Under ACLU pressure, Connecticut school allows student to wear anti-gay shirt - Page 4

Alt+F4 · 27th February 2013, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I have to wonder then whether students at public schools are allowed to bring firearms to school. After all, its their Second Amendment right. If a public schools cannot have rules more restrictive than the law for the rest of the public, then why would they be able to have a rule stopping students from bringing their guns in?

What's the connection, in this case, between bringing a gun to school and wearing a shirt that basically says "I don't like you"?

Cylinder · 27th February 2013, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I have to wonder then whether students at public schools are allowed to bring firearms to school. After all, its their Second Amendment right. If a public schools cannot have rules more restrictive than the law for the rest of the public, then why would they be able to have a rule stopping students from bringing their guns in?

Really?

Reductio ad absurdum. That rule is content-neutral and narrowly fulfills a legitimate and compelling function of the institution. It's also an illegal activity.

Cylinder · 27th February 2013, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

The school officials have a duty to make sure the kids aren't wearing inflammatory things like gang related whatever... or shirts about how uncomfortable gays make them feel...

I'd think this would become trouble if half the school decided that since this one guy can do it, why can't weeeeeee

Gang colors would be an interesting case, I guess, but still lacks the feature of subjective content.

TragicMonkey · 27th February 2013, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

Really?

Reductio ad absurdum. That rule is content-neutral and narrowly fulfills a legitimate and compelling function of the institution. It's also an illegal activity.

Except that restriction certain speech does fulfill a legitimate and compelling function of public school.

And if you can have a law that limits one amendment's rights in school, why not another?

TragicMonkey · 27th February 2013, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

What's the connection, in this case, between bringing a gun to school and wearing a shirt that basically says "I don't like you"?

Both are examples of rules that prevent something that is a guaranteed constitutional right. Yet one is sensible and the other is apparently a gross violation of freedom.

16.5 · 27th February 2013, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Except that restriction certain speech does fulfill a legitimate and compelling function of public school.

And if you can have a law that limits one amendment's rights in school, why not another?

I'm convinced. No more pro-gay t-shirts.

Done and done. Thanks.

Alt+F4 · 27th February 2013, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Except that restriction certain speech does fulfill a legitimate and compelling function of public school.

Indeed, when that speech threatens violence, shows gore or uses obscenity. Banning an "I don't like you" shirt is not fulfilling a legitimate or compelling function of public schools. The day that non-violent speech is banned in public schools is the day when the idea (thank you Horace Mann) of public education is dead. Democratic education for a democratic nation.

Quote:

And if you can have a law that limits one amendment's rights in school, why not another?

Public schools are government institutions, the same as courts. Guns are not allowed in courts either.

Alt+F4 · 27th February 2013, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Both are examples of rules that prevent something that is a guaranteed constitutional right. Yet one is sensible and the other is apparently a gross violation of freedom.

Guaranteed? Yikes, ask Korematsu, Plessey, Shenck (well they are all dead, but you know what I mean). There are no, none absolute rights in the United States Constitution....otherwise I would be able to have a small nuclear device in the trunk of my car.

TragicMonkey · 27th February 2013, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

I'm convinced. No more pro-gay t-shirts.

Done and done. Thanks.

That might well be an effect, yes. And yes, it would be acceptable. The point of public school is to educate, not provide an environment for the practice of an ideal form of democracy. Minors and students already don't possess the full range of rights adult non students enjoy, why a T-shirt message, whatever its content, is a bridge too far eludes me.

Or was I supposed to say something stupid about allowing some expressions but not others, based on what my own views are? Sorry, I'm not like that. I see no problem with a blanket rule against ALL messages on clothing in public school, regardless of content. School is not the same as the public, even if it is a public school.

TragicMonkey · 27th February 2013, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Indeed, when that speech threatens violence, shows gore or uses obscenity. Banning an "I don't like you" shirt is not fulfilling a legitimate or compelling function of public schools. The day that non-violent speech is banned in public schools is the day when the idea (thank you Horace Mann) of public education is dead. Democratic education for a democratic nation.

Public schools are government institutions, the same as courts. Guns are not allowed in courts either.

That you don't feel an "I don't like you" message is disruptive doesn't mean a school board terms the same way. They probably disallow messages about sex as well. Violent speech isn't the only speech that can and should be reasonably repressed in the environment if a school.

