Anti-Gay T-Shirts Not Allowed – For Now
The AP is reporting that ADF’s cover-twink, Tyler Chase Harper, can be restricted from wearing a shirt that says “homosexuality is shameful” to school – at least until his case can be heard.
Harper is claiming a first amendment right to try to shame his fellow students.
A majority of judges said, however, that Tyler Chase Harper was unlikely to prevail on claims that the Poway Unified School District violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion for keeping him out of class when he wore a shirt with the message “homosexuality is shameful.”
The lawsuit results from Harper’s response to the 2004 Day of Silence. Harper refused to change his shirt and so was held out of class for a day and allowed to do homework in a conference room.
On Thursday, the three-judge appeals court panel said “the school is permitted to prohibit Harper’s conduct…if it can demonstrate that the restriction was necessary to prevent either the violation of the rights of other students or substantial disruption of school activities.”
The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Sydney Thomas for a 2-1 ruling, didn’t decide the merits of the student’s lawsuit, which will be heard in federal court in San Diego.
The dissenting judge seemed unable to distinguish between the tactics employed by the Day of Silence and those employed by Harper:
“Harper’s T-shirt was not an out-of-the-blue affront to fellow students who were minding their own business,” Kozinski wrote. “Rather, Harper wore his T-shirt in response to the Day of Silence, a political activity that was sponsored or at the very least tolerated by school authorities.”
Kozinski did not differentiate between an event that was focused on inclusion and tolerance of others and a T-shirt message that sought to diminish and show distain for others. Kozinski validated Harper’s belief, a common one among the politically religious, that stating any beliefs which they do not endorse is an attack on them and their right to harm gay people.
Fortunately, for the moment, the politics of exclusion and shaming have been put on hold.
UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times has a more substantive article
I love the strong defense of free speech this string generated. I usually side with libertarian values and am glad of so many champions. However…
I think we are missing a few points that the majority did not miss:
1. We know that school children grow in maturity and so the First Amendment rules do not apply in the same manner in school as they do in public life. Nor do rules apply the same as children age. While it is acceptable to say “Democrat voters are filthy commies” in high school, it is not OK for 5th graders to tell 1st graders that their parents “filthy commies”.
The majority distinguished between restrictions on apparel in grammar and high school but not higher learning.
Protecting our cherished free speech rights is important. But restrictions on offensive clothing in school are not new nor does it start us on some slippery slope.
2. The whole point of Constitutional lawsuits is to clarify positions. To simply say that Tinker answered the question for all cases forever is a bit simplistic, I think.
3. I think it is agreed that “Homosexual Students are Shameful” would not be protected speech on campus, just as “Catholics are Idol Worshipers”, “Baptists are Bigots”, or “Jews are Jesus-Killers” would not be allowed. Such a direct attack on individuals would, undoubtedly, create an environment designed to disrupt the learning of such targeted students. As the majority noted, to the gay student there is no distinction between “homosexuality is shameful” and “homosexuals are shameful” since one is defined by the other, at least on the part of the person wearing the shirt.
4. The shirt did not just express Harper’s opinion about the shamefulness of homosexuality and stop there. The front of the shirt bore the message “Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned”. Harper was condemning both homosexuality AND tolerance of gay people. This front-of-the-shirt message expresses a more direct attack on gay individuals. It says, in essence, that gay students should not be tolerated and that they should be silenced.
This is not a gentle message of spiritual belief. Nor could anyone read it and not know that, in the context of following the Day of Silence, it was a direct assault on gay students. It said “gay students, you are condemned by God, and anyone who tolerates you should be ashamed”.
5. The question of whether hostility to gay students is damaging is not theoretical. As the majority noted, of teenage victims of anti-gay discrimination, 75% experienced a decline in academic performance, 39% had truancy problems and 28% dropped out of school.
Taking steps to reverse this is an acceptable activity of a school.
6. I do not believe that this incident was unplanned. When confronted about his shirt, Harper demanded to be suspended, thus setting up a scenario in which he would be punished for his belief – I doubt Harper came up with that on his own.
The principal didn’t fall for that trap and instead isolated Harper’s offensive shirt; but did not in any way punish Harper. That will, I believe, be important in the determination of the case.
7. This is not an isolated case. There is an ongoing effort to create a constitutional right to harass gay people and create a hostile environment. Currently a student at Georgia Tech is suing for the right to berate gay students – current campus rules don’t allow language that puts down other students. She’s arguing that her religion compels her “to speak out against homosexuality” and is demanding that the school revoke its tolerance policy.
This is also related to lawsuits against businesses who don’t allow anti-gay religious messages posted visibly. The same folks supporting Harper are also the same folks who wish to overturn anti-discrimination rules in hiring of public employees. They fight for the right to refuse tax-dollar-based services to gay people.
ADF and the other anti-gay legal groups are hoping that courts will find that protection of religion trumps the safety of gay students or productive workplaces. They are hoping that any support currently given to any gay people anywhere will be removed under the guise of religious protection. They want the court to say that their right to condemn you – even in private, workplace, or captive locations such as school – trumps your right to be left alone.
I don’t, in general, favor speech restrictions. I’m not a big fan of “hate speech” rules. And I would never want to go as far as Canada has gone in their restrictions on public discourse.
But freedom of speech is not the goal that ADF and company are seeking. They don’t seek to overturn rules restricting racial, gender, or religious harassment. They simply wish to be allowed to attack, fire, evict, diminish, shame, and in all ways create an environment that is hostile to people who are gay.
And if gay students drop-out or commit suicide, frankly, they just don’t care.
Also, it is worth noting that according to the LA Times:
“Both Reinhardt and Judge Sidney Thomas, who joined the majority opinion, are strong supporters of the 1st Amendment.”
Kendall I’d like to further address your statement “Pro-gay vs Anti-gay views however are not fact based, they’re value-based. Anti-gay values cannot legally be held to be of less worth than pro-gay values just because they offend some people.”.
This makes no sense. Both views have basis in facts like: some people are attracted to the same sex; traditional society has a negative view of that; there are cases of gays being bullied verbally, physically, fired from jobs, evicted, etc. You’re saying the legal system can’t judge between values and that’s completely wrong. The legal system makes value judgements all the time, from whether or not a convict’s life should be valued or ended to whether or not people should be allowed to enact the religious belief that gays must be put to death. The legal system certainly can choose between anti-gay and pro-gay values just as it allows people to oppose killing others but not to request someone’s murder (in Canada, anyway).
The pro-gay viewpoint is essentially that LGBTs do not deserve the severe psychological and sometimes economic and physical injury traditional society has heaped on us. The anti-gay value is essentially that we are a problem and we must change. The law certainly can and I hope must eventually agree with the former, not the latter.
Kendall, you said “I’m reasonably sure for every [KKK] demonstration they hold there are counter demonstrations. That’s all Chase Harper allegedly tried to do.”
That may have been all he tried to do but regardless the result was injurious and is a reasonable thing to restrict.
Kendall, you disagree with my statement “Homosexuality is shameful” is a direct rejection of a core aspect of some people’s personality. Religious choices, especially choices involving minority aspects of a religion, are in no way a comparable and protected core of a person’s being.”
You said “That’s only true if you believe (as I do and Chase Harper quite apparently doesn’t) that homosexuality is innate and at least strongly influenced by genetic factors. Chase Harper honestly, really does seem to believe its a choice and he’s trying to save people. So to Chase his speech is NOT attacking a person’s core identity, he’s attacking someone’s choice in life. (as if you can choose who you fall in love with…)”.
It doesn’t matter if same or opposite sex attraction is genetic or a choice, no one will argue that the gender of who you are attracted to is a highly signigicant part of self while the need to tell others “homosexuality is shameful” is only a significant part of self for the deeply disturbed.
You disagree with my statement “Just because people have a high “ick” factor when it comes to gays doesn’t give them the right to injure others with hostile speech by re-inforcing the idea that gays are nothing but “icky”. We wouldn’t tolerate someone in school teaching others Blacks or Jews are icky – this kind of indicates the very need for education in tolerance via day of silence, etc. ”
You said “Teaching? No. believing and having racist thoughts? sure, as long as they never said the “N” word or spoke derrogatorally about an individual student. This is about a student, not a teacher.”
