School District Sued For Suspending Student Over Anti-Gay T-Shirt

[jjones]

Originally posted by: djheater
The "Day of Silence was not school sponsored or authorized.

Anti-gay T-shirts spark suspensions
wataugademocrat.com North Carolina ^


Posted on 04/27/2004 9:41:25 PM PDT by chance33_98




Anti-gay T-shirts spark suspensions

04/26/2004 By Scott Nicholson

A free speech and dress code controversy blossomed at Watauga High School on April 21 when students wore T-shirts apparently intending to counter a student action designed to support gays.

April 21 was a ?Day of Silence,? a voluntary student-led movement in which students go through the day without speaking to mark their support for gays.

High school principal Gary Childers said the observation was not endorsed, sponsored or initiated by the school or its faculty. He said three students were observed wearing cards announcing their participation, while perhaps 15 to 25 may have been participating in all.

link

Okay, I stand corrected. I was under the impression that it was school endorsed. I withdraw my argument.

 

[skace]

edit: ew my post is a waste after reading what was just posted.

 

[UnatcoAgent]

Originally posted by: Anubis

I'd like to hear how you think a shirt saying "Homosexuality is Shameful" is inciting harm against a group.

Isn't it obvious? By wearing that shirt, you certainly arn't trying to make homosexuals feel fantastic are you? No, you're not.
The statement is intended to be hurtful towards homosexuals - You yanks are so ridiculous sometimes.

Nice generalization. Way to fvck your argument. Give me your nationality I'm sure I could make a generalization of my own.
That being said, NuclearNed, are you being intentionally dense? If a muslim citizen wore a shirt that said Christ was a false prophet and Jihad is coming do you think it would be appropriate or should he be asked to remove it?[/quote]
No, I am not being dense. As I am a Christian, I would probably be offended to some degree and I would definitely disagree with him. But as an American, it is his right to have that opinion even though others feel strongly against it. Freedom of speech has little to do with popularity. New ideas are rarely popular. Socrates was put to death for his unpopular beliefs. Galileo was ostrasized because he expressed ideas that were contrary to common knowledge. At one time people believed that African Americans were somehow inferior, but someone had the courage to express ideas that were contrary to the mainstream. Even Jesus was killed because what he was saying was 180 degrees different from what the ruling religious authority was preaching.[/quote]
Freedom of speech is NOT about the right to spread hate. The founding fathers didn't have it in their heads the idea that you should be able to say whatever you want, wherever you want, about whoever you want.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have libel and slander laws, would we?
Another example: you are not allowed to say you are going to harm the president, even in jest.
Freedom of speech is NOT absolute, never has been, and never will be. Get over it.[/quote]

something that says "homosexuality is shamefull" does not advocate hate[/quote]

What does it advocate then?[/quote]

someones closed minded view of things that is all

if i wore my bad religion shirt with a big red X through the cross, is that advocateing hate? NO not even a view on that one its just a band[/quote]

That's not what I'm asking. Wearing the shirt is not just, wearing that shirt, like you just wearing the Bad Religion shirt was just, wearing a shirt with a big red X through it. Don't get me wrong, I like Bad Relgion.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: djheater
The "Day of Silence was not school sponsored or authorized.

Anti-gay T-shirts spark suspensions
wataugademocrat.com North Carolina ^


Posted on 04/27/2004 9:41:25 PM PDT by chance33_98




Anti-gay T-shirts spark suspensions

04/26/2004 By Scott Nicholson

A free speech and dress code controversy blossomed at Watauga High School on April 21 when students wore T-shirts apparently intending to counter a student action designed to support gays.

April 21 was a ?Day of Silence,? a voluntary student-led movement in which students go through the day without speaking to mark their support for gays.

High school principal Gary Childers said the observation was not endorsed, sponsored or initiated by the school or its faculty. He said three students were observed wearing cards announcing their participation, while perhaps 15 to 25 may have been participating in all.

link

Okay, I stand corrected. I was under the impression that it was school endorsed. I withdraw my argument.

:beer:

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

So, really, this is hatred of homosexuals is a new idea - which is rarely popular - and needs to be pushed into the mainstream?

Lets see your proof that this kid hates homosexuals.