And the court example is to show that public institutions can and do have more limits on behavior than there are in law for everywhere outside those places. I can sing loudly in my house. I can sing less loudly in public. I may not sing at all in the gallery of a courtroom during a trial. Are my rights restricted? Yes. Does that mean I do not have them? No.

Monketey Ghost · 27th February 2013, 10:20 AM

Jeezdang! When I was twelve I got sent home for having my hair too brightly dyed, told to dye it back to dark as it was disrupting the other students' ability to concentrate, and was making learning and teaching hard.

Alt+F4 · 27th February 2013, 10:25 AM

Banning non-violent "I don't like you" stuff does so much more harm to those who "are not liked". Banning it says that the haters hate is legitimate and "we", this institution, must protect you because you are in some sort of danger.

Dr. Keith · 27th February 2013, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

The institutions in question make their rules based in what's necessary to maintain order enough to fulfill their functions. A library would likely have a much less destructive set of rules in the matter of clothing expression than would a courtroom. A school would tend to be as restrictive as it could be because the nature of the place is that disruption of attention thwarts its primary function. They even have rules about hairstyles for that reason.

You can wear a windbreaker and corduroys into a courtroom, but don't try that noisy **** in a library.

Side note: I hate threads where TM has become the voice of reason. It just isn't as fun.

TragicMonkey · 27th February 2013, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Banning non-violent "I don't like you" stuff does so much more harm to those who "are not liked". Banning it says that the haters hate is legitimate and "we", this institution, must protect you because you are in some sort of danger.

That's an adult's perspective. Tell it to the one gay twelve year old looking at thirty classmates wearing anti gay shirts. And hide the razor blades while you're at it.

StankApe · 27th February 2013, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

That's an adult's perspective. Tell it to the one gay twelve year old looking at thirty classmates wearing anti gay shirts. And hide the razor blades while you're at it.

don't let anyone wear any shirt depicting a position or an issue and we solve the problem.

school is for learning not for the propagation of one's own personal political propaganda

Alt+F4 · 27th February 2013, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

That's an adult's perspective. Tell it to the one gay twelve year old looking at thirty classmates wearing anti gay shirts. And hide the razor blades while you're at it.

First of all, there is no evidence of any threat of violence in this case. Second, I was that gay 12 year-old (a million years ago) and pretending the hate didn't exist did not make anything better.

I say bring all the bile to the surface. We can only learn to except each other when we understand each other. Telling a gay-hater to put his shirt away doesn't stop his hate, it only tells him that his message has meaning.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th February 2013, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

The ACLU is correct, if the school doesn't like it they can require uniforms. But if you're going to allow kids to express political opinions on t-shirts you can't pick and choose which opinions you allow.

Since when is every tee shirt message political? When is every dress code restriction equal? I'm guessing profanity on shirts isn't allowed.

When I was in high school we were all told we couldn't wear hippie beads or our Mickey Mouse tee shirts. Someone decided it was 'gang' attire.

I'm just saying it isn't quite as black and white as you state.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th February 2013, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I think the school did the right thing in capitulating to the ACLU. The cost of fighting would not be worth it and would only give the kid more attention.

On the basis of budget considerations, I agree.

But, there's still the matter of how to teach tolerance. Perhaps a grassroots campaign against intolerance. At the schools here there are organized Gay-Straight Alliances.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th February 2013, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

So who decides the accepted veiwpoint? Should you be allowed to wear an Obama 2012 shirt in my public library? This district was like 75-25 Romney. Should I be allowed to wear my Romney/Ryan 2012 t-shirt to a Chicago public library?

The rule for content-neutrality is there for a reason. You cannot honestly call yourself a free-speech advocate when all you advocate is your own veiwpoint.

Your library has free speech dress code restrictions?

(I mean besides public profanity rules.)

Alt+F4 · 27th February 2013, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

But, there's still the matter of how to teach tolerance.

Yes, but banning anti-tolerance speech is not the answer.

StankApe · 27th February 2013, 11:35 AM

many people on the left don't seem to get that disagreeing with their POV isn't hate speech.

that's the evils of PC, you shout down dissent and thus give the offending words creedence (not to mention generate anger from them) and then sit back and call them names ,feeling smug, when they dare to get mad at you.

your position isn't "right" it's your position. their POV is of equal merit and is thus protected equally.

either both sides get to wear expressive shirts or neither does.