I was referring to the student, not the teacher. I meant the student chase’s t-shirt “teaches” other students that “homosexuality is shameful” If you’re going to allow that statement on the basis of free speech how are you going to disallow using the “N” word? You say its not okay to speak derogatorily about about an individual student, if you believe that how why is it okay to speak derogatorily about a group of students by saying “Homosexuality is shameful”? You can’t have it both ways.
Kendall you then said “You can’t say “Ok, you’re free to express that religious view in school but please keep THAT one away, some of our students might object.”"
That may be true, but one definitely can say you’re not allowed to express any “religious” view that denigrates others, whether individually, or in groups. Remember you said it was wrong to speak derogatorily of an individual
Timothy, you said “I don’t, in general, favor speech restrictions. I’m not a big fan of “hate speech” rules. And I would never want to go as far as Canada has gone in their restrictions on public discourse.”.
I am mystified, just what is it about what Canada has done that concerns you? So Fred Phelps was threatened with arrest if he stated while in Canada that fags should be put to death. So what?
How exactly do you see that being a problem. How do you see this causing that, causing that, causing something we’d all agree is bad?
I fail to see where this has harmed anyone in even the most indirect way – excluding prohibiting the denigration of gays, if you want to call that harm.
Ooh, crikey. (that was said sarcasticall BTW — neither of us use the expression IRL). Could this become the longest post string ever?I think it’s fair to say that we’re all struggling with reconciling common opinions in favour of open speech… and at the same time knowing what this could mean for an embattled minority that we wish to support.The big differences between the Powys high school and Tinker is that it involved citizens making protest about government policy, rather than making comments about fellow students per se. Regardless of how far we think one should go regards personal comments directed at fellow high school students, I hope we’re all agreed that in a democracy we all retain the right, anywhere and any place, to protest (or support) government policy. Tinker struck directly at censorship by government about government — a prime reason the First exists.I think this is why the Majority was careful to distinguish where Tinker was applicable, but they didn’t rely on it. Unless we think free speech is an absolute that overrides all other rights (and no ones done that), we face — as the judges did — a matter of balance:
They recognised a right to free speech, but also recognised the right of high school students to not be abused.They found the t-shirt was abusiveThey found the limited forum while in the high school did not materially constrict those who wanted to express anti-gay viewpoints (and did not, at all, prevent anyone having those anti-gay viewpoints)They found that applying a limited forum within the school was for proper educational purposesFrankly, I doubt the gay students at Powys aren’t already well aware of those anti-gay opinions. I doubt anyone suddenly thought “oh gee, I never thought of that” because some adolescent twerp turned up in a t-shirt. Preventing same said adolecent twerp from wearing that t-shirt doesn’t materially alter his place in the school, but it does protect the place of others (many of whom may be reluctant to speak out — hence the Day of Silence in the first place.And agree Timothy — did pick up on the “Suspend me. Go on suspend me!” from Harper. Clean forgot to add it at the end, but it did strike me as odd behaviour. All too suspicious, actually. I could imagine a 15 year complaining to high heaven about being restricted in their actions, but to specifically beg to be suspended???
Ok, I came back from class (I’m currently a college student studying to become a lawyer) with half a dozen responses to me. I hope people won’t be upset if I just touch on some main points here and address the rest a little later.
Reagan – First, I’d like to say I’ve found you to be a particularly eloquent defender of gays, I do highly admire you for your grace, your consistency, your incredible compassion, as well as your knowledge on so many issues important to the gay community.
With that said, I agree with a lot of your points. No one can doubt that very few communities have been reviled as much as gays over the years. Even with blacks and the horrible racism, the slavery, and the laws which we had that dehumanized them, blacks were never executed as a general rule under the law merely for being black as gays were merely for being gay if they were caught.
You’re also spot on that you cannot restrict speech based on past injustices. However, I disagree that you can restrict current speech from continuing historical discrimination. Chase Harper is fairly obviously a bigot. He’s hoping to make his religious “point” believing that he’s “spreading the word.” I agree he’s very closeminded. But I don’t think the answer to discriminatory speech is more discrimination. I think the best way to achieve freedom for gay and lesbian students is to give it to our opponents.
Robis – “So correct me if I’m wrong here, Kendall, but you seem to be saying that because Chase is sincere in his beliefs, that gives his bad behavior a pass. That sounds pretty faulty to me. After all, people in the KKK are pretty sincere in their beliefs concerning the inferiority of people of color. Are we to give them a pass to engage in actions that hurt others simply because their intentions are good?”
Frankly? yes, they’re allowed to engage in actions that hurt others. Cross burning for example is not a banned activity in the United States
So, no, you’re exactly right. Under Supreme Court precedent the KKK is free to burn crosses, its free to express its “white pride” “racialist” bigotry so long as its not targetting and harassing a specific family or a specific individual.
David – I think you confuse what the Tinker decision said about “materially and substantially disruptive” speech. It doesn’t mean that speech that causes a provocatively strong negative (or positive for that matter) reaction can be prohibitted, as justice Fortas said in Tinker
Now, in fairness there is one slight difference with Tinker in this case. Some of the students in THIS school in past years allegedly resisted removing their t-shirt with their message and had to be suspended. This might be considered disruptive conduct certainly. However, there is no contention that the t-shirt itself was disruptive, and in fact it seems that if the school officials had not confronted those students regarding their choice of shirt the altercations might not have occurred.
There was also no contention that Chase Harper other than the mere presence of that article of clothing was being disruptive in his conduct. he wasn’t approaching other students, he wasn’t taunting anybody, he wasn’t even speaking anything about it as far as I know.
Mr. Kincaid, first I hope you know that I’m not attacking you by criticizing your article, I generally DO agree with your positions on issues.
however, briefly I’d like to discuss your 3rd and 4th points on your third point I don’t agree with you about “homosexuals are shameful” no r“Catholics are Idol Worshipers”, “Baptists are Bigots” but I think you might have a case with “Jews are Jesus-Killers” because in that case you’re saying an entire group of people was involved in a crime, the taking of life. I think ALL of those shirts are offensive, I wouldn’t wear any of them, but I think most public universities and many many highschools would be hard pressed to deny even that kind of odious speech.
on your 4th point – “This is not a gentle message of spiritual belief. Nor could anyone read it and not know that, in the context of following the Day of Silence, it was a direct assault on gay students. It said “gay students, you are condemned by God, and anyone who tolerates you should be ashamed”.”
actually I think you made my point for me right there. This IS in a relgious and political context. In his belief system his God condemns things like the Day of Silence. He wasn’t assaulting gay students, he was assaulting the school’s support for the Day of Silence. Afterall, he never wore that shirt on a regular basis, just on the one day the school celebrated something his beliefs conflicted with.
Randi – Ok, wow, I know you wrote a lot and I KNOW I’m not gonna hit everything right now but I WILL try to cover as much as possible here.
“This makes no sense. Both views have basis in facts like: some people are attracted to the same sex; traditional society has a negative view of that; there are cases of gays being bullied verbally, physically, fired from jobs, evicted, etc.”
All of that is true. Some people are certainly attracted to the same sex. ex-gays of course believe that you should “fight” your attractions and “overcome” homosexuality and that “complete change is completely possible” but yes, some people are attracted to the same sex no one can argue. You’re also right about discrimination of gays at all levels of society. I live in Michigan. I’m constitutional forbidden to marry someone I love. I’m also not guaranteed that I can’t be fired from a job just because I’m gay, we simply don’t have anti-discrimination laws of that sort in Michigan.
“You’re saying the legal system can’t judge between values and that’s completely wrong. The legal system makes value judgements all the time, from whether or not a convict’s life should be valued or ended to whether or not people should be allowed to enact the religious belief that gays must be put to death.”
True, but those laws are based on the Constitution of the United States which ultimately was founded on Judeo Christian traditions (regardless of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797) which would probably not frown too harshly on Chase Harper’s position except to say it didn’t go far enough (in colonial era at least, not sure Jesus himself would agree)
“The legal system certainly can choose between anti-gay and pro-gay values just as it allows people to oppose killing others but not to request someone’s murder (in Canada, anyway).”
