Student Sues School over Punishment for Wearing "Homosexuality is Shameful" T Shirt

Great Debates
201

If it was so freaking obvious, would I have made the comment? “Prevent” kind of implies stopping something BEFORE it happens - Since you didn’t clarify by adding “again”, I took that to mean THE FIRST TIME it happens - or do you wait until someone’s caught smallpox once before you vaccinate them? Wait until a kid drowns before you teach them to swim? Wait until that first gay kid is beaten up before deciding that they constitute a protected class?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be arguing that one cannot act until a first case of (physical or verbal) harrasment occurs. I don’t agree. I believe there’s sufficient evidence that harrasment and even assault CAN and HAVE occurred at other schools - one just has to browse the thread where gay Dopers were relating their experiences with gaybashing.

I’d search for a link to the thread for you, but I’m afraid I might wear the hampsters out :rolleyes:

202

Yes, you probably would have. It was a semantic quibble and an attempt at strawman argumentation, but apparently you could do no better.

Reasonable people understand that actions against past harassment cannot work backwards in time. You, apparently, pretend not to understand.

What this says about your reasonableness I leave to others to debate.

But preventing this kid from exercising his rights under the First Amendment won’t go back in time either. And therefore, by your standard, no one should try to do so.

:shrugs: I was referring to efforts to stop current and prevent future harassment. Feel free to pick nits with this - it’s pretty asinine, as I said, and adds nothing to the discussion. Whatever blows your skirt up.

Fairly close. My position is that we need some kind of evidence that this kid is bullying or harassing people, or in some other way interfering with the educational process, before we can ban his symbolic speech. There isn’t any, so we can’t.

Nope. Abusus non tollit usum is the principle here - the fact that some may abuse a right does not justify removing that right from everyone. Some people vandalize abortion clinics, but we don’t ban anti-abortion speech. Colin Ferguson shot a bunch of white and Asian people, but we don’t outlaw Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Some people drive drunk, but we allow people to drive cars.

You have to demonstrate that there is some direct link between the speech and the crime. You cannot proactively remove the rights of one group because someone somewhere might commit a crime. Otherwise, nobody would have any rights at all. There is no right that cannot be abused.

I repeat - what evidence do you have that this kid in his t-shirt commited violence against anybody?

And no, “I disagree with you” is not violence.

Regards,
Shodan

203

Name calling is ipso facto abuse. It doesn’t matter if the victims don’t complain, especially when the victims of hateful expression would suffer more grievous repercussions for complaining than for suffering in silence.

How about those racist t-shirts? Yes or no?

204

Or maybe other “Reasonable people” understand sarcasm…

I’m with DtC here. The language on the shirt is the abuse, as it targets a minority class for hate speech. No Gay-bashing need occur.

Just like a t-shirt saying “Blacks are inferior”. No actual lynching need occur. But then you haven’t said what you think about those yet.

Look, Shodan , I’m going to take a shot here and guess that you don’t think homosexuals are a protected class, on par with other minorities. Am I right?

205

I can’t speak for Shodan, but I definitely think they should be a protected class. (Legally, they aren’t in the US, AFAIK.)

And yet, to my amazement, I continue to agree with him.

Now, about these hypothetical racist T-shirts. What exactly do they hypothetically say?

206

How about “Judaism is shameful?”

207

That isn’t really racist. It’s, er, religionist.

I’d say allow it unless, and until, it causes an actual disruption.

208

Wrong answer.

209

Rats. Does that mean I don’t win the new car?

210

It just means you would be bound by policy (in my district at least) to ask the kid to change the shirt or cover it. You could refuse to do that, I supoose, in which case you would soon be looking for a job.

Anti-semitic speech is explicitly forbidden.

211

As is satanic clothing and practicing the occult. I thought the question was “Do you think students should be allowed to wear this?”, not “Can you guess whether this is allowed under a particular (potentially unconstitutional) dress code?”

212

SCOTUS allows schools to ban hate speech. I don’t know that the Satanoc/witchcraft thing has ever been challenged (That policy only bans the *practice of thos things, btw, not t-shirts).

So i take it you think hate speech is just jim dandy for a classroom?

213

If your definition of hate speech is broad enough to include “Judaism is shameful” and “Our school embraces what the Lord condemns”, then it seems I do think some hate speech is jim cotton-pickin’ dandy.

Is there any form of criticizing someone else’s beliefs or behavior that you don’t consider hate speech?

214

Homosexuality is not a belief or a behavior.

215

Judaism is a belief. Sex between two men is a behavior. Is there any form of criticizing either of those that you don’t consider hate speech?

216

Judaism is far more than a belief. Six million people were not murdered for a belief.

Homosexuality is not sex between two men.

And no, there is no form of “criticizing” either one that is not hate speech.

217

I guess that really says it all.

218

Yes, anti-semitic and homophobic expressions are hateful by definition.

219

Since you apparently believe there must be no criticism of the Jewish religion or homosexual acts, would you also extend that to other religions and acts? Prohibit students from saying “Christianity is an outdated superstition”, “The world was not created in six days”, “It’s silly to think the world rests on the back of a turtle”, “Blowjobs are gross”, “Biting your nails is a nasty habit”, etc?

220

Staements of pure fact are fine. the world was NOT created in six days. That’s a simple staement of fact, not an opinion.

Homosexuality is not an act.