Alt+F4 · 27th February 2013, 11:38 AM

Guns, drunk drivers, illegal drugs will harm you.

Speech won't.

Cylinder · 27th February 2013, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Your library has free speech dress code restrictions?

(I mean besides public profanity rules.)

No - that was a question. A public libray (i.e. operated by the government) could not enforce such a restriction.

dudalb · 27th February 2013, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by StankApe

many people on the left don't seem to get that disagreeing with their POV isn't hate speech.

that's the evils of PC, you shout down dissent and thus give the offending words creedence (not to mention generate anger from them) and then sit back and call them names ,feeling smug, when they dare to get mad at you.

your position isn't "right" it's your position. their POV is of equal merit and is thus protected equally.

either both sides get to wear expressive shirts or neither does.

This.

TragicMonkey · 27th February 2013, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Guns, drunk drivers, illegal drugs will harm you.

Speech won't.

You sure about that? Post your social security number. Let's see if harm results.

StankApe · 27th February 2013, 12:00 PM

867-53-09eeeine

Alt+F4 · 27th February 2013, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You sure about that? Post your social security number. Let's see if harm results.

Identity theft is a crime (fraud). Crime is not a right protected under the United States Constitution. Saying you don't like some is doing nothing except saying you don't like someone.

Try again.

TragicMonkey · 27th February 2013, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Identity theft is a crime (fraud). Crime is not a right protected under the United States Constitution. Saying you don't like some is doing nothing except saying you don't like someone.

Try again.

Except that the effect of the message is not merely "I don't like you." For starters, a student being permitted to rear an anti gay shirt is sending the message that his sentiment and the expression of it us not only legitimate but actually endorsed by authority. This social, public institution, is sending the message that this is acceptable. Its the norm. Its mainstream. Because they can forbid other similar speech, but not this message. Its A okay!

And yes, we are all very impressed that you were such a special kid that you didn't mind constant hate all around you all the time. But you know what? Not everybody islkke that. In childhood. We can't expect children to rise above authority-endorsed hate propaganda when there is a far easier solution- just don't permit social or political messages that disrupt order in the limited confines of the school.

StankApe · 27th February 2013, 12:18 PM

but you can't pick sides either, both or neither.

Alt+F4 · 27th February 2013, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

This social, public institution, is sending the message that this is acceptable. Its the norm. Its mainstream. Because they can forbid other similar speech, but not this message. Its A okay!

Absolutely correct! Yes, an anti-gay message is acceptable. So is an anti-Jew, anti-black & anti-whoever is ok as long is it is just SPEECH. Why are you so afraid of free speech?

Quote:

And yes, we are all very impressed that you were such a special kid that you didn't mind constant hate all around you all the time.

Who said I was a special kid? I didn't. I wasn't a special kid and I'm not a special adult. I wish that growing up as a gay kid in the 1970s folks could have talked about stuff rather than shoving everything under the rug.

Quote:

But you know what? Not everybody islkke that. In childhood. We can't expect children to rise above authority-endorsed hate propaganda when there is a far easier solution- just don't permit social or political messages that disrupt order in the limited confines of the school.

Do you really think "don't permit" in anyway helps any child?

Cylinder · 27th February 2013, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Except that the effect of the message is not merely "I don't like you." For starters, a student being permitted to rear an anti gay shirt is sending the message that his sentiment and the expression of it us not only legitimate but actually endorsed by authority. This social, public institution, is sending the message that this is acceptable. Its the norm. Its mainstream. Because they can forbid other similar speech, but not this message. Its A okay!

This is where our founders earned their pay. This essential freedom allows you or me to speak up themselves and say This idea is wrong! This idea has no merit or legitimacy! This idea is not normal! This idea is far outside the mainstream! In that way, we are allowed to talk among ourselves and tell the government how to think instead of the government telling us to shut up and, by the way, this is how to think.

Lowpro · 27th February 2013, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

The ACLU is correct, if the school doesn't like it they can require uniforms. But if you're going to allow kids to express political opinions on t-shirts you can't pick and choose which opinions you allow.