Here you’re right with your second part but simply mistaken on your first part. In a public forum (which a school is) groups have equal access and ideas have equal access (if not equal endorsement by the school) so long as certain conditions are met on a case by case basis (students could form a “students for the Dark Lord Satan” club if they got a faculty advisor). Chase Harper has a right in the US to the same level of access as people silently protesting in the DoS.
“The pro-gay viewpoint is essentially that LGBTs do not deserve the severe psychological and sometimes economic and physical injury traditional society has heaped on us. The anti-gay value is essentially that we are a problem and we must change. The law certainly can and I hope must eventually agree with the former, not the latter.”
Yes, but some states DO strongly condemn the pro-gay view. What if, for example we were talking about Virginia or Mississippi and they ONLY allowed the day of truth but suspended any DoS observers for “promoting their agenda and harming the spiritual welfare of Christian students”? You can’t say that banning one thing is ok because you don’t like it because somewhere there is a majority community that doesn’t like what YOU like.
“It doesn’t matter if same or opposite sex attraction is genetic or a choice, no one will argue that the gender of who you are attracted to is a highly signigicant part of self while the need to tell others “homosexuality is shameful” is only a significant part of self for the deeply disturbed.”
And again, I’m sure an anti-gay person (PLEASE remember that I do agree with your intent, I’m making a legal argument not a personal one and I DO feel guilty for that because I don’t LIKE the need to defend these people) would say that they wouldn’t be speaking out against homosexuality if gays didn’t keep coming and their “lifestyle” (another buzzword in the anti-gay community that means very little) with such things as the Day of Silence. Even if its not a choice to be gay they might say, and “the need to tell others that you’re gay is deeply disturbed” (Ironically enough I came out my junior year of highschool)
“I was referring to the student, not the teacher. I meant the student chase’s t-shirt “teaches” other students that “homosexuality is shameful”"
No, that’s an opinion. Students are free to believe what they wish and Chase Harper is free to have his opinion and to express it. He obviously believes its true, as do students wearing shirts like “jesus loves me” or “jesus is within us all” or “Bush n’ Dick ’04, its nature’s way!” all of those are OPINIONS, not facts, not something students learn, not even something a school endorses or agrees with.
“If you’re going to allow that statement on the basis of free speech how are you going to disallow using the “N” word? You say its not okay to speak derogatorily about about an individual student, if you believe that how why is it okay to speak derogatorily about a group of students by saying “Homosexuality is shameful”? You can’t have it both ways.”
Profanity is not considered first ammendment speech. There’s in fact a famous case that happened in Michigan. A man was canoeing down a river (I think) and he sees some women and children over heard staring down at him from a bridge. So, he’s a little drunk and he starts cursing them. The man was arrested and fined once he left his boat for cursing in front of a woman and/or children. as far as I know that law is still on the books. Similarly, words like the “n” word or derrogatory names for other ethnicities or groups are not considered protected speech because the only purpose they have is not to express a point, but solely to cause injury. In the case we have here, Chase Harper’s words DID cause some distress for some members of the gay community, but he’s saying them in a political as well as a religious context which gives them a higher level of protection. Plus there is nothing specifically profane in what he said (If he’d used the word “fags” or “faggots” instead of “homosexuality” and said “faggots/fags are SHAMEFUL” that would probably not have been protected speech because of that word).
“That may be true, but one definitely can say you’re not allowed to express any “religious” view that denigrates others, whether individually, or in groups. Remember you said it was wrong to speak derogatorily of an individual”
That’s simply not the case in this country, especially in recent years. Students are certainly allowed to express the opinion that non believers in religion x are going to hell/whereever your religion believes nonbelievers go or any other view against another’s religion. Heck, some people are calvinists here and they believe almost EVERYONE is going to hell and its already been decided and if you’re not a calvinist you’re CERTAIN to be one of them.
Kendall,
Don’t worry, no personal offense taken. And golly gee, I’d never guess you want to be an attorney!!
Let me address a couple of your counterpoints.
“I think ALL of those shirts are offensive, I wouldn’t wear any of them, but I think most public universities and many many highschools would be hard pressed to deny even that kind of odious speech.”
I agree that they would be allowed in most public universities but I quite disagree that they’d be allowed in high school. They would be deemed disruptive because, well, they would be disruptive. And a Catholic student in a public school dominated by Southern Baptists would have the right to an education free of intimidation. I think you’d lose any suit that sought the right for Baptist students to intimidate Catholics.
“actually I think you made my point for me right there. This IS in a relgious and political context. In his belief system his God condemns things like the Day of Silence. He wasn’t assaulting gay students, he was assaulting the school’s support for the Day of Silence. Afterall, he never wore that shirt on a regular basis, just on the one day the school celebrated something his beliefs conflicted with.”
I don’t think I’ve made your point for you. It is immaterial if his belief is based on religion or on indigestion. What he was protesting was tolerance for gay students.
If the message I’m protesting is “gay students should be tolerated” then by default the protest is “gay students should NOT be tolerated”. And that is inarguably a threat against gay students.
It doesn’t matter if his religious beliefs tell him that gay students, or Jewish students, or Catholic students, or red headed students should not be tolerated. A message that is a threat to another student does not get protection simply because it has a basis in the teachings of a religion.
To take your argument to its logical conclusion, you would have to support a Muslim wearing “Jews are the Enemies of Allah”. That is a religious position based on religous belief. Yet it is also a threat against other students and within historical context it is a death threat.
“..What God Has Condemned” is no less of a threat. And it too comes with a context: quoting Scriptural prohibitions on homosexuality also implies Scriptural punishment. I don’t know what Harper thinks should be done to homosexuals, but without clarification his shirt advocates stoning them to death.
At the very least, it advocates condemning and “not tolerating” homosexuals. It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which being “not tolerated” would not be a threat.
It is both legal and responsible for school administrators to recognize a threat against other students and not subject those student to that threat. The fact that the threat originates from a religious belief is completely irrelevant.
I really think that ADL is going to lose this legal battle and my guess is that if it goes to the SCOTUS the decision will be upheld.
Oh dear me Kendall… should have gone to the decision and not Christian Science Monitor.Cross burning can be banned, and is still banned in 14 or 15 (?) States. Where Virgina came unstuck was having a law that said any burning of crosses was, prima face, fact of criminal intimidation. Which is ridiculous law — even if 99.9% was intimidatory. It was too broad.It is still possible to prosecute the burning of a cross at a public KKK rally. It would be decided on the effect of the particular act.If some nutter wanted to dress in sheets and do it privately in their own back yard, it would be protected. If they did it on their front lawn, less so. If they did it on their front lawn, opposite a black neighbour — probably not. If they did on the black neighbour’s front lawn… very not protected (quite apart from the trespass).And I think this post string now has the highest word count of all time. Woo-hoo everyone!
PS. and don’t worry about offending anyone, Kendall. You’re never going to do that simply by discussing the issues. Personally, it’s helped clarify, or finally put in some words, what we see as “acceptable” or “not” with addressing the subject in schools — been building up to that over a past few months of the topic popping up from time to time.And it seems everyone’s quite happy to have had that opportunity — thanks, ummm *going way back to the top to see who caused all this*, Timothy.
For Pete’s sakes Kendall, at what point do they teach lawyers to be concise! Seriously man, I was skimming by the time I hit the middle of your post.
David – I think you confuse what the Tinker decision said about “materially and substantially disruptive” speech. It doesn’t mean that speech that causes a provocatively strong negative (or positive for that matter) reaction can be prohibitted, as justice Fortas said in Tinker
I’m not confusing it, I just don’t happen to fully agree with Fortas. I’ve already said I would have sided with the District Court in this case. And I’m not so certain the same case would end up with the same decision in today’s court either (Fortas was quite the liberal on a liberal court, and also authored a book on civil disobedience I believe – not exactly unbiased in this matter). All that aside, if the T-Shirt is provocative enough that it causes a disturbance, even if the wearer doesn’t stand up on tables and shout, the school must deal with that. I believe they have every right to do so, even if it happens to be a protest against government policies. Mandatory public schools are a captive audience and I believe great care and reasonable control is essential to maintaining a civil environment. Can we agree that, as a matter of law, these kids don’t enjoy the full compliment of rights that an adult citizen would?
