The policy banned the practice of Satanism, witchcraft or the “occult” on school premises. The policy did not define the meaning of “occult” (or for that matter “Satanism” or "witchcraft).
I was rather insensed when I read the policy and my guess is that it had simply never been challenged on constitutional grounds. I have serious doubts about whether it could stand up in court.
But like I said, that’s what happens when fundies take over school boards.
No, I am quite correct. Schools must demonstrate how the speech they are banning disrupts the educational process. This t-shirt obviously did not do so, therefore banning it is a violation of free speech.
The relevant decisions have been linked to. Read them.
Not absolute, no. The right to free speech is subject to the limitations already described.
But “I don’t like your opinion” is not one of the limitations.
Schools can disagree with the Constitution all they want - they are bound by it. Any and all school policies that violate the First Amendment are invalid. The Supreme Court decides this, and all schools are required to abide by their decisions, just like the rest of us.
Already dealt with. Schools have to demonstrate the disruption, not just allege it.
No I’m not, and no you don’t. Read the linked decisions.
Certain curbs, yes. The ones you are suggesting, no.
The Supreme Court says it does matter.
The parallels are very nearly exact.
When a student wears a t-shirt with which you disagree, you support having it banned. When anti-Bush protestors are prevented from disrupting Bush rallies with t-shirts with which you agree, you pitch a fit.
You are advocating content-based censorship.
That is an exact description of what you are doing.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re still wrong on the law. Students do not have a right to insult other students in the classroom. I know this because I enforced it. You’re wrong that it must cause a disruption. The O’Brien standard allows for incidental restrictions which serve a specific governmental purpose so long as that purpose is not a *per se * restriction of speech. Schools can restrict homophobic t-shirts for the same reason they can stop students from calling each other “stupid” or “fat.” It’s a form of bullying. It creates a hostile atmosphere for other students. It is NOT an expression of personal faith but an aggressive insult to those who believe differently.
I am defining hate speech as speech which is hostile or hateful" to another group of students. It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. My position would be the same if a t-shirt said something insulting about Christians. There are plenty of expressions I disagree with which I don’t define as hate speech. I will thank you not to tell me what I think and don’t think. If you have a question ask and I’ll tell you. Do not presume to characterize my opinions for me. I have not done that to you.
There is no comparison between a school dress code and free speech at a presidential appearance. The rules for students inside a public school are different than for outside. You can swear, burn flags and wear swastikas all you want outside of school but schools have every right to restrict such expressions in the classroom.
And yet, oddly enough, I tend to believe what the Supreme Court says rather than what you say. I’m funny that way.
Well, in this thread you are arguing that t-shirts can be banned, in instances where the symbolic speech is something you dislike. In the other Pit thread, you pitched a fit because you agreed with the t-shirt. So, in your case (and several others) it is about agreeing or disagreeing.
If you agree with it, it’s covered by the First Amendment, and any interference with it is an ominous sign of impending doom and you start spouting Godwinisms.
If you disagree, then by definition it is “hostile” and must be banned.
Nope again - the Pit thread shows that there is ample reason to disbelieve you here.
It’s pretty obvious what you think. What you think is wrong, that’s the issue.
If it is any consolation to you, you aren’t alone. This kind of McCarthyism used to be mostly from the Right. Now it’s the same kind of thing, just coming from the other side of the aisle.
Wrong both times, as it happens.
Regards,
Shodan
You obviously don’t understand what the Supreme Court has actually said.
This is disingenuous bullshit and you fucking well know it. Banning hate speech as part of a school dress code has nothing the fuck to do with freedom of speech in general.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. That’s not what I have said. if you persist in lying about what I’ve posted I’m going to have to take this to the pit.
No, the pit thread shows no such thing and FYI I have enforced disciplinary actions against students for making anti-Christian comments in a classroom. A classroom is not a free forum for any and all expression. Schools have a specific purpose and some speech must be restricted in order to achieve the goal of educating children. Read the O’Brien standard again.
Like I keep saying. I’m not guessing. I’m telling you from personal experience that public schools can and do place restrictions on speech which is offensive or insulting to other students.
It should be obvious since I’ve been pretty clear. That’s why I don’t appreciate my position being distorted and lied about.
Pointless, inaccurate ad homonem garbage.
They also can and do place restrictions on the practice of Satanism, witchcraft or the “occult”, but you’ve admitted that those may be unconstitutional. Isn’t it also possible that banning a shirt that says “our school embraces what the lord condemns” is unconstitutional too?