On political opinions I agree. I think there may be a "slippery slope" thought on this because opinion, political or otherwise, can be subjective or purposely formulated from another thought process that is more than an opinion such as instigating hate or victimization. An example would be tailoring an opinion of "Kill the gays" and masking it as a more benign "Gays can't reproduce, problem solves itself*". It's not fair for us to imply the first opinion being used to formulate the second...UNLESS we know more about the individual or maybe the T-shirt manufacturer. Let's say the T-shirt was sold through some weird KKK website (hey, maybe they have one?) basically trying to wedge in their message. Or maybe if I had my signature on a shirt...basically saying "If your messiah comes back I'm gonna kill him"

That's essentially the slippery slope problem. Discretion should be practiced by everyone but people are also very crafty... Anecdote but I remember another time where some of the band kids in my high school wore a shirt that said "Bust a Nut" and tried to pass it off as if it were reference to an instrument. But our principle had them duct tape over the shirt and told them not to wear it again because it was indecent.

*Not saying that's an actual shirt but the sentiment has been displayed verbally many times. It's basically wishing the gays to die off because for some reason their existence irks others. I dunno why, people are stupid.

Alt+F4 · 27th February 2013, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

This essential freedom allows you or me to speak up themselves and say This idea is wrong! This idea has no merit or legitimacy! This idea is not normal! This idea is far outside the mainstream! In that way, we are allowed to talk among ourselves and tell the government how to think instead of the government telling us to shut up and, by the way, this is how to think.

And we can't speak up against injustices unless we know about them. We can't enlighten folks unless we know what they are thinking.

Dessi · 27th February 2013, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Except that the effect of the message is not merely "I don't like you." For starters, a student being permitted to rear an anti gay shirt is sending the message that his sentiment and the expression of it us not only legitimate but actually endorsed by authority. This social, public institution, is sending the message that this is acceptable. Its the norm. Its mainstream. Because they can forbid other similar speech, but not this message. Its A okay!

^ exactly this. Words can and do hurt.

StankApe's comments that all views are equal or deserve equal consideration is wrong. Case in point: there's a reason why American schools celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday instead of David Duke's, namely that racism is an irrational prejudice with a long history of terrorizing entire classes of people. Racist views are wrong, and don't deserve equal consideration in schools.

A kid wearing a David Duke shirt, or a shirt putting a slash across a Star of David would be sent home in a hurry for intimidating, provoking, and antagonizing black and Jewish students. What in particular separates those messages from one targeting LGBT students instead? Nothing.

TragicMonkey · 27th February 2013, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

And we can't speak up against injustices unless we know about them. We can't enlighten folks unless we know what they are thinking.

And you are insisting the burden of championing social justice and philosophy of democratic ideals be borne by children in school as they are trying to get an education.

Except they aren't free to debate because they are there to learn and have to listen to the teacher and take tests and read books. They don't have the free time to debate some guy's shirt. Because the purpose of school is not to demonstrate how much the Founding Fathers ideals gives you a boner, its to freaking learn the things they're supposed to.

TragicMonkey · 27th February 2013, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

This is where our founders earned their pay. This essential freedom allows you or me to speak up themselves and say This idea is wrong! This idea has no merit or legitimacy! This idea is not normal! This idea is far outside the mainstream! In that way, we are allowed to talk among ourselves and tell the government how to think instead of the government telling us to shut up and, by the way, this is how to think.

So in your school, you could just stop class to discuss somebody's shirt?

Skeptic Ginger · 27th February 2013, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Yes, but banning anti-tolerance speech is not the answer.

That depends on the setting. I'm pretty sure it's a good idea to ban anti-tolerance messages in school settings.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th February 2013, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Guns, drunk drivers, illegal drugs will harm you.

Speech won't.

I believe one can tie more than a few suicides to words that weren't supposed to hurt.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th February 2013, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

....

either both sides get to wear expressive shirts or neither does.

Apply that to a teach tolerance tee shirt vs one with a black man in a noose.

TragicMonkey · 27th February 2013, 01:14 PM

I guess my point boils down to this: school, even public school, is not the same as being in public. Its very nature is that its populated by minors who do not have the freedom to leave or object to authority. They can, are, and should be subject to rules designed to maximize the function of the place, which means the creation of order to allow education. If the rules are more restrictive than the laws are for non students, and adults, that is an unfortunate result of necessity because we do not live in an ideal world where everyone respects order and all are equally able to defend their rights and points of view.