True, but those laws are based on the Constitution of the United States which ultimately was founded on Judeo Christian traditions (regardless of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797) which would probably not frown too harshly on Chase Harper’s position except to say it didn’t go far enough (in colonial era at least, not sure Jesus himself would agree)
I am probably one of the most conservative Christians posting at XGW and even I don’t believe that. Now, what our society has morphed into over the last 230 years, well that’s a different matter. But our founding fathers were far from embedded in “Judeo-Christian” values. And I dismiss the Treaty of Tripoli entirely with regards to this matter.
And while cross burning is protected, it isn’t allowed at a school. What is or isn’t protected speech for an adult outside the public schools is entirely beside the point for this discussion.
Grantdale said:
I hope we’re all agreed that in a democracy we all retain the right, anywhere and any place, to protest (or support) government policy.
No, I wouldn’t agree. For the same reasons I stated above, if that speech brings on disruption or interference with the civility and safety of the school environment, then I don’t believe that speech should necessarily be protected. As a student, I can’t just avoid a situation that endangers my safety or sense of well being – I have to be at school. Have we forgotten what kind of dread that instills when you know you have to enter a situation where you will be uncomfortable, threatened or worse? And if you don’t think that happens over political speech, read some clippings from the Vietnam era in this country. Teachers don’t even have full rights in this area, much less students.
And grantdale, remember that in almost all areas of the US, public schools are local affairs. It’s not exactly big brother
David
And I think this post string now has the highest word count of all time. Woo-hoo everyone!
Not even close grantdale – don’t forget RAJ. Some of his circular lawyer-speak would put Kendall to shame
Those threads were enormous.
David
Thanks everyone for truly allowing open and fair discussion on a controversial topic.
“I agree that they would be allowed in most public universities but I quite disagree that they’d be allowed in high school. They would be deemed disruptive because, well, they would be disruptive. And a Catholic student in a public school dominated by Southern Baptists would have the right to an education free of intimidation. I think you’d lose any suit that sought the right for Baptist students to intimidate Catholics.”
I’m not sure an anti-catholic t-shirt is intimidation of Catholics especially depending on how represented Catholics were (if it was a tiny school for instance and only say 5 of 200 highschoolers were catholic in a rural distract that’s entirely different than 300 out of 2000) indeed it is an objectionable shirt but I’m not sure its bannable.
I do think shirts which target religion are probably more questionable than shirts which attack sexual orientation though, just because sexual orientation is not (in most states) considered a “protected class” under the law like gender is and like religion is. I think it WILL be one day soon, but right now its not.
“I don’t think I’ve made your point for you. It is immaterial if his belief is based on religion or on indigestion. What he was protesting was tolerance for gay students.”
Yes, he was protesting tolerance for gay students. And you’re protesting his intolerance of gay students by saying we shouldn’t tolerate his intolerance. I don’t think making the response to intolerance more intolerance is very tolerant.
“If the message I’m protesting is “gay students should be tolerated” then by default the protest is “gay students should NOT be tolerated”. And that is inarguably a threat against gay students.”
threat Audio pronunciation of “threat” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thrt)
n.
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.
Its certainly not a very nice position that Chase Harper is advocating, but he’s not threatening anybody. He’s stating his belief, that’s it. He’s explicitly NOT stating “god will punish gays” or any such thing, he’s simply saying homosexuality is “shameful” in his opinion.
“At the very least, it advocates condemning and “not tolerating” homosexuals. It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which being “not tolerated” would not be a threat.”
depends on your definition I suppose, to me a threat is more “active” than it is passive. yes, you can infer a negative threat from Chase Harper’s shirt but he’s not making any threat. he’s simply wearing a shirt which states something he believes. just as a shirt which says “Bill Clinton: balancing the budget, kicking ass, and taking names” is not a threat, he’s not literally “kicking ass” its merely an opinion of the effect of Clinton’s policies.
Grantdale on cross burning – I agree with you, and yes, I did read the decision. I even italicized the relevant portion though. My point was not at the time that the KKK can run amok burning crosses any which way. My point is they are entitled to their views like anyone else, and they are even able to take historically offensive actions as long as it is a general statement and not an overt attempt to intimidate a particular family or group of families living in a particular town.
My point is that speech is protected if you meet a few reasonable standards mainly revolving around decency. in the case of cross burning it has to be semi private and it can’t be aimed at individuals. In the case of wearing a t-shirt you’ve gotta address whether the message is somewhat political or religious. A t-shirt that says some of the things on this page for example is trying to be funny but mainly ends up being offensive particularly to the minority groups involved in many of them or merely to the human conscious and probably wouldn’t be protected speech. Although I can’t say I don’t see the south park style humor in some of them even if they’re mostly stupid and ignorant. I think clearly a t-shirt like Mr. Harper was wearing however is a slightly higher order message. its not QUITE so stereotypical (its close in some ways, in others… its simply not) and it certainly is more respectful than some of the ones there.
and thank YOU again Grantdale and everyone for understanding where I’m coming from. I think this is the best counter for any speech we disagree with – an open dialogue that creates more speech and more awareness and more openness about an issue.
David — urgh, right, should have put “adults” in there somewhere shouldn’t I? Kids don’t vote.The two parts are confused: kids at school, of course, may not be distruptive — I’m still happy with the bit about the burden of stopping political comment on government policy being set higher than personal comment, even for them. Black arm bands don’t even come close.Tended not to read raj’s long ones that started off “As a lawyer…”
I’ll generally agree with your last statement (even if I disagree with the scope). However, as to your first point about provocative t-shirts causing disruption, does a school in say Mobile Alabama (no offense to them, just pulled it out of the air) have a right to ban the wearing of gay pride t-shirts because there you’re more likely to disrupt the school day with a pro-gay message than an anti-gay one?
yeah, Raj was entertaining though, even if he was longwinded, I’m glad I’m not QUITE that bad though. In my defense I DO have about 4-5 people arguing with me that I feel the need to respond to.
threat Audio pronunciation of “threat” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thrt)
n.
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.
“Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned. Homosexuality is Shameful”.
Yeah, I think #2 and #3 are probably relevant when considering a gay kid in high school.
Re the Alabama scenario: the point is not that both sides (or just “our side”) of a position are presented. The point is that neither side is allowed to threaten or attack the other.
The question the court addressed was whether the T-Shirt targeted certain students (gay and lesbian students) for intimidation and hindered their ability to learn in a non-threatening environment. To apply the same standard, if the pro-gay T-shirt said “Anti-Gay Christians are Bigots”, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Kendall – we can each have differing views on the Harper T-shirt issue. But there is one thing you said that cannot be defended and on which you are unquestionably wrong:
You said that “Raj was entertaining”.
Absolutely not!! Annoying, condescending, disrespectful, confusing, repetitive, and sometimes (I suspect) drunk. But definitely not entertaining.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dunno, I think contrarians are amusing sometimes (I know, shocking, right?
), and he certainly was that. I’ll grant you that he was repetitive though 
Hi Kendall, let me clarify something. I didn’t mean that speech should be restricted to correct past wrongs.
But we are talking about high school students. And what the responsibility to expression we all have.
Being gay is provocative to someone like Chase because he’s been taught to BE provoked by the presence of gay people, not anything that gay people say or do to HIM.
Furthermore, young people should also learn the definition of ‘fighting words’.
One cannot continue freely to harass, provoke or express their hostility, and expect the other party to never respond.
Schools have to maintain order so that a kid can be protected from his own stupidity.
Boys like Chase are still maintaining a provocative attitude. To either force the school to boot him (martyr) or perhaps to incite a gay student to do something.
Either way, fighting words, are serious business.
And the reality is, Chase has to understand the seriousness of his expression.
For him, it’s inconvenience, not threat to temper his expression, not his belief.
To a gay youngster, the mental and physical threat is very real by what Chase says gays and those who support them should feel.
Young people are losing their direction when it comes to balancing what is fair and necessary to a civil and cooperative society.
And what is an actual threat as opposed to a real one.
And true, the ADF and other anti gay organziations are actively putting kids like Chase up to this activity.
And their agenda is intensely preoccupied with gay people-when there is so much else that should be addressed.