The only thing that I get from the article is that he disagrees with a lifestyle. If he is truly practicing Christianity, he doesn't hate anyone.

And again, this thread is about free speech. Quit trying to make it a pro/anti homsexual thread.

You're right: this is about free speech. Like has already been pointed out, the right to free speech is limited by context; I can tell you what you have a right to say inside my establishment. This, to some extent, holds true for schools: if you are wearing something that is deemed/could be deemed a substantial disruption to the school day, then you can be asked to remove it.

Beggs said the Supreme Court had upheld students' right to free speech in school, citing the 1969 decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, in which the Court concluded that students had the right to wear black arm bands in school as a symbol of protest against the Vietnam War. The Court ruled that schools could only limit students' free-speech rights in situations where they could show that the speech would cause a substantial disruption to the school day.

From here.

That being said, the reverse could have/should have been true if the other rally provoked a disruptive response from the student body. It's not mentioned how it was responded to, but if it is anything like the rallys held by my school in high school, it was ignored by everyone except the 15-20 kids who attended it.

Rob

 

[ggavinmoss]

Lovely - my alma mater in the news...

-geoff

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
I realize that he was in violation of school policy, but where in the Constitution are there listed exceptions to free speech? When did our freedoms slip to the point that free speech is only allowed in certain circumstances?

That was ALWAYS the case. The Constitution only says:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis added, obviously.

It doesn't say jack about your school, your employer, the owner of a shop you wear it to, your parents, or anyone else. Just Congress. Congress is the only one who cannot abridge those freedoms.

Furthermore, free speech is why this kid wasn't arrested.
But there can still be consequences - like being suspended from school.

I'm just requoting my own post because it's the crux of just how free speech is not an absolute and it seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

 

[spidey07]

I'm just requoting my own post because it's the crux of just how free speech is not an absolute and it seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

I guess what really bothers me is that its perfectly acceptible to hurt others feelings and be offensive. It just depends on who those others are.

Catch my drift?

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Entity

Originally posted by: NuclearNed

So, really, this is hatred of homosexuals is a new idea - which is rarely popular - and needs to be pushed into the mainstream?

Lets see your proof that this kid hates homosexuals.

The only thing that I get from the article is that he disagrees with a lifestyle. If he is truly practicing Christianity, he doesn't hate anyone.

And again, this thread is about free speech. Quit trying to make it a pro/anti homsexual thread.

You're right: this is about free speech. Like has already been pointed out, the right to free speech is limited by context; I can tell you what you have a right to say inside my establishment. This, to some extent, holds true for schools: if you are wearing something that is deemed/could be deemed a substantial disruption to the school day, then you can be asked to remove it.

Beggs said the Supreme Court had upheld students' right to free speech in school, citing the 1969 decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, in which the Court concluded that students had the right to wear black arm bands in school as a symbol of protest against the Vietnam War. The Court ruled that schools could only limit students' free-speech rights in situations where they could show that the speech would cause a substantial disruption to the school day.

From here.

That being said, the reverse could have/should have been true if the other rally provoked a disruptive response from the student body. It's not mentioned how it was responded to, but if it is anything like the rallys held by my school in high school, it was ignored by everyone except the 15-20 kids who attended it.

Rob

Thanks, great post.

This is my point. I don't think the schools should be a battleground for personal convictions, be they spiritual or sexual.

The kids in the rally should've been given put in a room where they could all be silent together and not disrupt the day, the kid with the shirt should've been asked to remove it or leave.

Personally I can't believe the parents allowed him out of the door with that shirt in the first place, you'd think an adult would realize the disruptive nature and accept the personal responsibility of beating his ass for trying to "demonstrate" on school grounds.

Stupid kid, stupid parents.

 

[imported_yovonbishop]

Being a student, I suppose I should comment on my experience with freedom of speech in school. At least once a week, a kid in my history class is asked to turn his shirts inside out due to the sexual innuendo they have on them. Most of the innuendo is harmless but still, teh teacher finds that it COULD offend someone, so he asks the kid to turn it inside out and he always does without an argument.