Luckily school doesn't last forever, and eventually the students will grow up, leave, and enjoy the freedom to be perfect ******** to each other.

27th February 2013, 08:59 AM	#121
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,768	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey I have to wonder then whether students at public schools are allowed to bring firearms to school. After all, its their Second Amendment right. If a public schools cannot have rules more restrictive than the law for the rest of the public, then why would they be able to have a rule stopping students from bringing their guns in? What's the connection, in this case, between bringing a gun to school and wearing a shirt that basically says "I don't like you"?
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

27th February 2013, 09:00 AM	#122
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,827	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey I have to wonder then whether students at public schools are allowed to bring firearms to school. After all, its their Second Amendment right. If a public schools cannot have rules more restrictive than the law for the rest of the public, then why would they be able to have a rule stopping students from bringing their guns in? Really? Reductio ad absurdum. That rule is content-neutral and narrowly fulfills a legitimate and compelling function of the institution. It's also an illegal activity.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

27th February 2013, 09:03 AM	#123
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,827	Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost The school officials have a duty to make sure the kids aren't wearing inflammatory things like gang related whatever... or shirts about how uncomfortable gays make them feel... I'd think this would become trouble if half the school decided that since this one guy can do it, why can't weeeeeee Gang colors would be an interesting case, I guess, but still lacks the feature of subjective content.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

27th February 2013, 09:05 AM	#124
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,037	Originally Posted by Cylinder Really? Reductio ad absurdum. That rule is content-neutral and narrowly fulfills a legitimate and compelling function of the institution. It's also an illegal activity. Except that restriction certain speech does fulfill a legitimate and compelling function of public school. And if you can have a law that limits one amendment's rights in school, why not another?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

27th February 2013, 09:07 AM	#125
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,037	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 What's the connection, in this case, between bringing a gun to school and wearing a shirt that basically says "I don't like you"? Both are examples of rules that prevent something that is a guaranteed constitutional right. Yet one is sensible and the other is apparently a gross violation of freedom.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

27th February 2013, 09:12 AM	#126
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Except that restriction certain speech does fulfill a legitimate and compelling function of public school. And if you can have a law that limits one amendment's rights in school, why not another? I'm convinced. No more pro-gay t-shirts. Done and done. Thanks.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,602

27th February 2013, 09:14 AM	#127
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,768	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Except that restriction certain speech does fulfill a legitimate and compelling function of public school. Indeed, when that speech threatens violence, shows gore or uses obscenity. Banning an "I don't like you" shirt is not fulfilling a legitimate or compelling function of public schools. The day that non-violent speech is banned in public schools is the day when the idea (thank you Horace Mann) of public education is dead. Democratic education for a democratic nation. Quote: And if you can have a law that limits one amendment's rights in school, why not another? Public schools are government institutions, the same as courts. Guns are not allowed in courts either.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

27th February 2013, 09:17 AM	#128
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,768	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Both are examples of rules that prevent something that is a guaranteed constitutional right. Yet one is sensible and the other is apparently a gross violation of freedom. Guaranteed? Yikes, ask Korematsu, Plessey, Shenck (well they are all dead, but you know what I mean). There are no, none absolute rights in the United States Constitution....otherwise I would be able to have a small nuclear device in the trunk of my car.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

27th February 2013, 10:13 AM	#129
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,037	Originally Posted by 16.5 I'm convinced. No more pro-gay t-shirts. Done and done. Thanks. That might well be an effect, yes. And yes, it would be acceptable. The point of public school is to educate, not provide an environment for the practice of an ideal form of democracy. Minors and students already don't possess the full range of rights adult non students enjoy, why a T-shirt message, whatever its content, is a bridge too far eludes me. Or was I supposed to say something stupid about allowing some expressions but not others, based on what my own views are? Sorry, I'm not like that. I see no problem with a blanket rule against ALL messages on clothing in public school, regardless of content. School is not the same as the public, even if it is a public school.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