After all, he’s not being told to wear a t-shirt regarding shame and divorced parents, right?
For now though-it must be noted that although the anti gay like to accuse gay people of some kind of conspiracy. For the most part the anti gay are rarely if ever met with any threat or violence from gay people directly.
I think they count on that. They know deep down that their fighting words will and do hurt, without worrying about a punch to their faces for what they say.
“They know deep down that their fighting words will and do hurt, without worrying about a punch to their faces for what they say.”
And yet they justify beating a gay person because of what he might have said: “I and four of my friends beat the crap out of the faggot because he came on to me”.
The would be shocked and horrified (and write a long article at WND) if the story was “I and four of my friends beat the crap of of the bigot because he called me an abomination”.
Kendall, you said Chase “wasn’t assaulting gay students, he was assaulting the school’s support for the Day of Silence.”.
If calling the schools support of the Day of Silence shameful is an assault then it is also an assault on the students to call homosexuality shameful. However you want to try and prettyfy it he’s still creating a hostile environment, one the school has a right to object to. How about you respond to the third mention of this:
If its okay for a teacher to stop a student from telling the teacher “Suck it”, or “You suck”, why is not okay for a teacher to stop one student from disrespecting a group of others as Chase did?
You said “the Constitution of the United States which ultimately was founded on Judeo Christian traditions”. Where does it say that in your Constitution?
Kendall, you said “In a public forum (which a school is) groups have equal access and ideas have equal access (if not equal endorsement by the school) so long as certain conditions are met on a case by case basis (students could form a “students for the Dark Lord Satan” club if they got a faculty advisor). Chase Harper has a right in the US to the same level of access as people silently protesting in the DoS.”.
Chase’s ideas do not meat the conditions of maintaining a non-hostile environment and his ideas therefore does not have a right to express them. The court has tentatively supported this and I’ll consider their view more authoritative than yours.
Kendall, you asked “What if, for example we were talking about Virginia or Mississippi and they ONLY allowed the day of truth but suspended any DoS observers for “promoting their agenda and harming the spiritual welfare of Christian students”?”.
That’s outrageous, in no way can a message that its wrong to hurt and silence gays hurt the spiritual welfare of any Christian. However, the anti-gay message behind the Day of “Truth” certainly does harm gays as Timothy noted with statistics you totally ignored. You’ve ignored a lot of these substantive points to make absurd statements like the above I seriously doubt you believe yourself – unless you’re lying about being gay.
I said “the student chase’s t-shirt “teaches” other students that “homosexuality is shameful”"
You said “No, that’s an opinion. Students are free to believe what they wish and Chase Harper is free to have his opinion and to express it. He obviously believes its true, as do students wearing shirts like “jesus loves me” or “jesus is within us all” or “Bush n’ Dick ’04, its nature’s way!” all of those are OPINIONS, not facts, not something students learn, not even something a school endorses or agrees with.”
Its simply your opinion that no one was taught to believe Chase’s statement on the t-shirt. Once again Chase is only free to share his opinion if it doesn’t substantively harm others and the statistics Timothy quoted show the harm. I am offended that you keep claiming there is no harm with no similar evidence of your own. Students learn opinions as well as facts, Kendall, just because you learn an opinion, or even a falsehood doesn’t mean you haven’t learned something. There is nothing saying students don’t learn from each other and for you to suggest they don’t is so counter-intuitive I don’t think you believe it yourself – you’re just playing lawyer and trying to make whatever bulls**t argument that comes to mind, in my opinion.
Even if its not a choice to be gay they might say, and “the need to tell others that you’re gay is deeply disturbed”. Its important to tell others one is gay in order to find a compatible love, its most certainly not a sign of mental illness. The day of Silence is a need to tell others “Stop harrassing gays, it harms and we don’t deserve it.” It’d be a deeply disturbed
person that doesn’t feel a need to say that.
Kendall, you said “Similarly, words like the “n” word or derrogatory names for other ethnicities or groups are not considered protected speech because the only purpose they have is not to express a point, but solely to cause injury.”.
Earlier you were saying any speech that doesn’t directly call for injuring others was okay. How come now you want to restrain it further? Calling someone the “N” word or Faggot isn’t a direct call to injure them. I find the term “homosexual” derogatory and there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of Christians use that term precisely because many LGBTs find it insulting. Who gets to judge whether a term of reference is derogatory or not?
Kendall, you told Timothy “Yes, [chase] was protesting tolerance for gay students. And you’re protesting his intolerance of gay students by saying we shouldn’t tolerate his intolerance. I don’t think making the response to intolerance more intolerance is very tolerant.”
We don’t tolerate murder or slander, by the same logic we shouldn’t be intolerant of them, we should allow murder and slander because not to do so would be intolerant. Schools and workplaces don’t have to tolerate statments creating a hostile environment. For you to suggest we be tolerant of intolerance is non-sensical. Schools don’t tolerate statements like “Being black is shameful” and “Homosexuality is shameful” is no different.
You also said “Its certainly not a very nice position that Chase Harper is advocating, but he’s not threatening anybody. He’s stating his belief, that’s it. He’s explicitly NOT stating “god will punish gays” or any such thing, he’s simply saying homosexuality is “shameful” in his opinion.”. Calling someone the “N” word or faggot isn’t an explict call to injure them either, but you stand against that as an implicit injury – how is this any different? Its well known that the “religious” statment you say he’s making carries with it the threat of eternal torture. For you to say that chase’s t-shirt doesn’t isn’t a religious threat is simply not credible.
Timothy put it best – “At the very least, it advocates condemning and “not tolerating” homosexuals. It is very difficult to imagine a scenario in which being “not tolerated” would not be a threat.”
Kendall, you replied to Timothy “depends on your definition I suppose, to me a threat is more “active” than it is passive.”.
Again, faggot, or the “N” word is a passive threat, you can’t condemn that passive threat and not Chases’.
You said “yes, you can infer a negative threat from Chase Harper’s shirt but he’s not making any threat. he’s simply wearing a shirt which states something he believes. just as a shirt which says “Bill Clinton: balancing the budget, kicking ass, and taking names” is not a threat, he’s not literally “kicking ass” its merely an opinion of the effect of Clinton’s policies.”
Kendall, Chase’s t-shirt says in essence gays shouldn’t be tolerated – that threatens some kind of unspecified punitive action as well as religious eternal torment. Its not a metaphor like “kicking ass” its meant literally. There’s no way you can equate the two statements.
Kendall, you asked “does a school in say Mobile Alabama (no offense to them, just pulled it out of the air) have a right to ban the wearing of gay pride t-shirts because there you’re more likely to disrupt the school day with a pro-gay message than an anti-gay one?”.
This isn’t just a matter of being controversial, its a matter of which t-shirt is injurious to others. As you’ve repeatedly ignored the point that gay pride t-shirts don’t demean or harm Christians while anti-gay ones demean and harm gays let me emphasize your lack of reasonable response to this point once again.
As well, let me ask yet again, how is it you oppose students making derogatory statements to individuals, but not students making derogatory statments about an entire group of people? If its wrong to tell an individual they are shameful, why is okay to tell a group it is shameful?
Oh, I totally agree with you Regan. Chase Harper is without a doubt acting out of ignorance and a learned fear. I don’t even question necessarily that banning his form of speech might have a positive effect in this instance, in fact, The Advocate had just such an article. But you know what? I think this article shows the BENEFIT of allowing Chase Harper to spew his hatred. What Chase Harper ended up doing is uniting the gay community and giving people the courage and the strength to talk about the abuses they suffered because of an unresponsive, even callous administration.
The Chase Harper incident made the school district act and ultimately made the gay community react and spread a true message of tolerance and inclusion. And Chase Harper is left out there, the catalyst for a revival of gay rights. I not only think he should be allowed to speak, I think he’s owed a vote of thanks for what he did to expose the intolerance of the Poway school district however unintentional that was.
… I’m glad I’m not QUITE that bad though. In my defense I DO have about 4-5 people arguing with me that I feel the need to respond to.
