High school students sue to wear anti-gay clothing at school

[bunk]

Here's my issue with it:

The pro-gay students seemed to wear shirts that support gay people. Makes sense. They were expressing positive views about something.

The anti-gay student wants to wear a shirt that is just that: Anti-gay.
They don't wish to support anything, only to tear apart something.

If these students wanted to wear pro-straight shirts, It wouldn't bother me at all. Something like "I'm straight, don't hate!" It's not a "tick for tack" situation. It's a "you tick, I attack" situation.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Fighting for the right to wear Tigger
ACLU sues Napa school over dress code that requires solid colors, bans all denim
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/21/MNGRUOOVAD1.DTL

Tigger clothing ban causes family to sue school district
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/03/20/news/local/doc4600675b2df0c516194680.txt

Toni Kay Scott, 14, shows sister Sydni, 11, a Tigger sock -- part of the clothing she wore to school in violation of a dress code.

LMAO Oh dear god.......

That's gay.

Ha, if you think that's gay, ever watch G4TV?t:

 

[Carcharodon]

if you notice, I discussed freedom of speech and "content" before talking about schools.

I started talking about schools only after i talked about the legal effects of "endorsing" one particular view.

Before you tell me I'm wrong about somehting, it would help to take a class on constitutional law.

I've taken 2.
Ive got As in both.

And I'm pretty sure we studied the first amendment.

In fact, in a landmark Supreme Court decision concerning schools and freedom of speech. Perhaps the most quoted passage on the issue is (paraphrasing) an individual does not surrent their rights to free speech at the schoolhouse gate.

The case that came from, if i remember correctly involved student protests over the Vietname war. The individual war a black arm band. The arm band is now in the National Civil Rights Museum.

Before you tell me I'm Flat out wrong you may want to bone up on your knowledge of the first amendment, "endorsement," due process, regulations as to "time, place, mode" and "inflammatory speech prohibitions."

Then maybe we can talk.

Your provisions on schools directly support the school's stance in this case, however. That was my point. Your bit about equal endorsement directly contradicts the idea of, "time, place, mode," and, "inflammatory speech," prohibitions, or at least conflicts with them.

The schools, even by your own argument, were within their legal right to do what they did.

 

[Carcharodon]

Here's my issue with it:

The pro-gay students seemed to wear shirts that support gay people. Makes sense. They were expressing positive views about something.

The anti-gay student wants to wear a shirt that is just that: Anti-gay.
They don't wish to support anything, only to tear apart something.

If these students wanted to wear pro-straight shirts, It wouldn't bother me at all. Something like "I'm straight, don't hate!" It's not a "tick for tack" situation. It's a "you tick, I attack" situation.

EXACTLY.

 

[Motown Marvel]

its perfectly legal for schools to impliment dress code standards. and not surprising that they'd be opposed to students wearing shirts that promote intolerance.

 

[I_Hate_U_All]

That's gay.

I wonder where bisexuals fall in all this.

 

[Kaboom]

Your provisions on schools directly support the school's stance in this case, however. That was my point. Your bit about equal endorsement directly contradicts the idea of, "time, place, mode," and, "inflammatory speech," prohibitions, or at least conflicts with them.

The schools, even by your own argument, were within their legal right to do what they did.

the reason the phrases are in quotes is because they are legal terms of art which have entire meanings and restrictions that attach to them.

let me try and explain. No prayer in school. Why? because of the separation of church and state. to allow prayer is to endorse religion which a school cannot do.

inflammotry speech prohibitions are not things like "whites should die." A statemnt that "whites should die" is entirely protected. Inflammatory speech is very specifically statements made by an individual to another that are meant to incite them to violence. They common example would be a rock musician on stage telling his crowd to that "all white should and you should be the one to go attack him" theres a junction between what is said and inciting them to action.

"time place mode" is also limited. but that is way too much to explain. essentially its stuff like "youre not allowed to hold a rally in a public place without a permit." that is perfectly acceptable. Thats why cops escort klan marches. They are allowed to be bigoted and hateful if they want, the government cant censor that, but they have to comply with the applicable regulations just the same as any one else...additionally those regulations must be the same for all groups.

I'm not advocating a position on whetehr what they said is "right", merely that it is protected.

 

[Carcharodon]

the reason the phrases are in quotes is because they are legal terms of art which have entire meanings and restrictions that attach to them.

let me try and explain. No prayer in school. Why? because of the separation of church and state. to allow prayer is to endorse religion which a school cannot do.

inflammotry speech prohibitions are not things like "whites should die." A statemnt that "whites should die" is entirely protected. Inflammatory speech is very specifically statements made by an individual to another that are meant to incite them to violence. They common example would be a rock musician on stage telling his crowd to that "all white should and you should be the one to go attack him" theres a junction between what is said and inciting them to action.