27th February 2013, 10:19 AM	#130
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,037	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 Indeed, when that speech threatens violence, shows gore or uses obscenity. Banning an "I don't like you" shirt is not fulfilling a legitimate or compelling function of public schools. The day that non-violent speech is banned in public schools is the day when the idea (thank you Horace Mann) of public education is dead. Democratic education for a democratic nation. Public schools are government institutions, the same as courts. Guns are not allowed in courts either. That you don't feel an "I don't like you" message is disruptive doesn't mean a school board terms the same way. They probably disallow messages about sex as well. Violent speech isn't the only speech that can and should be reasonably repressed in the environment if a school. And the court example is to show that public institutions can and do have more limits on behavior than there are in law for everywhere outside those places. I can sing loudly in my house. I can sing less loudly in public. I may not sing at all in the gallery of a courtroom during a trial. Are my rights restricted? Yes. Does that mean I do not have them? No.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

27th February 2013, 10:20 AM	#131
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,806	Jeezdang! When I was twelve I got sent home for having my hair too brightly dyed, told to dye it back to dark as it was disrupting the other students' ability to concentrate, and was making learning and teaching hard.
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

27th February 2013, 10:25 AM	#132
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,768	Banning non-violent "I don't like you" stuff does so much more harm to those who "are not liked". Banning it says that the haters hate is legitimate and "we", this institution, must protect you because you are in some sort of danger.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

27th February 2013, 10:26 AM	#133
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey The institutions in question make their rules based in what's necessary to maintain order enough to fulfill their functions. A library would likely have a much less destructive set of rules in the matter of clothing expression than would a courtroom. A school would tend to be as restrictive as it could be because the nature of the place is that disruption of attention thwarts its primary function. They even have rules about hairstyles for that reason. You can wear a windbreaker and corduroys into a courtroom, but don't try that noisy **** in a library. Side note: I hate threads where TM has become the voice of reason. It just isn't as fun.
	__________________ shift key currently inoperative. sorry for the inconvenience. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Jonah Baldwin: Talk to her, dad. She's a doctor. Sam Baldwin: Of what? Her first name could be Doctor. - Sleepless in Seattle

27th February 2013, 10:31 AM	#134
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,037	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 Banning non-violent "I don't like you" stuff does so much more harm to those who "are not liked". Banning it says that the haters hate is legitimate and "we", this institution, must protect you because you are in some sort of danger. That's an adult's perspective. Tell it to the one gay twelve year old looking at thirty classmates wearing anti gay shirts. And hide the razor blades while you're at it.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

27th February 2013, 10:34 AM	#135
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey That's an adult's perspective. Tell it to the one gay twelve year old looking at thirty classmates wearing anti gay shirts. And hide the razor blades while you're at it. don't let anyone wear any shirt depicting a position or an issue and we solve the problem. school is for learning not for the propagation of one's own personal political propaganda
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

27th February 2013, 11:08 AM	#136
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,768	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey That's an adult's perspective. Tell it to the one gay twelve year old looking at thirty classmates wearing anti gay shirts. And hide the razor blades while you're at it. First of all, there is no evidence of any threat of violence in this case. Second, I was that gay 12 year-old (a million years ago) and pretending the hate didn't exist did not make anything better. I say bring all the bile to the surface. We can only learn to except each other when we understand each other. Telling a gay-hater to put his shirt away doesn't stop his hate, it only tells him that his message has meaning.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

27th February 2013, 11:25 AM	#137
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,489	Originally Posted by WildCat The ACLU is correct, if the school doesn't like it they can require uniforms. But if you're going to allow kids to express political opinions on t-shirts you can't pick and choose which opinions you allow. Since when is every tee shirt message political? When is every dress code restriction equal? I'm guessing profanity on shirts isn't allowed. When I was in high school we were all told we couldn't wear hippie beads or our Mickey Mouse tee shirts. Someone decided it was 'gang' attire. I'm just saying it isn't quite as black and white as you state.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th February 2013, 11:27 AM	#138
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,489	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith I think the school did the right thing in capitulating to the ACLU. The cost of fighting would not be worth it and would only give the kid more attention. On the basis of budget considerations, I agree. But, there's still the matter of how to teach tolerance. Perhaps a grassroots campaign against intolerance. At the schools here there are organized Gay-Straight Alliances.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th February 2013, 11:29 AM	#139
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,489	Originally Posted by Cylinder So who decides the accepted veiwpoint? Should you be allowed to wear an Obama 2012 shirt in my public library? This district was like 75-25 Romney. Should I be allowed to wear my Romney/Ryan 2012 t-shirt to a Chicago public library? The rule for content-neutrality is there for a reason. You cannot honestly call yourself a free-speech advocate when all you advocate is your own veiwpoint. Your library has free speech dress code restrictions? (I mean besides public profanity rules.)
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th February 2013, 11:30 AM	#140
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,768	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger But, there's still the matter of how to teach tolerance. Yes, but banning anti-tolerance speech is not the answer.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