Oh no Kendall, don’t take my joking as a serious comparison between you and RAJ. You make sense and obviously have the intention of debating reasonable positions (I seem to be in love with that word, reasonable). Even if I don’t agree with you on all points, you are not at all like RAJ. The lawyer in you does come through however, weighing this against that and yes, sometimes a bit verbose. But that’s part of your profession, trying to be exact
I’ve been known to make a few long winded posts myself, albeit usually in response to the aforementioned RAJ!
I’m not sure about the Alabama gay pride scenario. I think it would have to depend on the totality of the situation. In general, I would tend to give more leeway to someone who was claiming pride in who they are than I would with the Chase situation. If it caused great disruption, I assume they could eliminate all clothing with slogans of any kind (which I believe they did while I was in high school).
David
“I’ve been known to make a few long winded posts myself…”
Well, not me!!!
Oh.
Wait.
Nevermind.
Here’s an analysis of the “hostile environment standard”. In the US it does NOT cover sexual orientation. A few states, notably Massachusetts specifically provide for sexual orientation being given equal status as a protected class under the law, and its entirely possible California has such a law as a general rule as well, but education is controlled by both the state and federal gov’t and as such makes the issue murkier.
“Where does it say that in your Constitution?”
More precisely the Constitution was founded on principles found in a variety of sources (locke, hobes, Rousseau) but primarily US law was originally based on English Common law which was originally based on a judeo-christian ethic.
“That’s outrageous, in no way can a message that its wrong to hurt and silence gays hurt the spiritual welfare of any Christian. However, the anti-gay message behind the Day of “Truth” certainly does harm gays as Timothy noted with statistics you totally ignored. You’ve ignored a lot of these substantive points to make absurd statements like the above I seriously doubt you believe yourself – unless you’re lying about being gay.”
Excuse me? How dare you. You might disagree with my commentary but you have absolutely NO right WHATSOEVER to question my sexuality. I am gay, I have always been gay. My love of freedom of speech and my interpretation of the law gives you NO right WHATSOEVER to insult me. I’ve tried to show you every decency and EVERY respect. I wish you could do the same.
On your point though, its a pretty simple position. You’re simply not allowed to ban speech just because you don’t like the content. If you do, then you risk having your speech banned because someone doesn’t like what YOU have to say.
“We don’t tolerate murder or slander, by the same logic we shouldn’t be intolerant of them, we should allow murder and slander because not to do so would be intolerant. Schools and workplaces don’t have to tolerate statments creating a hostile environment. For you to suggest we be tolerant of intolerance is non-sensical. Schools don’t tolerate statements like “Being black is shameful” and “Homosexuality is shameful” is no different.”
Chase Harper is not trying to murder or slander anyone. Slander is a crime that involves knowingly falsely trashing the reputation of another, that’s not at all what was alleged here. At worse you can say he’s demeaning gays but he’s not “knowingly” doing so FALSELY. He believes he was right.
“This isn’t just a matter of being controversial, its a matter of which t-shirt is injurious to others. As you’ve repeatedly ignored the point that gay pride t-shirts don’t demean or harm Christians while anti-gay ones demean and harm gays let me emphasize your lack of reasonable response to this point once again.”
My response is again, pretty simple. “demean or harm” is in the eye of the perceived victim. I think its entirely fair to say that Christians consider themselves harmed by some things gays do. Do I agree with them? No, not at all. But I don’t deny that they have a right to feel harmed by things that seem harmless to me.
“As well, let me ask yet again, how is it you oppose students making derogatory statements to individuals, but not students making derogatory statments about an entire group of people? If its wrong to tell an individual they are shameful, why is okay to tell a group it is shameful?”
As well, yet again, the difference is in the quality of the response, as well as the nature of the response. Take for example any group stereotype. That “jews are greedy” or “blacks are lazy” or “gay men are promiscuous” saying these things are generally accepted as untrue. We’re taught to treat people as individuals. However, if someone were to say “John Doe is such a greedy jew, when he paid for his lunch he owed me $3.97. he gave me $4 and actually waited while I looked for some pennies! Greedy jew” such a statement would be TOTALLY out of line because it takes a specific example, applies a stereotype and unnecessarily demeans an individual because obviously, John was entitled to those 3 cents.
With that said, I still greatly resent my sexuality being questioned because I presented a view you disagreed with, however passionately. I even told you I was not trying at all to be personal.
Randi,
The outbursts and personal attacks towards Kendall in your last post are absolutely unacceptable. Spirited debate on germane issues is always welcome, but it must be done in a civil manor and without personal attacks. You are doing essentially the same thing as Chase, making someone else feel uncomfortable and threatened simply because of what they are and/or what they believe.
I encourage everyone to stop and take a deep breath before pressing the submit button, especially on issues which stir your passions the most.
David
Kendall you support your statement that the “Constitution of the United States which ultimately was founded on Judeo Christian traditions” by saying “primarily US law was originally based on English Common law which was originally based on a judeo-christian ethic.”.
That is one of the flimsiest things I’ve ever heard. You don’t hear many Canadians or British talking about their political systems being founded on Judeo Christian traditions and yet both are also based on English common law. I say English common law was originally based on the principle of fairness first and religion after and I’ll bet I can make a more convincing case of it than you (another time)
Kendall, you keep saying things like “You’re simply not allowed to ban speech just because you don’t like the content. If you do, then you risk having your speech banned because someone doesn’t like what YOU have to say.”. I totally agree with that but this is a different case and a major hole in your argument, the major hole is this bit by Timothy which you haven’t addressed:
5. The question of whether hostility to gay students is damaging is not theoretical. As the majority noted, of teenage victims of anti-gay discrimination, 75% experienced a decline in academic performance, 39% had truancy problems and 28% dropped out of school.
You’re continued implication that I’m suggesting Chase’s speech be banned simply because I don’t like it is way off the mark. That argument rings extremely hollow given you haven’t addressed the above
Kendall, you said we shouldn’t address intolerance with more intolerance. I wasn’t suggesting Chase murdered or slandered, I was showing an example of how absurd it can be to say we shouldn’t address intolerance with more intolerance. If that principle applies to Chase’s t-shirt message than it applies to the intolerance of murder or slander as well and by your logic we should tolerate the intolerance of murder and slander because to not do so would be intolerant.
You again said “”demean or harm” is in the eye of the perceived victim. I think its entirely fair to say that Christians consider themselves harmed by some things gays do”. Once again, counter Timothy’s statistics or stop repeating this hollow harm. It certainly isn’t in the eye of the perceived victim, this harm is well acknowledged by all manner of mental health professionals. It is NOT fair to say Christians are harmed by some things gays do. As Regan said, at best to Chase this restriction is a minor inconvenience. Do you have any mental health professionals attesting to the harm the mere presence and awareness of gays has caused Christians?
I fail to see how you can feel Chase has a right to say “Homosexuality is shameful” because its not explicitly calling for violence and I don’t have the right to question whether or not you’re lying about being gay – I’m not explicitly calling for violence against you.
Randi, cool it with quetioning Kendall’s sexuality. Let’s get this debate off the personal or I’ll end the thread.
“5. The question of whether hostility to gay students is damaging is not theoretical. As the majority noted, of teenage victims of anti-gay discrimination, 75% experienced a decline in academic performance, 39% had truancy problems and 28% dropped out of school.”
the reason I didn’t address this point is because in spite of these statistics gays are not legally considered a protected class yet on a national level. Another point, statistics of these sort to be valid from a legal stand point need to find a specific application to THIS particular case. See McClesky v Kemp here for that (short summary of the decision here which says that point concisely). Interesting fact btw, although its somewhat misleading current statistics ALSO happen to indicate that openly gay adults tend to be more affluent than their straight counterparts. Doubtless however this is because of the difficulty poorer kids face with coming out. I mean, its difficult to be gay in many areas, its REALLY difficult to be poor, and I’m sure many poor people are gay but not openly so because of a fear of discrimination).
“I fail to see how you can feel Chase has a right to say “Homosexuality is shameful” because its not explicitly calling for violence and I don’t have the right to question whether or not you’re lying about being gay – I’m not explicitly calling for violence against you.”
