t-shirts, how will this make the gay kids feel?
All because he’s a martyr, because some misguided administrator responded to the asshole’s stunt by trying to suppress the speech, instead of responding with more speech.
Not necessarily. As stated over and over, there’s a good chance the school couldn’t forbid an antisemitic (for example) shirt unless they had evidence that such shirts would lead to violence at school functions. That’s not a loophole in the rules, that’s the protection of speech working just the way it should.
Daniel
You would have a point if the kid got in trouble for something he did on his own time.
Y’know what, I’m not allowed to wear whatever I want at work. This is not an infringement of free speech, because it doesn’t interfere in any way with what I do on my own time. Likewise, this kid was not prevented from exercising his right to free speech- he can wear the T-shirt all he wants, on his own time.
And you realise as well as I do that those “conservative” sites are not concerned in any way with freedom of speech.
Nicely put.
I think this would depend on what the ‘lesson’ would be. I would be a little hesitant to give the go-ahead if the teachers were going to point to the kid and say, “Hey everybody! Look at the intolerant asshole!” Teachers can certainly harm their “educational mission” by singling out students for derision, as I am sure any gay kid would agree.
On the other hand, setting up a forum in which both sides could present their ideas might not be such a bad idea, although it might mean some of them would have to break their vow of silence.
Or just say, “Look, I disagree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it. America is a great country” and leave it at that.
Do you think any or all of these would be good ideas if they were directed at those participating in the National Day of Silence?
Something to think about.
Does this mean the story has been verified? I still haven’t seen anything beyond WND.
Regards,
Shodan
This is more of what I’m thinking, although a forum might work, too. I even might be okay with singling out the kid’s behavior and using it as a lesson on the dangers of homophobia: the kid is choosing to be noteworthy, after all, and is behaving in a poor manner. But the last one would be a lot sketchier, and I’d have to think long and hard before saying I’d definitely approve of it.
Nope: that’s because the kids doing the NDoS aren’t being assholes. The difference is that I advocate doing these things as individuals, not as government bodies.
Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. Conservative sites are picking up and running with the WND account of things; I’ve seen no independent verification.
Three guesses as to the difference between freedom of speech at work and freedom of speech at school. You know better than that.
When I set the bar for my ethical behavior based on conservative websites, I’ll hang up my posting privileges for good. What the hell does their concern for freedom of speech have to do with what stand I should take? The paragraph you were responding to was discussing some of the potential practical effects of banning this guy’s shirt, not describing what great guys Fred Phelps and WND are.
Daniel
Yes, yes, yes… School is a government institution. They still would not be interfering with free speech. The kid is not prevented from wearing the shirt after school.
If some jackass wants to spew anti-gay rhetorick in the public sphere, it’s easy to avoid him and that’s what most people will do. In school, people are forced into close quarters, and there is no way for those students who would prefer to avoid this kids asholishness to avoid it.
I have co-workers whose politics I disagree with, we work together just fine because none of us are assholes about it and if someone were to be an asshole about it they would have to face the consequences of their actions.
School is not the place for this discussion.
My point is that those groups hate us no matter what. If they weren’t bitching about this case (which we have only heard one side of) they would be making up other lies.
Okay, that’s guess number one. Now go reread Tinker and make your second guess.
And what does that have to do with my point? Unless you’re saying that Watauga would be the focus no matter what, it’s not germane.
The point is that this time, they don’t have to make up lies. Austin, asshole though he may be, really is a free speech martyr, and he didn’t have to be. And there’s gathering attention to this case in the conservative websphere, and there’s a distinct possibility that’ll turn into really unwelcome attention in Watauga.
Daniel
Um, a message against discrimination, intimidation, and harassment of other students is directly in line with the educational mission of a school; a message in favour of discrimination is against the educational mission of a school, because discrimination against a population of students will make it impossible for those students to learn.
Apparently you’ve gone into total defense mode and failed to read my entire post. Leviticus is Leviticus. The chapters and verses are not original. Any appeal to Leviticus’ “gay sex is sin” prohibitions also inculdes an appeal to its “stone the fuckers” orders, too. And that is making a threat. If he had not wanted to make the threat, he would have referenced Paul’s writings, not Leviticus. Abomination and Stoning or Casting Out are part and parcel.
Most absurd statement? I say that mainstream christians don’t condone violence against homosexuals and you trot our Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? You trot out on example (who wasn’t stoned I might add) in which a few (no cite for this) christians killed a man cause he was gay. To these few christians I can trot out over 1 BILLION that haven’t killed a man becuase he was gay. If my statement was the most absurd of the last few weeks you quickly topped it.