His shirts are not judging others morality or way of life. If they did, I would think that would be much more serious. School is a place to learn, not for some a$$hat to express his opinions about homosexuals, jews, christians, or whatever else he wants to "make a statement" about. I do realize the kid was expressing his beliefs by wearing the shirt and it wasn't actually hurting anyone physically. But the shirt could have been considered offensive because it said that someone (possibly someone in the school was homosexual) was living an immoral and shameful lifestyle. That IS offensive and it should not be worn in an institution of learning. I'm not saying I advocate anything or I condemn any actions. I'm speaking from a school's point of view.

If, hypothetically, there was a confrontation between the kid who wore the shirt and a homosexual, then that would be disruptive. Something does not have to cause disruption in order to be considered disruptive, if you get what I'm saying. It has the potential of being disruptive and it can be considered offensive. So the school has the right to say whether the kid can wear the shirt or not. Unless he argued with the teachers about it and was being insubordinate, he should not have been suspended, he should have just been asked to either change the shirt or wear it inside out. Freedom of speech doesn't apply in situations like that because of the same reason people can't yell FIRE in a theater, it can cause a distraction or a disruption in a public place.


If the school has a dresscode, and I'm sure it does because pretty much all do, then the student should have known about it and not to wear such a shirt. Therefore, he has no right to sue the school.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: spidey07

I'm just requoting my own post because it's the crux of just how free speech is not an absolute and it seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

I guess what really bothers me is that its perfectly acceptible to hurt others feelings and be offensive. It just depends on who those others are.

Catch my drift?

Have you demonstrated other activities that were similar in scope to the intention and potential disruptiveness of that shirt, that were also allowed? Since I know little to nothing about that school district/area, I can't comment: however, from reading the article, I see little that comments on how the other activities were seen/received.

My school allowed a prayer circle to gather on school grounds, but made it clear that it was not school-sanctioned. Being an agnostic, I took no offense to this: however, I find it analagous to the pro-acceptance rally held at their school.

Rob

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Freedom of speech is NOT about the right to spread hate. The founding fathers didn't have it in their heads the idea that you should be able to say whatever you want, wherever you want, about whoever you want.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have libel and slander laws, would we?
Another example: you are not allowed to say you are going to harm the president, even in jest.
Freedom of speech is NOT absolute, never has been, and never will be. Get over it.

ummm, where is there any hate spreading going on? That's what I fail to see.

Doesn't matter if you see it or not. Others do, and that's why the school had a problem with it.
And that was not the point of my post. The point of my post is much the same as Jzero's. Freedom of speech is not Absolute freedom of speech.

 

[djplayx714]

im a California teacher and there is a specific law stating that teachers and the administration are to enforce a hate free environment for gays, lesbians, and transgenders. this lawsuit against the school is crap.

 

[gopunk]

sorry, k-12 students don't have free speech in school, never have, probably never will.

as a side note, i certainly don't remember the "alliance defense fund" giving a flying hoot when students were disallowed from wearing shirts with satanic or anti-christian symbols on them.

 

[Kilrsat]

Originally posted by: djheater
The "Day of Silence was not school sponsored or authorized.

Anti-gay T-shirts spark suspensions
wataugademocrat.com North Carolina ^


Posted on 04/27/2004 9:41:25 PM PDT by chance33_98




Anti-gay T-shirts spark suspensions

04/26/2004 By Scott Nicholson

A free speech and dress code controversy blossomed at Watauga High School on April 21 when students wore T-shirts apparently intending to counter a student action designed to support gays.

April 21 was a ?Day of Silence,? a voluntary student-led movement in which students go through the day without speaking to mark their support for gays.

High school principal Gary Childers said the observation was not endorsed, sponsored or initiated by the school or its faculty. He said three students were observed wearing cards announcing their participation, while perhaps 15 to 25 may have been participating in all.

link

Using the school's logic those 3 students wearing cards should have been suspended too. Afterall their cards are meant to incite hate against people like the student wearing the t-shirt at the same level as the t-shirt was meant to incite hate against homosexuals. So some hate demonstrations are allowed, some aren't. Nice policy.