Honestly? you fail to understand the difference? The difference is between saying “I think Christianity is the only right religion in the world” (or Islam or Hinduism, or any other religious philosophy) and saying “I think YOUR religion is wrong. One is a general position “I think the religion I believe in must be true because I believe in it and I want to share that I believe in it” and one is a specific attack, “I think YOU are wrong and YOU are not speaking the truth and YOU are stupid to believe what you believe”
But in a broader sense I hope your intolerance of my position and your need to lash out at me shows the point I’ve been making. Intolerance of intolerance is already breeding more intolerance. A lot of people could have just walked away and stopped being civil if they were personally attacked in a philosophical and legal debate like I was. But I don’t believe in that. I believe that the best way to counter bigotry of that sort (if you don’t accept my position you can’t REALLY be gay) is by calmly, rationally explaining why I believe what I believe.
In a weird way you also make my point about Chase Harper as well. I don’t like what he’s saying and I don’t appreciate the position he’s taking on homosexuality. However, I totally respect his right and his ability to be intolerant. I tolerate his unpopular views not because I think he’s right but I think freedom is such a precious concept its not worth it to deny it to someone because their view is unpopular, even if the reason you give is that it is harmful because there is no evidence of harm alleged in this case.
I’m sorry I missed your warning post the first time around, David. Yes, I agree I’ve let my anger over this issue get the better of me and I could keep it more directly about the issues. My apologies for that, Kendall and Exgay watch readers. I do stand on the other points I made.
I appreciate that Randi, you’re free of course to hold whatever views you wish as is anyone on this site (although of course Mike and the other administrators of this site are permitted to control the content of our postings). I know my view is unpopular and I DO think you make an excellent point on an emotional level if you want to know the truth. I totally understand where you’re coming from, although most people at my highschool were extremely tolerant there were some bigots and I did indeed here the word “fag” muttered a few times and such. I understand the depression gay teens face and I’m well aware of the risk of gay teen suicide which is horrifically high.
Kendall, I don’t believe gays need to be legally designated a protected class for a school to decide its unacceptable to demean them in general. Soccer players aren’t a designated protected class and I’m sure schools wouldn’t tolerate demeaning people just because they play soccer. As others have stated in this, the school doesn’t need specific proof of harm in this case to take action. Workplaces don’t have to prove specific individuals have been harmed before they can require all staff not to demean each other or groups by calling them shameful, etc.
You said The difference is between saying “I think Christianity is the only right religion in the world” (or Islam or Hinduism, or any other religious philosophy) and saying “I think YOUR religion is wrong. One is a general position “I think the religion I believe in must be true because I believe in it and I want to share that I believe in it” and one is a specific attack,”.
No, Kendall, they are two different ways of saying the same thing, the second statement is inherently true given the first. This type of argument is the same one religious conservatives use when they say they aren’t being anti-gay, they’re “protecting marriage”. Its two sides of the same coin. Its the same as you and they telling me “Randi, you’re wrong, the coin isn’t face down, its tails up”. You can argue all day and night that the words are different, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the concepts are the same.
By the way I never did get your mumbo-jumbo explanation as to why its wrong to demean individuals, but not groups. If some people found that convincing more power to you.
I have never once dizagreed with you that we shouldn’t prevent the expression of opinions simply because they are unpopular, despite your rpeated assertions that this is the case. Now I ask you again, do you honestly think statements like Chase Harpers’ have nothing to do with the statistics Timothy quoted, or Jayelle losing her job or her partner getting gay-bashed?
“I have never once dizagreed with you that we shouldn’t prevent the expression of opinions simply because they are unpopular, despite your rpeated assertions that this is the case. Now I ask you again, do you honestly think statements like Chase Harpers’ have nothing to do with the statistics Timothy quoted, or Jayelle losing her job or her partner getting gay-bashed?”
I think Jayelle lost her job because she lives in a state where it is legal to fire people because of their sexual orientation. I live in in a similar state at the moment although hopefully in a year or two I’ll be getting out of this hell hole. Right now in Jayelle’s case it is most likely the personal bigotry of her employer coupled with a state law that I strongly disapprove of. I think Chase Harper’s attitude leads people to fire people like Jayelle but no, I don’t think his words change most people’s beliefs.
Most people are relatively set in their beliefs especially by the time highschool arrives, although I wouldn’t say that this is universally the case. Frankly I think if someone becomes anti-gay and starts gay bashing because of what Chase Harper has on a t-shirt they were already inclined to do so anyway. I do think its absolutely inexcusable that violence of ANY sort was used against Jeyelle’s wife, there is absolutely NO excuse for physically injuring another human being for any reason but I think saying that exposure on one day a year to a t-shirt causes people to gay bash falls apart on its face.
Kendall,
Please don’t think your view is “unpopular”. Simply because I’m not convinced by your logic doesn’t mean that I hold your position in contempt.
And I don’t want to “pile on” and discourage you from posting… but I do have to make just a one more point.
You said, “The difference is between saying “I think Christianity is the only right religion in the world” (or Islam or Hinduism, or any other religious philosophy) and saying “I think YOUR religion is wrong. One is a general position “I think the religion I believe in must be true because I believe in it and I want to share that I believe in it” and one is a specific attack, “I think YOU are wrong and YOU are not speaking the truth and YOU are stupid to believe what you believe”"
I agree with you. But I’m not sure you agree with yourself.
This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to get at. Harper’s T-shirt did not say “I support MY beliefs, lifestyle, faith, whatever”. It said “YOUR life is shameful and YOU should BE ASHAMED”. His focus was not on himself or his faith but rather at why others were wrong and shameful.
And that is why it can and should be disallowed.
Timothy – “This is exactly the point I’ve been trying to get at. Harper’s T-shirt did not say “I support MY beliefs, lifestyle, faith, whatever”. It said “YOUR life is shameful and YOU should BE ASHAMED”. His focus was not on himself or his faith but rather at why others were wrong and shameful.”
His T-shirt also said “I will not support what god has condemned” and then cited a biblical verse. I read that (in a light most favorable to him, only because err on the side of allowing speech rather than disallowing it) to mean that HE (“I” in his shirt) does not support what he feels God condemns based on the verse in Romans he cited (I haven’t bothered to look the verse up incidentally, though I can pretty much guess what it says, I THINK its the one that the KJV of the bible reads to say the “weak and the effeminate”, at least I think that’s the wording will not “inherit the kingdom of god” and which other more “modern”, or in my opinion bigotted and getting away from the original greek bible translations refer to as “homosexuals” will not inherit…). to me, then he’s staking out his religious opposition to the DoS, citing a bible verse he feels is relevant to that belief, and on the back stating his personal opposition to homosexuality.
I do admit you can read it the other way, but I think looking at it in a “light most favorable to permitting the speech” its fair to use my interpretation.
Kendall, you said “I think saying that exposure on one day a year to a t-shirt causes people to gay bash falls apart on its face.”.
I never asked you if that particular statement caused any particular gay bashing. What I asked you was do you think that KIND of statement (that kind of social environment) has nothing to do with the statistics Timothy quoted, Jayelle losing her job or her partner getting gay bashed?
And Kendall, now that I think about it I don’t think its out of the question that seeing that t-shirt once could be just the final seal of approval someone leaning towards bashing gays needs to step over the line and actually do it.
again, no, I do not think that kind of thing causes ant-gay violence. I think esposure to that perspective and that ideology and attitude over a long period of time and particularly when growing up leads to gay bashing. Hatred and bigotry is a long process of socialization. It usually begins because you admire someone with those perspectives. Often its a parent. Sometimes its a member of some gang that you unwittingly befriend. but it usually isn’t started with a t-shirt, although I do think it might be an endpoint, a catalyst for pre-existing views, ultimately I refuse to give anybody the excuse “the t-shirt made me do it”
Randi, apart from being mean, you’re being embarrassingly ludicrous. Your own tone of speech is more likely than that T-shirt to result in someone being bashed by some unstable listener who’s repeatedly told they have no self-control in response to the raised voices of others.
Congratulations, Randi — You’ve almost single-handedly convinced me that the T-shirt should have been permitted.
I know my view is unpopularNah, it’s not unpopular Kendall. I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing on the basics — but, as always, where to draw the line, what’s acceptable and what’s not, the balance to draw between the two competing interests etc etc etc is open to LOOOONG debate. Matter of degrees, that’s all.