27th February 2013, 11:35 AM	#141
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	many people on the left don't seem to get that disagreeing with their POV isn't hate speech. that's the evils of PC, you shout down dissent and thus give the offending words creedence (not to mention generate anger from them) and then sit back and call them names ,feeling smug, when they dare to get mad at you. your position isn't "right" it's your position. their POV is of equal merit and is thus protected equally. either both sides get to wear expressive shirts or neither does.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

27th February 2013, 11:38 AM	#142
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,768	Guns, drunk drivers, illegal drugs will harm you. Speech won't.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky Last edited by Alt+F4; 27th February 2013 at 11:39 AM.

27th February 2013, 11:39 AM	#143
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,827	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Your library has free speech dress code restrictions? (I mean besides public profanity rules.) No - that was a question. A public libray (i.e. operated by the government) could not enforce such a restriction.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

27th February 2013, 11:56 AM	#144
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,782	Originally Posted by StankApe many people on the left don't seem to get that disagreeing with their POV isn't hate speech. that's the evils of PC, you shout down dissent and thus give the offending words creedence (not to mention generate anger from them) and then sit back and call them names ,feeling smug, when they dare to get mad at you. your position isn't "right" it's your position. their POV is of equal merit and is thus protected equally. either both sides get to wear expressive shirts or neither does. This.

27th February 2013, 11:58 AM	#145
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,037	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 Guns, drunk drivers, illegal drugs will harm you. Speech won't. You sure about that? Post your social security number. Let's see if harm results.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

27th February 2013, 12:00 PM	#146
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	867-53-09eeeine
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

27th February 2013, 12:02 PM	#147
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,768	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey You sure about that? Post your social security number. Let's see if harm results. Identity theft is a crime (fraud). Crime is not a right protected under the United States Constitution. Saying you don't like some is doing nothing except saying you don't like someone. Try again.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

27th February 2013, 12:13 PM	#148
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,037	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 Identity theft is a crime (fraud). Crime is not a right protected under the United States Constitution. Saying you don't like some is doing nothing except saying you don't like someone. Try again. Except that the effect of the message is not merely "I don't like you." For starters, a student being permitted to rear an anti gay shirt is sending the message that his sentiment and the expression of it us not only legitimate but actually endorsed by authority. This social, public institution, is sending the message that this is acceptable. Its the norm. Its mainstream. Because they can forbid other similar speech, but not this message. Its A okay! And yes, we are all very impressed that you were such a special kid that you didn't mind constant hate all around you all the time. But you know what? Not everybody islkke that. In childhood. We can't expect children to rise above authority-endorsed hate propaganda when there is a far easier solution- just don't permit social or political messages that disrupt order in the limited confines of the school.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

27th February 2013, 12:18 PM	#149
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	but you can't pick sides either, both or neither.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

27th February 2013, 12:29 PM	#150
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,768	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey This social, public institution, is sending the message that this is acceptable. Its the norm. Its mainstream. Because they can forbid other similar speech, but not this message. Its A okay! Absolutely correct! Yes, an anti-gay message is acceptable. So is an anti-Jew, anti-black & anti-whoever is ok as long is it is just SPEECH. Why are you so afraid of free speech? Quote: And yes, we are all very impressed that you were such a special kid that you didn't mind constant hate all around you all the time. Who said I was a special kid? I didn't. I wasn't a special kid and I'm not a special adult. I wish that growing up as a gay kid in the 1970s folks could have talked about stuff rather than shoving everything under the rug. Quote: But you know what? Not everybody islkke that. In childhood. We can't expect children to rise above authority-endorsed hate propaganda when there is a far easier solution- just don't permit social or political messages that disrupt order in the limited confines of the school. Do you really think "don't permit" in anyway helps any child?
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