"time place mode" is also limited. but that is way too much to explain. essentially its stuff like "youre not allowed to hold a rally in a public place without a permit." that is perfectly acceptable. Thats why cops escort klan marches. They are allowed to be bigoted and hateful if they want, the government cant censor that, but they have to comply with the applicable regulations just the same as any one else...additionally those regulations must be the same for all groups.

I'm not advocating a position on whetehr what they said is "right", merely that it is protected.

Good stuff. Okay.

 

[Kaboom]

Good stuff. Okay.

 

[Babs Gordon]

The reason for the double-standard is discrimination. The anti-gay shirts are clearly discriminatory, while the pro-gay shirts are quite the opposite. Combine this with the fact that schools are not free-speech platforms (i.e., people can't go down the halls saying, "**** you, you dirty piece of ****!"), and the schools were perfectly justified in reprimanding the anti-gay shirts. It comes down to discrimination.

What he said.

 

[Carcharodon]

What he said.

I like the way Bunk said it more...discrimination is really more about acting on prejudice or showing favoritism though some sort of action. The point is more or less the same, though.

 

[Babs Gordon]

freedom of speech does not mean "i am free to say whatever I want as long as I dont offend you."

freedom of speech means "i am free to say whatever I want"

it can be regulated as to place, time, and mode...but not to content.

moreover, schools, as parts of government are not free to endorse certain speech and restrict others. If they allow some, they must as a matter of law allow at all.

Then quite frankly, the law is bogus. As a teacher it is our responsibility to foster an environment where students can feel safe from harm and protected. Anti- this Anti-that fosters hostility and negativity and is exactly what schools should strive to keep off their grounds.

Most adults can take care of themselves, but from what I've experienced and later seen of adolesence, immaturity + hostile campaigns equals really bad things in place where learning is supposed to happen. Let's keep it that way.

 

[Kaboom]

I like the way Bunk said it more...discrimination is really more about acting on prejudice or showing favoritism though some sort of action. The point is more or less the same, though.

I happen to think the only reason to wear a "don't be gay" shirt is to be mean and hateful, I dont think it hs anything to do with "religious beliefs." Sure the bible says that a man should not "lay with a man as he would lay with a woman," but it also says "to worry abou tthe splinter in your own eye before you worry about the plank in your brothers."

I dont think the indidvidual was exercising any right s/he had apart from the right to be a jerk.

Thats different then the legal question of whether they had the consitutional right to be a "jerk."

Unfortuanetly, whenever this topic comes up, the offendor resorts to "its against my religion to be gay."

Thats a distortion of the gospel, and its sad the Word is mired by the iniquities of those who claim it.

 

[Babs Gordon]

^Sadly though, Sam, there are churches around the country that preach that kind of hatred as Gospel. So for those particular individuals odds are it is a religious point of view, but definitely not a truly Christian one.

 

[Kaboom]

Then quite frankly, the law is bogus. As a teacher it is our responsibility to foster an environment where students can feel safe from harm and protected. Anti- this Anti-that fosters hostility and negativity and is exactly what schools should strive to keep off their grounds.

Most adults can take care of themselves, but from what I've experienced and later seen of adolesence, immaturity + hostile campaigns equals really bad things in place where learning is supposed to happen. Let's keep it that way.

the question then arises WHO becomes the person that is allowed to say this can come in, but not this. lets talk about this, but not this.

The beauty of free speech is that EVERYBODY gets a voice at the table no matter what they have to say.

Unfortunatley as part of the equation, you have to rely on the intestinal fortitude of the people at the table being able to stand up and speak for what they believe in.

Its a balancing act.

 

[Majik1387]

I agree with them, why is it okay to be pro gay but not anti gay?

Because hate speech and fighting words are not protected by the Constitution in any way.

 

[Kaboom]

^Sadly though, Sam, there are churches around the country that preach that kind of hatred as Gospel. So for those particular individuals odds are it is a religious point of view, but definitely not a truly Christian one.

I totally get what your saying and honestly I find the prejudices and discrimintaroty acts disheartening both as a christian and a human being. I of course have my own views on every matter and issue. i go to church every sunday (just about). and i dont think a persons sexual orientation should have any affect on their rights as a citizen of the united states.

i am also an attroney. Which means sometimes having to advocate positions you dont necessarily believe in.


