Homosexuality is not a “behavior” any more than being black is a behavior. A t-shirt which expresses a hateful message about an innate, inborn quality of other students is destructive to the atmosphere of a school no matter what that quality is.
The message alone is intimidating and hostile and has no place in a school meant for ALL students not just Christian bigots.
Uh… was that in response to something specific in my post, or just a random non sequitur?
Sure, disregard what I say now because I dared to defend the job I had a few years ago. If you need an excuse to blow me off, I guess that one’s as good as any.
Good to see the ad hominem is still alive and well in GD.
Homosexuality is more than a behavior, but I believe the most common opposition is to the behavior itself, and most assholes like the kid with the shirt would be satisfied if gays stopped having sex with members of the same sex. I may be wrong. I don’t know anything about that kid’s motives besides what has been reported.
Now, be honest: Would it really make a difference to you if this guy were only criticizing the behavior of gay sex?
Really? There have been a lot of mass murders committed by people with “This school embraces what the Lord condemns” taped to their shirts, then?
I’m Jewish by lineage, and I don’t think all “anti-semitic” statements are hate speech or need to be banned either. “Judaism is a crock” should be allowed, as should “Christianity is a crock”, “Atheism is a crock”, and so on. They are analogous to “Gay is not OK” - mere criticism, with no hate or threat implied.
See, that’s when free speech becomes school-sanctioned propaganda: when any criticism is automatically considered “intimidating” or “hostile” enough to be banned.
The “behavior” can’t be separated from the person and insulting the behavior is insulting an innate part of the person. Trying to redefine the hate speech as simply a narrow criticism of behavior is like trying to draw a distinction between anti-semitic speech and speech which merely criticisizes the pracice of Judaism.
Hate speech is hate speech. Presuming to “criticize the behavior of gay sex” is every bit as hostile and inconducive to a safe atmosphere as it would be to criticize the practice of Judaism.
Yes, really.
There have been a multitude of hate crimes and violence, including murder, committed by just such assholes, yes. I don’t know how to find it but we once had a long thread which consisted of gay posters describing their own personal experiences with gay bashing and violence. If someone knows the name of the thread could you please link it? I think it may be rather an eye-opener for Mr2001.
Being gay is not something that a person can choose or change. Saying “Gay is not ok” is just like saying “black is not ok.” Gay students have a right to learn in an atmosphere free of such expressions of ignorant hate.
Restricting hate speech is not propaganda, and for like the 50th time, this is not a free speech issue, it’s a dress code issue.
Yes. You’ve got it right there.
To me this is a dress code issue. Schools restrict what students wear all the time. Restrictions are put upon students that are not put upon the general public. The US Government cannot tell a woman that she can’t wear a slutty top or a t-shirt with a provocative or hate-filled slogan on it, but schools can and do tell kids that, all the time.
To me, that’s all this is. It’s the school telling the kid to not be a jerk. But this is not about free speech. If this were about free speech and the school was acting like the “outside” world, the kid would be allowed to wear the shirt. Because he’s entitled to express his opinion, even if it’s a jerky one. And the statement on his shirt is not, in my opinion, a threat. No way, no how, is it a threat. (“God is gonna git ya” is not a real threat.)
So, the way I see it, both sides have a point. No, the t-shirt was not a threat. Yes, other under circumstances, the kid should be able to wear it: free speech and all. But no, he doesn’t have some right to wear it at a school, because it was deemed jerky and the school has a dress code.
I’d hope that the school would have similar feelings about a kid wearing a “No fat chicks” t-shirt too. Not a threat, but just so mean-spirited. No place for such a shirt in school, in my opinion. Some kids are jerks enough at school—they don’t have to wear a t-shirt as well, broadcasting their jerkiness. There are plenty of other places where they can express their assholitude, and have every right, as Americans, to do so.
I don’t think so. Schools attempt to separate the behavior of having sex from a person’s innate desires all the time - they call it abstinence education. If someone wants to suggest that gay sex is naughty and gays should therefore abstain from having sex, well, he’s an idiot, but that’s protected speech.
With that very message affixed to their shirts with masking tape? Fascinating. I trust that the link you mentioned will include photos of the shirts, right?
Call it what you like; dress codes are not exempt from the First Amendment.
It’s not a protected choice of school dress. And your analogy is really stupid. A school suggesting abstinence is not a condemnation of heterosexualty. The shirt in the OP was a blanket expression of hate for a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a behavior. An sexual orientation cannot be 'shameful," and a school has no obligation to tolerate mesages which gratuitously insult other students.
The exact slogan is not the point. Don’t be a child. The t-shirt was an expression of homophobia. Homophobes have historically been violent and abusive. The presence of a physical threat doesn’t matter anyway. A message can be patently offensive and insulting to other students without necessarily being threatening.
Yes they are.