We’ll see what the courts say.
I’ve read what they actually said. Have you? The relevant decisions have been linked to more than once.
It is nothing of the sort, and endorsing one opinion and classifying its reverse as “hate speech” and banning it has a great deal to do with freedom of speech. It represents an attack on it in the name of political correctness.
You are arguing in favor of banning t-shirts with which you disagree, and starting Pit threads about interfering with people wearing t-shirts with which you agree.
Do you deny that you started the Pit thread to which I have linked? Do you deny that you are arguing in favor of allowing the school to ban this kid’s t-shirt?
Your position is hypocritical. Deal with it. Or decide what your principles are, and stick to them.
And as I keep saying, your opinion on what the Constitution says is worthless. Your two years of experience in the public school system do not establish what kind of symbolic speech is bannable under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court does that, and they agree with me and disagree with you.
If you prevented some students from expressing their opinions on homosexuality in a non-disruptive way, and allowed others equally non-disruptive, you violated their rights under the Constitution. Just like the teacher who told the kid he had to abandon his faith when he came to school.
It is obvious and clear. You are acting exactly as I have described. You wish to classify speech with which you disagree as “hate speech” and ban it.
No, completely accurate in every respect.
You aren’t alone - there are lots of people who think they have the right to enforce their opinions on others, and silence dissent. This did use to come from the Right, which is why it is called McCarthyism. It is the same, and it is coming from liberals such as yourself.
And it is wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
You should try reading them. I’m tired of saying the same things over and over again. Schools have the right to subordinate certain freedoms in order to serve a higher government purpose, such as education. That’s why teachers can tell kids not to talk during class or not to call each other names. Homophobic t-shirts are a form of name calling and bullying. There is no protected right to insult other students. What part of that do you not understand? Do you believe that students should be allowed to insult each other in the classroom. Would you allow a t-shirt that said “white people are devils” on it? after all, that is an expressed religious doctrine in the Nation of Islam. Should it be allowed, yes or no? How about a shirt that says “White Power?”
This is really getting tiresome. The rules for a classroom are different than for outside the classroom. You have to concede that unless you want to say that students should be allowed to scream obscenities during tests or burn flags in the hallway. I don’t give two shits what kind of speech anyone expresses outside the classroom and will sure as hell not catch me trying to censor or ban any t-shirts outside a classroom. Context is everything here. I’m coming from a place of knowing what it’s like to try to maintain order in a classroom and get some teaching done. That’s all it’s about for me. I won’t stand for bullying or harrassment against any group of kids and I believe the shirt in question is a passive-aggressive form of bullying.
I’m telling you what the policies were in my school district, not my personal interpretation of the Constitution.
That’s just bullshit. That’s like saying I would have to allow students to make racist statements while not allowing them to make anti-racist statements.
As it happens, I never really saw or heard any students making pro-gay statements but I reprimanded a lot of kids for calling each other “faggot” and other similar names.
I also reprimanded students who were calling a Christian kid “Jesus Crispie” (whatever that means).
I heard and saw a lot of religious and political expressions I didn’t agree with, including stuff like “Abortion is murder” shirts. That didn’t bother me in the slightest. It only became a problem if other students were being picked or insulted.
Wrong, wrong wrong. I don’t want to ban hate speech in general, I just want to keep it out of classrooms. I also do NOT consider anything I disagree with to be hate speech. That just isn’t true and I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t keep presuming to tell me how I feel.
McCarthyism my ass. I’m a first amendment absolutist, but PS classrooms are exempt from that absolutism. It’s the place, I’m talking about restrictions, not the content.
Well, since the things you say are wrong, maybe you should try correcting yourself.
Very good, and entirely correct.
Thus, if schools wish to abrogate First Amendment rights, they have to demonstrate that allowing the exercise of those rights would disrupt the higher government purpose of education. If they fail to do that, they cannot abrogate those rights. And especially they cannot allow one set of opinions to be expressed non-disruptively, but prevent another from being expressed non-disruptively. Thus, if they allow students to participate in a National Day of Silence, they may not prevent students from engaging in less disruptive symbolic speech expressing a different opinion. Which is what is happening here, as has been made abundantly clear.
Here’s the problem - no, they are not.
For them to be “bullying”, you have to present some indication that someone is being bullied. No such indication exists, since nobody seemed to care all that much about the t-shirt for a day and a half, and therefore the burden of proof necessary to allow the school to remove the student’s First Amendment right has not been met.