 

[Cashmoney995]

...I dont know what to say. Im ok if im walking down the hallway and I see a girl peckin a guy on the cheek. Im not sure if I'm walking down the hallway and see a guy givin another guy a peck on the cheek. Somewhere, somebody needs to find out wtf gay people are. Its obviousely, quite obviousely, not what nature intended, but I'm not gonna hold it against them if its an actual condition. If its some time of upbringing condition/peer based/fad based thing, well jeese. I dont know. A simple thing is to find out is if, the number of gay people risen over the past hundred years? I remember one study which said that gays were more likely to have a hormone defficiency in the latter stages of growth inside a womans womb. If so then at the parents request, they should be able to have either a lil extra testosterone or estrogen implanted in the womb to enhance the capabilities for a full development.

I guess I am ok with gays doing whatever they want except for raising children, I do not think its acceptable for a gay couple to raise a child because I believe that the child will suffer from having two dads or two moms. It's not because they don't have the ability to raise the child, its because other kids don't have the maturity to not make fun of, and ridicule kids with two parents, not to mention psychological consequences of someone being right when they say that you have two moms or dads. Just like the controversy of having mixed parents was way back when, this needs to be looked at. Gay parents happen to have more of an impact on the childs life than mixed parents.

I think that being gay, if truly a medical condition (which I hope to god it is) should be treatable in the early stages of a fetus' development. Not that those who are gay can not be accepted in society/are evil. If its treatable, then we should treat it. (only preemptivly, not if your already there) If it is some type of lifestyle choice, I just really do not understand it.

 

[Pex]

good thing colleges arent gay(as in stupid) like that. i wore my "I agree with gay marriages as long as both chicks are hot" shirt with no problems.

 

[joeryu]

http://www.straightpridewear.com

 

[NuclearNed]

Originally posted by: jOjO316
http://www.straightpridewear.com

Be careful. That site OBVIOUSLY incites hatred and it might offend someone.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Pex
good thing colleges arent gay(as in stupid) like that. i wore my "I agree with gay marriages as long as both chicks are hot" shirt with no problems.

ROFL

 

[Ilmater]

I just don't care any more. Religious zealots are idiots. This kid is an idiot. If you didn't have to "choose" to like girls, then why do you think they "chose" to like boys? It's so clear to me that it's not a choice that I just flat-out think people who can't see that are idiots. My father is included in that bunch. He's just old and close-minded (and will do whatever the Republican party tells him to in instances like this).

I hope the jury, in some landmark decision, puts this kid in jail citing his propensity to bomb abortion clinics in the future.

BTW, this belongs in P&N, not OT.

 

[eigen]

Originally posted by: Pex
good thing colleges arent gay(as in stupid) like that. i wore my "I agree with gay marriages as long as both chicks are hot" shirt with no problems.

Agreed.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Kilrsat

Originally posted by: djheater
The "Day of Silence was not school sponsored or authorized.

Anti-gay T-shirts spark suspensions
wataugademocrat.com North Carolina ^


Posted on 04/27/2004 9:41:25 PM PDT by chance33_98




Anti-gay T-shirts spark suspensions

04/26/2004 By Scott Nicholson

A free speech and dress code controversy blossomed at Watauga High School on April 21 when students wore T-shirts apparently intending to counter a student action designed to support gays.

April 21 was a ?Day of Silence,? a voluntary student-led movement in which students go through the day without speaking to mark their support for gays.

High school principal Gary Childers said the observation was not endorsed, sponsored or initiated by the school or its faculty. He said three students were observed wearing cards announcing their participation, while perhaps 15 to 25 may have been participating in all.

link

Using the school's logic those 3 students wearing cards should have been suspended too. Afterall their cards are meant to incite hate against people like the student wearing the t-shirt at the same level as the t-shirt was meant to incite hate against homosexuals. So some hate demonstrations are allowed, some aren't. Nice policy.

I don't get where you come up with these things, think a little.

One of the cases is a student saying that being gay is shameful and the others is showing support for a group. If the cards said that christians are ignorant then it would be the same.

I just feel ashamed for the Christian fundies.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Pex
good thing colleges arent gay(as in stupid) like that. i wore my "I agree with gay marriages as long as both chicks are hot" shirt with no problems.

And that is just one more worthless analogy. I joke compared to condemnation? Please.

 

[djheater]

Ha, there's a shirt I'd like to see.

"Christian fundamentalism is shameful."