27th February 2013, 12:34 PM	#151
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,827	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Except that the effect of the message is not merely "I don't like you." For starters, a student being permitted to rear an anti gay shirt is sending the message that his sentiment and the expression of it us not only legitimate but actually endorsed by authority. This social, public institution, is sending the message that this is acceptable. Its the norm. Its mainstream. Because they can forbid other similar speech, but not this message. Its A okay! This is where our founders earned their pay. This essential freedom allows you or me to speak up themselves and say This idea is wrong! This idea has no merit or legitimacy! This idea is not normal! This idea is far outside the mainstream! In that way, we are allowed to talk among ourselves and tell the government how to think instead of the government telling us to shut up and, by the way, this is how to think.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

27th February 2013, 12:41 PM	#152
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,517	Originally Posted by WildCat The ACLU is correct, if the school doesn't like it they can require uniforms. But if you're going to allow kids to express political opinions on t-shirts you can't pick and choose which opinions you allow. On political opinions I agree. I think there may be a "slippery slope" thought on this because opinion, political or otherwise, can be subjective or purposely formulated from another thought process that is more than an opinion such as instigating hate or victimization. An example would be tailoring an opinion of "Kill the gays" and masking it as a more benign "Gays can't reproduce, problem solves itself". It's not fair for us to imply the first opinion being used to formulate the second...UNLESS we know more about the individual or maybe the T-shirt manufacturer. Let's say the T-shirt was sold through some weird KKK website (hey, maybe they have one?) basically trying to wedge in their message. Or maybe if I had my signature on a shirt...basically saying "If your messiah comes back I'm gonna kill him" That's essentially the slippery slope problem. Discretion should be practiced by everyone but people are also very crafty... Anecdote but I remember another time where some of the band kids in my high school wore a shirt that said "Bust a Nut" and tried to pass it off as if it were reference to an instrument. But our principle had them duct tape over the shirt and told them not to wear it again because it was indecent. Not saying that's an actual shirt but the sentiment has been displayed verbally many times. It's basically wishing the gays to die off because for some reason their existence irks others. I dunno why, people are stupid.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers Last edited by Lowpro; 27th February 2013 at 12:45 PM.

27th February 2013, 12:44 PM	#153
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,768	Originally Posted by Cylinder This essential freedom allows you or me to speak up themselves and say This idea is wrong! This idea has no merit or legitimacy! This idea is not normal! This idea is far outside the mainstream! In that way, we are allowed to talk among ourselves and tell the government how to think instead of the government telling us to shut up and, by the way, this is how to think. And we can't speak up against injustices unless we know about them. We can't enlighten folks unless we know what they are thinking.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

27th February 2013, 12:51 PM	#154
Dessi Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 1,904	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Except that the effect of the message is not merely "I don't like you." For starters, a student being permitted to rear an anti gay shirt is sending the message that his sentiment and the expression of it us not only legitimate but actually endorsed by authority. This social, public institution, is sending the message that this is acceptable. Its the norm. Its mainstream. Because they can forbid other similar speech, but not this message. Its A okay! ^ exactly this. Words can and do hurt. StankApe's comments that all views are equal or deserve equal consideration is wrong. Case in point: there's a reason why American schools celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday instead of David Duke's, namely that racism is an irrational prejudice with a long history of terrorizing entire classes of people. Racist views are wrong, and don't deserve equal consideration in schools. A kid wearing a David Duke shirt, or a shirt putting a slash across a Star of David would be sent home in a hurry for intimidating, provoking, and antagonizing black and Jewish students. What in particular separates those messages from one targeting LGBT students instead? Nothing.
	__________________ >^.^<

27th February 2013, 12:56 PM	#155
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,037	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 And we can't speak up against injustices unless we know about them. We can't enlighten folks unless we know what they are thinking. And you are insisting the burden of championing social justice and philosophy of democratic ideals be borne by children in school as they are trying to get an education. Except they aren't free to debate because they are there to learn and have to listen to the teacher and take tests and read books. They don't have the free time to debate some guy's shirt. Because the purpose of school is not to demonstrate how much the Founding Fathers ideals gives you a boner, its to freaking learn the things they're supposed to.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.