You are trying it yet again. Your definition of “name calling” in this instance is “any opinion of homosexuality which I dislike”. Thus the t-shirt is “name calling” because you disagree with the opinion it expresses. But the National Day of Silence, which conveys a message with which you agree, is perfectly OK with you.
If the school has the power to determine that one set of opinions is acceptable, but any dissent is “hate speech”, this amounts to another instance of content-based censorship. Which is un-Constitutional.
The part where you have presented any evidence that disagreeing with someone necessarily constitutes insulting them.
If that is necessarily the case, then the National Day of Silence was an insult to everyone who disagrees that homosexuality is acceptable. And therefore ought to have been banned.
Screaming insults and burning flags is disruptive. Are you claiming that wearing a t-shirt is at the same level of disruption?
Pardon me while I point to your Pit thread, and laugh derisively.
In case you haven’t noticed yet, if the policies were as you describe them, they were un-Constitutional.
An “absolutist” as in “absolutely everyone has the right to agree with me. Anyone who doesn’t is engaged in hate speech.”
Regards,
Shodan
Wrong on the law, dawg. You shall see. There is no protected right for students to insult other students in a classroom.
Yes they are.
Gay kids were being bullied by hostile speech. It is not necessary for a student to complain about bullying to be a victim of bullying.
No, the t-shirts is calling other students “shameful” for being the way they were born. That is unacceptable. It is not ok to call gay students “shameful” any more than it’s ok to call Jewish students “shameful.”
Yoiurelly are clueless about this stuff. I go back to the policies on racism. Schools have a right to demand a policy and atmosphere of racial tolerance without any obligation whatever to allow a contrary view. It’s no different with homophia.
Or do you believe that students should be allowed to wear racist t-shirts? You still haven’t answered that question. Yes or no?
Calling them “shameful” is insulting them.
Who gives a shit? MLK day is an insult to white supremacists. Should any celebration of MLK or Black History month be banned so as to avoid offending racists? Please answer that question. Don’t avoid it.
Ridiculous. Schools have no obligation to avoid offending bigots.
T-shirts with hateful expressions? Absolutely. Even worse, in fact. Flag burning and profanity don’t hurt anybody. Hate speech does.
Huh? 
You’ll have to explain this to me. My pit thread SUPPORTS what I said in the above quote. I said I oppose censorship outside a classroom. You then point to a thread in which I oppose censorship outside a classroom and claim to “laugh derisively.” What am I missing here?
Except not.
The fallacy here is that I’m all FOR hate speech. I have no wish to ban it or make it illegal and you will not find any instance where I support any kind of prohibition on free speech outside of a classroom… I’m just talking about conduct in a public school classroom.
Ouch. I want to make it clear that I just mean I’m all for allowing hate speech as a civil right, not that I’m actually “for” it in any sense of agreeing with it.
And yet, almost immediately -
So anyone you don’t like is a bigot, and it is OK to offend them. Anyone you do like has an absolute right to silence anyone who disagrees.
And, as has been pointed out before, your assertions are worthless. You are not the Supreme Court, which has already dealt with the situation. The results have been linked, more than once. The fact that you don’t want to be wrong does not affect the fact that you are wrong. Repeating a silly and inconsistent position does not establish it.
No, but it is necessary to produce some kind of evidence that this is bullying rather than simple disagreement. No such has been produced. Ergo, bullying has not been established.
The courts have already ruled on the question, and in your own state -
Yet another contradiction. You said earlier that insults were too horrible to allow. Now you are claiming that they aren’t.
Are you now saying that it would have been OK for the student to call people “cocksucker”? But not to wear a t-shirt expressing the opinion that God doesn’t like homosexuality?
Regards,
Shodan
No, anyone who expresses bigoted views is a bigot. I don’t have to tolerate intolerance.
The Supreme Court agrees with me. Get some reading comprehension.
Name calling is bullying by definition.
Your link doesn’t work but as it happens, I’m familiar with the case. The kid was wearing a shirt that said “Straight Pride.” It’s stupid, to be sure, and the kid was a douchebag, but if you look closely you’ll see that the message says nothing at all about non-“straight” people. It does not insult gay people, it merely praises straight people. That is a key distinction. What makes hate speech hate speech is an expression of hostility towards another group, not simply an expression of praise or pride in one’s own group. Heterosexuality is an extremely lame thing to be “proud” of but expressing it is not hate speech.
Are you now saying that it would have been OK for the student to call people “cocksucker”? But not to wear a t-shirt expressing the opinion that God doesn’t like homosexuality?