If I am walking down a dark alley late at night and a 6’4’’ 280 pound man is walking the opposite way I am going to feel threatened. However the action the man is doing, walking down an alley, is perfectly legal and is not threatening whatsoever. It is ludicrous to consider preventing this man from walking down the alley even though he is causing some people to feel threatened. The point I am trying to make is that just becuase some people percieve this t-shirt to be a threat doesn’t make it a threatening t-shirt. Since it is not an overtly threatening shirt the kids right to wear it should not be infringed just becuase some homosexuals feel threatened by it.
I don’t claim to be an expert on christianity but I think it’s pretty clear that no one is advocating stoning christians by quoting that text. The old testament is filled with sanctioned killing and harsh punishment for breaking God’s will. Jesus was supposedly sent to clear up some of this stuff and to tell humanity to love thy neighbor. As such many christians when they read the old testament listen to the things that God sees as sin but ignores the part that calls for them to punish the sinner.
OK, I’m trying to get a handle on this entire issue, and the way people view it, so I’d like to ask a question, and I’d love to hear from both sides on this.
Suppose it was Wicca Career Day at this school, and some kid had a shirt that read something like “Witchcraft is wrong (Exodus 22:18).” Would this be a comparable situation to the one discussed here? Why or why not?
Leaper-
It would be exactly the same. If Wiccans were allowed to come to school and express their beliefs other religions also have the right to come and express theirs.
A closer analogy would be to have the man thuggishly step into your path. He may be legally within his rights, but don’t pretend the intention wasn’t threatening.
Well, Wicca Career Day 
would presumably be promoting Wicca. The National Day of Silence is a protest of violent attacks against homosexuals, not a promotion of homosexuality in any way.
One area where I find your analogy does hold up, though, is that it is exactly the type of devisive discussion that doesn’t belong at school. That type of thing should be an after school activity at most, IMHO.
In either case, the “anti-” crowd are mean spirited jackasses attempting to force their views on others.
Then let’s not discriminate against, intimidate, or harass this student for exercising his rights under the First Amendment. If we allow this, it would make it impossible for him to learn, and thus violate the educational mission of the school.
Regards,
Shodan
No its not. This kids appearence (in this case his shirt) causes some people to feel threatened just as the mans appearence (in this case his large size) causes some people to feel threatened. If the man were to thuggishly step into my path he has taken a physical action and is indeed now a legitimate threat.
Also can we please stop saying the day of silence is about violence towards sexual minorities. It is about discrimination and harassment and anti-gay bias in schools.
from www.dayofsilence.org:
" The Day of Silence, a project of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in collaboration with the United States Student Association (USSA), is a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT bias unacceptable in schools take a day-long vow of silence to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment – in effect, the silencing – experienced by LGBT students and their allies."
This evil little shit wasn’t just casually wearing a T-shirt, and you fucking know it. He was making a statement, and guess what- that fucking statement is harassment. If the 6’4’’ 280 pound man made a point of sayin that he hates you, it would be a little bit more threatening than his mere existence.
You are being intentionally disengenuous.
No I don’t “fucking know it” and you don’t “fucking know it” either. His statement was homosexuality is a sin, sinners go to hell, if you find jesus you will be saved. Thats it, no implied threats no advocation of violence. You are the one that is percieving the threats by your predujices. Just becuase .01% or what ever ridiculusly small number of people that wear shirts like this beat the fuck out of homosexuals it doesn’t mean that the other 99.99% condone it nor does it justify taking away their right to wear that shirt.
Let’s look at things from this perspective:
What if the school was holding a Women’s Career Day, and a student came in on that day with a T-shirt that said, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. - 1 Timothy 2: 12-14”?
Would this be considered disruptive and harrassing?
jayjay-
First off wearing the shirt on the day of the career fair has no impact on whether the shirt is school appropiate. Second that shirt would not be allowed on the basis that the wearer probably in fact has females as a teacher. By wearing this shirt he is advocating the view point of I don’t have to listen to my teacher which is clear insubordination. But frankly that is a cop out answer and I am not really happy with it. Balancing the rights of the students to express their opinions with the ability of the teachers to maintain order has a lot of grey area.
The shirt being discussed in this thread limits itself to saying homosexuals are sinners. I am not aware of christian theology or doctrine that say sinners cannot be an authority on biology for example. In fact all people are considered sinners including priests and bishops that are authorities on religion. By saying that homosexuality is a sin the shirt does not nessecarily degrade the authority of a homosexual teacher.