There’s a major distinction between public schools and the public square.
The state requires children to leave the safety of their homes and the guardianship of their parents to attend school. In return, the teachers and school administrators assume a responsibility in loco parentis for the health and welfare of these children beyond just the formal requirement of providing them with an education.
If a child becomes ill, for example, the school informs the parent, of course, but must see that the child gets emergency treatment, if required, until the parent gets there.
From the LA Times article: “Reinhardt cited a study showing that among teenage victims of anti-gay discrimination, 75% experienced a decline in academic performance, 39% had truancy problems and 28% dropped out of school.”
Children are more sensitive and vulnerable to criticism than we would expect adults to be. Protecting children from physical harm alone is not sufficient. As this report shows, psychological harm can be devastating. Gay teens have higher rates of suicide and other psychological difficulties. Fortunately, these rates have subsided since the Safe Schools and anti-bullying programs were initiated in the mid 1990′s.
A parent can protect a child from the harm our local street preacher holding a “homosexuality is shameful” sign might do by avoiding the corner of Clinton and McClain or by immediately reassuring the child to the contrary. The school performs this “parent” function by not allowing a “homosexuality is shameful” T-shirt in a place where attendance is mandatory.
Judge Reinhardt made it clear that this restriction to free speech would not apply to colleges where the students have the status of adults who can fend for themselves. In high schools and elementary schools, however, the teachers and school administrators must take on the role of the parent and protect these vulnerable children from anti-gay and other harassment.
OH, ho! the ADF strikes again.
Mike, I won’t quibble with you’re characterizing me as mean but I’m not sure what you consider ludicrous – because of my own experience.
When I was in my late teens I was extremely upset about being same sex attracted and doing my best to suppress it. While spending time with an acquaintence he complained about his close friend telling him he was gay. He went on and on about how this upset him so much and then described the pleasure he and some of his buddies took in going to a bar and bashing gays. “Tell all your friends” he said as he smiled.
Shortly after that I started to think bashing gays was a good idea. My anger at being same sex attracted had helped me to convince myself I hated the attraction, hated gays and wasn’t actually same sex attracted – I was angry and I needed to bash some gays.
A week or so later I was spending time with some long time heterosexual friends and I brought up the suggestion that we should go a gay bar and bash some gays. They looked at me like there was something wrong with me and I dropped the subject.
Had they given me any sign of approval, even a T-shirt condemning gays could CERTAINLY have been enough that would have been the final seal of approval I needed to bash some gays.
As a former professional computer programmer and systems manager I learned long ago that if something can happen sooner or later it will.
Now you can call me a liar if you want and I support your right to do so, I’ll find that offensive, but not injurious – I don’t think that creates the same kind of hostile environment that Chase’s T-shirt did.
Also, it occurred to me in bed last night that Kendall had earlier in this thread made the statement that Chase Harper was probably gay. No one from exgaywatch criticized that questioning of someone’s sexuality, probably because Chase wasn’t here to defend himself and kick up a fuss about it. If you don’t believe me and Kendall denies it I will go through this large thread and find it for you.
I’m with Jayelle on this one. The best possible response would have been a whole bunch of students wearing “Homophobia is Shameful” t-shirts the day after. Chase gets to express his opinion; everyone else expresses their opinion that his opinion is about as deep as a parking lot puddle. Everyone wins.
Having been a high-schooler not so long ago, I’d say the most LIKELY response would have probably been someone ripping off the last two words on the tape.
No Randi, I never called Chase Harper gay or probably gay. I said I myself was NOT an ex-gay or straight at one point in this thread because I thought for some reason that my view on this topic, which I do understand is a very emotional one for many people, might cause someone to wonder if I was a plant by some right wing religous group.
I can’t force you to believe I’m gay, you are also totally free to believe I’m a hypocrite and some sort of right wing spy at the very least. I can’t even blame you for that, this site attracts numerous people of that sort so I understand where you’re coming from.
However, I never accused Chase Harper of being gay. I’m 99.9999% sure of that. The only reason I’m not 100% is because I trust that you believe I implied it at some point. If so, yes, I would like you to find where you feel I did so.
thinking about it though, I THINK I may know what you were referring to. in “Posted by: Kendall [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 21, 2006 12:03 AM” this post I questioned whether Stephen Bennet was ever really gay, as others have done.
I question it because Stephen Bennet bases his life, his existence on bashing homosexuality with tortured, false, and extremely bizarre statements. He makes claims which on their face are totally unverifiable and he uses those claims (I was a gay man who slept with HUNDREDS of men and a drug addict to boot!) to say this is typical of the gay community.
At best, assuming he told the truth and everything happened essentially like he claimed Stephen Bennet showed a considerable lack of self control, a considerable lack of decency, and he survived by himself when “hundreds” of his sexual partners dropped dead.
At worst, Stephen Bennet is perpetuating a lie that cannot be proven or disproven and profitting off a lie involving the deaths of hundreds of men. I don’t like snakeoil salesmen and I don’t like charlatans. I don’t know that Stephen Bennett was not ever gay, but I do question his coming out (pardon the pun) of nowhere. To me, there are legitimate questions regarding that because Stephen Bennett bases his ministry and his claims of “complete change is completely possible” on these unverifiable claims. Chase Harper has never claimed that he was gay or that he knows for a fact that “gays can change” he only believes apparently that this is so.
Well, Kendall, I’m pretty sure you said Chase was probably gay – I distinctly remember thinking, gee I hope so, he’s so cute. I’ll try to dig through this and find the exact quote at a later time. Having Mike grant me that dubious honour and perhaps correctly call me “mean” has knocked the desire out of me for the time being. I don’t set out intending to be mean to people on exgaywatch I’m short on consideration for others when I’m long on making the most convincing argument I can about what I think is right.
You devoted much more time to my posts than the others, I’m not keen right now on thinking too deeply about whether that flatters me or everyone else, perhaps a bit of both. I believe I was overly dominant on this thread and ask that you take some time to re-read the posts of Regan, Grantdale, Timothy, Mike and all the rest as I feel I counter-productively took attention away from the powerful points they made.
Liadan wrote, “I’m with Jayelle on this one. The best possible response would have been a whole bunch of students wearing “Homophobia is Shameful” t-shirts the day after.”
Well, I agree that times are changing for the better, but I’m also from Rhea County,
TN, home of the Scope’s “monkey” trial and have to look at the situation realistically from that perspective.
Here, Chase would have received lots of “great going” and high fives for his “Homosexuality is Shameful” t-shirt and no one is going to wear a “Homophobia is Shameful” t-shirt here any time soon.
The judges can’t just let the matter drop and suggest that, in most cases, the other students will successfully deal with the “problem.” They have to take into account situations like here in rural East Tennessee where no other student is likely to call these anti-gay attitudes into question.
The law has to deal with the worst cases, not just hope that in most cases the situation will take care of itself.
Randi – I agree Chase Harper is attractive (obviously why they use him – to try to drag gay teens into reading more about him because he’s cute, certainly a better frontman than Alan Chambers for this). With that said, I do invite you, or anyone else to read my posts and find anything suggesting that Chase Harper is gay or could be gay.
When you said that to me at first though it did trigger another memory, somewhat vague. I think I remember in a past post on this site or SOME site someone mentioning they thought Chase Harper was gay, that might be what you’re referring to, because I’m almost positive I never mentioned Chase Harper even POSSIBLY being gay. As far as I know his message is primarily a religious opinion (gays should change) not based on a personal story (I was gay and I changed) and I’ve tried to treat it as such. I hold no ill will towards you or anyone else at this site.
Bill Ware – I’m not sure I understand your position. You seem to think Chase Harper’s T-shirt should be banned (I think) but you also think that in your area no one would wear a pro-gay counter t-shirt. Are you suggesting that ONLY pro-gay messages be allowed in schools even in districts like yours where such messages would be about as disruptive as an anti-gay message in a pro-gay school district?
Hey, I’m comment 100! Whoo-hoo! Look at me, I’m fabulous.
Is this the longest comment thread on EGW or what? I’ve stayed out of the discussion as I can’t add anything that’s already there, but it’s been really interesting to read. I lean more toward Kendall’s point of view, though.