Any standard that would consider a simple expression of religious belief “hate” is worthless.
Just as I thought. There is no parallel between the swastika–a widely recognized symbol of racist violence and death–and the student’s shirt–his own expression of religious belief.
It is still a stretch to connect the kid’s shirt with violence and abuse.
Communism has been historically responsible for millions of deaths and plenty of oppression and abuse. Does that mean shirts with the phrase “the workers must control the means of production” or “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” should be banned?
Cite? I’ve already provided one saying they are not exempt.
Calling it an expression of religious belief is disingenuous It uses religion simply as a cover to insult other students. Furthermore, not all expressions of religion are protected or exempt in school dress codes. A t-shirt proclaiming white people to be “devils,” for instance, would not be protected.
hate is hate. An expression of homophobia is no different than an expression of anti-semitism. And as I said before, the expression need not be threatening, merely offfensive.
I disagree. Homophobia has been the cause of untold incidents of violence and abuse. Getting hung up on the exact wording of a bigoted slogan is just an attempt at misdirection.
And violence is really a side issue. The main point is that gay students have a right to go to school without being insulted by other students or assaulted by bigoted speech.
That phrase does not insult another group of students. It’s not analogous.
Your own cite spells out the conditions under which free speech may be “incidentally” restricted. Did you even bother to read it?
Whether or not it’s insulting, it’s still part of his religion. IMO, that means he should be able to express it anyway. Evidently you disagree, and we aren’t going to see eye to eye on this.
I sure did. I don’t see any condition that allows schools to ban the shirt in question, though. The Tinker standard, which is “most likely” to be applied to “student clothing that conveys a political or religious message”, only allows schools to ban expression that will cause “material interference or substantial disruption of the school environment”.
It’s irrelevant that it’s part of his religion. His religion does not give him the right to insult other students.
You missed two other standards:
Bethel Vs. Fraser allows schools to restrict speech which is lewd or indecent. That may not be directly applicable to hate speech but it is a retsriction so yo your statement that free speech cannot be abridged by school dress codes is false.
The more relevant standard (besides the one you mentioned which is perfectly applicable on its own) is that schools can restrict certain speech if it furthers an important government interest. In this case, that interest is in providing a safe and tolerant environment for all students. It also avoids creating a class of students who it is ok to single out and insult with expressions of dress.
So both the Tinker and the O’Brien standards obtain to shirts with with offensive or hateful expressions on them.
I didn’t say that. In fact, I said this:
Free speech can be abridged by school dress codes, and by any other laws and regulations, for very specific purposes.
Safe? Absolutely.
Tolerant? Eh… sorry, but even as liberal as I am, I don’t think that’s a legitimate interest. People don’t have a right to be shielded from others who say offensive things about them, especially when done as a religious expression rather than personal harassment. Even if those people are students in high school.
Well, we’ll see what the court decides.
That would be pretty consistent to other things kids are told and few parents fuss about.
Since when does the first amendment apply to school kids? I’m not being facetious, throughout school we were told - whenever anyone whined about freedom of speech- that the 1st amendment does not apply to minors on school grounds, and that we “leave our constitutional rights at the front door.” And it’s not as though I went to school a bijillion years ago, I graduated from high school in 1995. Was this some district-wide conspiracy we were the unknowing victims of, or were we really not legally entitled to the same rights as adults per what our teachers all told us? If it’s the latter, I doubt things have changed.
So you are saying that you would be OK if the schools outlawed pro-Kerry messages, and made “Vote for Bush” t-shirts mandatory?
Disruptions of the educational process are outlawable. This t-shirt was not disruptive; it cannot be banned.
And all you are doing is defining “hate speech” as “any speech with which I disagree”.
Again, you are simply wrong.
Wearing t-shirts with slogans is expressive behavior, like burning the flag, wearing a black armband, or holding a National Day of Silence. Expressive behavior can be banned in schools if it disrupts the educational process. If it does not (and this t-shirt did not), it may not be banned just because the administration does not like the content of the speech.
Read the Tinker decision.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, and by the bye, Diogenes, if dress codes aren’t subject to the First Amendment, why are you having such a hissy fit over this?
Regards,
Shodan
I realize we’re getting into a lot of what-ifs and what-fors, but;
Shodan, what if the shirt read “Short people suck!” and the only person in the school that was offended by the shirt was the Dwarf in Miss Johnsons class, except he is too afraid to speak up. Then what?
I think it boils down to this;
Certain symbols and verbal gestures are typically acceptable in a school atmosphere when they endorse a positive or nuetral message.
