Oh… a statement that “Christianity is a superstition” would be hostile. Anything which says “[insert group here] sucks” would be hostile.
If statement of fact is in conflict with a religious belief, the fact wins. It would be stupid for schools to have to lie about reality in order to avoid offending the deluded.
So if someone were to say “On page 125 of the New Hypothetical Bible it says ‘red hair is an abomination before the LORD and all redheads shall be cast into the fiery pit of eternal torment’” - a (hypothetical) statement of fact - would that be OK?
How about “My pastor taught me that homosexuality is a sin and gays will go to hell”, which would also be a statement of fact?
Either I haven’t been clear, or you’re just pretending to miss the point. For the sake of civility, I’ll go with the former.
When two guys have sex, that is an act. Right? It is possible to be homosexual without having sex. I am talking about an act right now, not desire or sexual orientation.
Is it OK to criticize that act? In other words, do you or do you not consider all criticism of that act “hate speech”? If a student believes that it’s sinful, or wrong, or even just icky for two guys to have sex, should he be allowed to express his belief at all?
Very clever. I don’t know what the law is on hateful “quotations.” I would still call it hate speech because it still delivers a message of hateful intent towards victims.
Stating the age of the earth is not an attack on a group of people. It doesn’t say anything about Christians or any other group. It just says how old the earth is. there is no comparison.
A sexual act is a sexual act. If a t-shirt just endorses abstinence without drawing a distinction between homosexual or heterosexual acts of sexual expression, then it’s fine. If it draws a distinction and singles out only one group for hostility, it’s hate speech.
IOW, “Oral sex is a sin” is not hate speech. “gay sex is a sin” is hate speech.
How about that one, it seems pretty analogous. Or how about this one as a direct paraphrase : “Being Black is shameful”
Do these get a pass? If not, why does substituting the word “homosexuality” for “Being Black” change it from bannable to not? (Note: the t-shirt in question did NOT say “butt-sex is shameful” or “man-on-man action is shameful”)
Same answer as above. I’d allow it unless and until it causes a disruption.
If substantially similar messages have caused a disruption in the past, the admins would be justified in banning the shirt preemptively. OTOH, if someone wears it for a day and a half and no disruption occurs, that’s a pretty good sign that no disruption is going to occur.
Aah, I think I see where you’re coming from on this, and I don’t agree. I think we have very different ideas on what “disruption” means, and also how schools are supposed to fulfil their educational mission by providing a safe environment for ALL students.
Apparently we do. Oh well.
I still respect what you have to say, I guess I’m just not as concerned about certain of the civil rights of non-adult students as you and Shodan are. I think students don’t get the full civil rights of adults (we do, for instance, make them go to school) and I’m OK with that. So curtailing their freespeech rights is OK.
Like I said, I’d have no problem with someone wearing that same t-shirt at a university campus. I’d still think the guy’s an asshole, but I’d defend his right to wear the shirt. Schools are different.
Part of the problem is that the school is picking and choosing, not simply certain of the rights, but certain of the students, when they abrogate their First Amendment rights.
That is content-based censorship. You can’t say “Students are free under the Constitution to symbolically speak in favor of something” unless they are also free to disagree. Otherwise there is no freedom. It is exactly like saying that the student newspaper is perfectly free to publish whatever they like, providing it supports the war in Iraq. Anything else is supporting terrorism (they could argue), supporting terrorism is hate speech, therefore it must be banned.
Either students are free to speak non-disruptively, or they are not. You may not extend that freedom to those with whom you agree and disallow it when they don’t.
Regards,
Shodan
You need to get off this “disruption” tack. That’s not the only standard.
How about those racist t-shirts, Shodan? Yes or no?
I guess that’s my point - for students, there is no freedom. They already have some of their rights curtailed. We could argue about the arbitrary nature of such curtailment, but it’s already been done. Students do not have the full rights of adults under the law.
And I’m OK with that.
Oh, and all anti-hate speech legislation is content-based censorship. For schools, I’m OK with that too. Outside of schools, I’m not so sure where to draw the line between plain hate-speech and actual incitement. In schools, I don’t think it matters.