[/quote]
You’re totally distorting what I said. I said profanity doesn’t hurt anybody but that insults do. Specifically I made a reference to a hypothetical student shouting obscenties during a test. I didn’t say he was shouting it at anybody. A kid just saying “Fuck! Shit! Piss!” is not the same as if he calls another kid a “cocksucker.”
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Don’t you think the administration has even the smallest bit of responsibility to look out for the students who are afraid to admit they are being bullied? Or should they just say “Fuck 'em if they can’t take a few direct insults and are afraid to tattle on their tormentors”.
I guess you can’t distinguish between “cursing without insult” and “cursing with insult” any more than you can distinguish “religious comment without insult” and “religious comment with insult”. At least you’re consistent. :rolleyes:
Pash
What, by proactively banning free speech (for some)? No, they don’t have that responsibility. Why don’t they ban the National Day of Silence to protect students who are afraid to complain of being sexually harassed by gays?
Or maybe they could wait to see if there were any evidence that anyone was being sexually harassed, or bullied, and then prevent the harassment or bullying. That way everyone gets to exercise their rights under the Constitution as long as they don’t abuse those rights.
You’re right, I can’t. I can, however, distinguish between bullying and disagreement. Can you?
Sorry, more bullshit. Read the link.
The judge did not overturn the school’s decision because of the wording of the t-shirt. He overturned it because the school district could not demonstrate that the t-shirt was disruptive. Neither can the school district in the OP. Ergo, neither t-shirt can be banned.
Regards,
Shodan
So, it is “Fuck 'em if they can’t take a few direct insults and are afraid to tattle on their tormentors”.
Well, since DtC just gave you an example showing the difference between cursing and cursing+insult, and you say you still can’t see it . . . well . . . uh . . . debate over, then?
Yes, but I’m willing to admit there can be some overlap between the two. And I couldn’t say I was acting in the best interest of the students, and the learning environment as a whole, if I sided for the bullies everytime something fell into the grey area.
And you never did answer DtC’s questions:
**. . . do you believe that students should be allowed to wear racist t-shirts? You still haven’t answered that question. Yes or no?
Should any celebration of MLK or Black History month be banned so as to avoid offending racists?**
…by travelling back in time to prevent it, since IT WILL ALREADY HAVE HAPPENED!
:smack:
Don’t be asinine. I would hope it was obvious I am referring to future harassment.
If you don’t have anything useful to add to the discussion, don’t pester the hamsters.
No, it is "Everybody has the right to their opinion. No one has the right to silence a differing opinion. Speech cannot be banned unless you can demonstrate some disruption. Disagreement is not an insult. "
Debate? What the hell have I been doing for the last four pages? The distinction is not between cursing and insult. The distinction is between disagreement and bullying. You claim there is no difference. I and the First Amendment say there is.
So am I. Let’s see some indication that there was any overlap. What evidence of bullying by the one kid in a t-shirt of the however many teachers, administrators, and students who participated in the National Day of Silence can you come up with?
The simple fact that someone is wearing a t-shirt that isn’t politically correct does not rise (or fall) to the level of bullying. Disagreement is not bannable until it becomes disruptive, as I have repeated a few dozen times.
Nor would you be acting in the best interests of the rights guaranteed to all citizens under the First Amendment if you banned everything someone might not like. There is a right to freedom of speech under the Constitution. There is not a right to freedom from disagreement.
No, and don’t be idiotic. There is no right not to be offended under the Constitution.
And yes, I am aware that I am not answering your question about racist t-shirts. I will not do so until you show some sign of understanding my position.
My position (and that of the Supreme Court) is that symbolic speech cannot be banned providing it does not disrupt the educational process. Do you understand this - yes or no? Disruption is a key element in the decision to ban or allow - do you understand this, yes or no?
This kid in his Romans 1:27 t-shirt was a private citizen, expressing a private opinion in a non-disruptive way. His opinion was not endorsed or approved by the government or its agents. There was no threat or implication of violence, no targetting of any individual, and no evidence of bullying or harassment by him or anyone else (except the teacher who tried to censor him). Do you understand this, yes or no?
I am not going to debate strawmen. If you want to bring up different t-shirts with different opinions, then you freaking well better understand the principles involved, or it’s a hijack.
Yes or no?
Regards,
Shodan
You still don’t have a clue what the law actually is, I see. Name-calling is not a protected right. It doesn’t matter if hate is a part of your religion, that doesn’t mean you get to spew it in a classroom.
How about those racist t-shirts? Yes or no?