The day of silence would be an endorsement of an activity that clearly supports a positive message. The t-shirt was clearly the opposite. If the t-shirt had read, “Heterosexuals are terrific”, that would have been OK. And if one of the ‘day of silence’ students had a t-shirt that read, “Homophobes are evil”, that would have been wrong. Sometimes it’s what you don’t say…
Anyway, I think the school has the ardous task of providing what it thinks is the most stable learning atmosphere possible. Drawing that somewhat ambiguous line in the sand should be left up to the individual school administrations.
It is also my opinion that the ‘day of silence’ should not have been endorsed/organized by the school. However, if the students choose to organize and participate in the ‘day of silence’ in a manner that is non-disruptive, more power to them.
Straw man. I wasn’t saying that schools can push a specific political agenda, only that they can endorse- even demand- a general policy which which engenders a safe and tolerant atmosphere. I’m not guessing here. I worked in a public school system which had specific policies about not only what could be worn, but in some cases what could be verbalized. There was even an explicit policy restricting or banning certain religious practices at school (a policy I strongly disagreed with, btw, but that’s what happens when fundies take over school boards).
I think you would agree that public schools have the right to enforce a policy which bars racist expresion and encourages racial tolerance. This is no different. It is disruptive and hostile to a healthy learning atmosphere if a particular grop of students is singled out as an acceptable target for insulting or hateful speech.
Such speech most certainly is disruptive and hurtful to the innocent students who it insults. It is not acceptable to insist that an entire class of students must silently accept hateful expression in an institution that they pay for and are legally obliged to attend.
No, I’m defining hate speech as speech which is hateful to a specific group of people. “Vote for Bush” is speech I disagree with but it isn’t hate speech. "A statement that all ____ are “shameful” is hate speech.
Nope, it was banned because it created a hostile atmosphere for other students. Get this through your head. Students do not have a protected right to insult other students. Protecting all students from hostile or hateful speech is part of the government mandate of public schools. That’s why they can ban racist expressions and that’s why they can ban homophobic ones.
Oh, and by the bye, Diogenes, if dress codes aren’t subject to the First Amendment, why are you having such a hissy fit over this?
[/QUOTE]
WTF does this have to do with school dress codes?
Providing that such policies do not interfere with free speech, sure.
I don’t see the school administrators fostering an atmosphere in which students can disagree about homosexuality, and therefore the atmosphere is by definition intolerant.
I would say that public schools have the duty to enforce policies that do not interfere with the rights of students to engage in free speech which does not disrupt the educational process.
Unfortunately, there has been no evidence of disruption or hostility, except by the teacher who is attempting to violate the First Amendment.
No, you are indeed defining “hate speech” as “speech which I don’t like”.
You’re claiming that it is perfectly fine to ban a t-shirt, if you disagree with its message. But when someone bans t-shirts that you agree with:
As I said earlier, “free speech for me, but not for thee”. As ever.
Regards,
Shodan
Wrong. Such policies may restrict speech so long as the restriction serves a higher governmental purpose, such as providing an appropriate learning atmosphere and avoiding legitimizing the victimization- even the verbal victimization- of other students.
Students can “disagree” with policies regarding harrassment and hate speech all they want. That’s too bad. Schools do not invite verbal disagreement about racism either. They don’t have to. There is no absolute right to free speech in public schools.
hate speech not only disrupts the educational process, it would be tantamount to discrimination by the school if one group of students was sanctioned as a legitimate target for inults and hostile expressions. You’re just flat wrong on the law here. I know what I’m talking about. Public schools are allowed to place certain curbs on free speech. Students are not allowed to burn flags in the hallway or wear shirts that say “Fuck the police” on them. It doesn’t matter if such a shirt does not seem to cause a disruption or cause violence on a given day. Schools may still ban them preemptively, just like they can ban hate speech. No student has a protected right to insult other students in the classroom, and schools have every right to prohibit those insults.
Irrelevant. And the teacher was merely enforcing a valid school policy. I have enforced similar policies myself (e.g. hauling kids off to the office for using racial epithets).
This is childish. I am doing no such thing.
What a load of crap. School dress codes have nothing whatever to do with political protests outside of schools. There isn’t the faintest comparison.
Well, it could have been a conspiracy, but more likely, the teachers and administrators were simply ignorant. You do not leave your Constitutional rights at the school door.
Free speech can be abridged at school for specific purposes, just like anywhere else, and schools may have a bit more leeway because those kids are in their custody for a third of each weekday, but public schools are still arms of the government and they are bound by the 1st and 14th Amendments. See the link I posted earlier for the legal standards used to determine whether a dress code is compatible with free speech.
The standard I think is most relevant here, Tinker v. Des Moines, dates back to 1969. Texas v. Johnson goes back to 1992. Bethel v. Fraser, 1986. U.S. v. O’Brien, 1968.
Were those policies ever challenged in court, and if so, what was the outcome?
I went to a high school whose dress code banned “satanic” clothing, but I never heard of anyone being punished under that rule, and everything I’ve read indicates that it was unconstitutional.