Again, the power then lies in being able to define what is “hate speech”. As my terrorism example shows, it becomes uncomfortably easy to define opinions you don’t care for as “hate speech”.
You were more accurate in the quote above. You don’t know the law.
As the Woodbury case showed, proving disruption is a necessary part of the school’s case in removing First Amendment rights. See the Supreme Court decisions cited.
How about answering the questions I asked earlier, yes or no? I need to see some indication that you are actually reading for comprehension.
Regards,
Shodan
What the hell questions are you talking about?
Racist t-shirts, yes or no?
(The Woodbury case wasn’t hate speech, btw. It’s not analogous. Insults to other students may be banned preemptively. No “disruption” needed. Just because your victims don’t have the courage to complain doesn’t mean they’r not victims.
Try reading the thread.
Regards,
Shodan
I did read the thread. I’ve answered every question.
Racist t-shirts, yes or no?
(Kind of a childish to keep avoiding the question, don’t you think?)
In the teeth of every piece of evidence to the contrary, I will assume you really have.
Now that you understand my position, what do you think the answer is? It should be clear if you actually read for comprehension, as I recommended.
Let’s see if we can simplify it for you. Assume a student is wearing a t-shirt conveying a message with which you or I disagree. Keep in mind that the t-shirt does not disrupt the educational process, contains no threats of violence, and that there is no evidence of harassment, bullying, or harm to other students or staff.
What should be done about the t-shirt?
Or the circumstances are identical, except the message on the t-shirt is one that you really like. Still no disruption, no harassment, etc. What should be done about that t-shirt?
Should the two t-shirts be treated differently?
Regards,
Shodan
What I agree or disagree with is completely irrelevant. If a message insults other students, it goes. It doesn’t matter why it insults them. Hell, I might even agree with the insult, but that doesn’t mean I could allow it in a classroom.
You really seem to be having quite a bit of difficulty grasping the idea that students do not have a right to insult other students in a classroom. that’s all it boils down to. I couldn’t give a shit less about speech I disagree with as long as it does not insult other students. Is that clear enough yet?
The trouble being, as always, that you are conflating disagreement with insult.
“Insult” in this context means nothing besides “I really, really disagree with that opinion”. And there is no right under the Constitution not to be disagreed with. Even on topics that people feel very strongly about.
So, defining “insult” as you are doing, you are mistaken. There is a right to “insult” people, if by “insult” you mean “it irritates me that you don’t think as I want you to”.
Students have the right to join in a National Day of Silence, even if it irritates people to contradict their religious beliefs. Students have the right to assert their religious beliefs, even if it irritates people to contradict their National Day of Silence. It is not until some form of speech interferes with someone else’s right to an education that speech becomes eligible for censorship. And simply announcing that the speech is “hate speech” or “offensive” or “insulting” does not establish it as such - you need some evidence that the speech is preventing others from receiving an education by disrupting the educational process. That’s what the Supreme Court has ruled.
I know this is difficult to accept, but school policies that contradict the Constitution and the Supreme Court are invalid. As was ruled in the Woodbury High School case.
Regards,
Shodan
Nope. You still have no clue what you’re talking about. A statement that “___ is shameful” is an insult. There is no two ways about it. It’s not a “disagreement.” It’s a flat-out insult.
You also don’t seem to know what the Day of Silence actually signifies. It is not an endorsement of homosexuality or gay rights, it’s simply a recognition of anti-gay violence. You know how sometimes schools will have moments of silence forpeople who have died? It’s like that, only it’s a whole day in recognition of people like Matthew Sheppard. The school is perfectly empowered to condemn violence and that’s all the DOS does. The DOS does not contradict anybody’s religious beliefs unless you have a religious belief that violence against gay people is acceptable.
So a shirt that calls gay students “shameful” is not only insulting and abusive, it is not even a proper statement of disagreement with the Day of Silence. If you agree that anti-gay violence is wrong then you agree with the Day of Silence, at least in principle, even if you don’t remain silent.
The Woodbury case did not involve speech which insulted other students so the only standard the school had was the “disruption” thing. It failed on that standard, but had the shirt been a direct insult against gays, the school would have succeeded under the O’Brien standard.