I guess what im trying to say is: Do i think the anti-gay student protestor should have done what they done? No.
But do they have the legal right to do so? I would have to say yes.

get where I'm coming from?

 

[Babs Gordon]

the question then arises WHO becomes the person that is allowed to say this can come in, but not this. lets talk about this, but not this.

The beauty of free speech is that EVERYBODY gets a voice at the table no matter what they have to say.

Unfortunatley as part of the equation, you have to rely on the intestinal fortitude of the people at the table being able to stand up and speak for what they believe in.

Its a balancing act.

If you recall, typically in schools hate speech of any kind is out of the question. You talk smack, you bring others down, you go to the office. It's that simple.

Naturally the protection a school has to offer its own students is a function of how protective the teachers are. We're only human. I have a pretty low tolerance for harassment and bullying no matter the kind with my middle schoolers. In a public or private school it would be up to me how stringent I'd like to be about what a child in my care and under my watch is allowed to say. If a kid says something that would hurt another student, intentionally or unintentionally or even disrupts the lesson, I'm allowed to call them on it. There are definitely other teachers that take that too far and then there are teachers that let the students walk all over them and don't intervene when they ought to. It's a pretty simple system though hardly perfect because it is run by imperfect beings.

 

[Demon Within]

They should never have allowed the pro-gay stuff in the first place. Its only fair the ones not in agreement get to have thier day.

 

[Kaboom]

If you recall, typically in schools hate speech of any kind is out of the question. You talk smack, you bring others down, you go to the office. It's that simple.

Naturally the protection a school has to offer its own students is a function of how protective the teachers are. We're only human. I have a pretty low tolerance for harassment and bullying no matter the kind with my middle schoolers. In a public or private school it would be up to me how stringent I'd like to be about what a child in my care and under my watch is allowed to say. If a kid says something that would hurt another student, intentionally or unintentionally or even disrupts the lesson, I'm allowed to call them on it. There are definitely other teachers that take that too far and then there are teachers that let the students walk all over them and don't intervene when they ought to. It's a pretty simple system though hardly perfect because it is run by imperfect beings.

i used to be a teacher, well i wa sa permament sub. and one day i had to regulate on a student who was making fron of a disabled student. One student was listening to his ipod during a class, which i made him take off. but his response was to question why the disabled student (who was nearly blind) was allowed to listen to the listen on headphones. He got a referral as fast I could write one. Kids are mean.

Parents also dont think their kid is ever wrong. and then we get this fun topics to debate.

btw, to all, just because i'm attorney doesnt mean you can rely on anything I say as legal advice. You should consult an attorney from the proper jurisdiction rather than relying on anything i say for any purpose.

=)

(had to get that in here)

 

[Babs Gordon]

So you'd award these kids 'damages' in this situation if you could? This is from a legal perspective, not a moral one.

 

[Babs Gordon]

btw, to all, just because i'm attorney doesnt mean you can rely on anything I say as legal advice. You should consult an attorney from the proper jurisdiction before relying on anything i say for any purpose.

You lawyer you. You should have made it like... 1 point font. You know, fine print.

 

[Majik1387]

Because hate speech and fighting words are not protected by the Constitution in any way.

I feel this was skipped over.

Freedom of speech does not include hate speech and fighting words.
And as other's said, schools contorl the majority of the rights of the students because as the majority of them are under 18, at the timeframe of the school schedule, the school is the legal guardian until the student's parent(s) resume parental control.

Until the teenager is 18, technically their rights are controlled by who they are dependent on.

 

[Majik1387]

Because hate speech and fighting words are not protected by the Constitution in any way.

I feel this was skipped over.

Freedom of speech does not include hate speech and fighting words.
And as other's said, schools contorl the majority of the rights of the students because as the majority of them are under 18, at the timeframe of the school schedule, the school is the legal guardian until the student's parent(s) resume parental control.

Until the teenager is 18, technically their rights are controlled by who they are dependent on.

 

[Babs Gordon]

They should never have allowed the pro-gay stuff in the first place. Its only fair the ones not in agreement get to have thier day.

Pro-gay sounds funny. Like you have to be either Pro-gay or Pro-straight and can't be both. If kids in my school wanted to organize a day where they can write positive messages of pride in who they are on a t-shirt, fine. If a kid wants to wear a t-shirt that says 'straight and proud' that's fine with me too. The point is to quell hostility. There is nothing hostile about a "Day of Silence", therefore it is perfectly appropriate for a school to allow/endorse.