sunoftheskye
Still Dirrty
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Posts
- 4,580
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Precisely. Freedom of speech has limits within the confines of a public school.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
"Homsexuality Is Shameful" Kid Loses
- Thread starter sunoftheskye
- Start date
Precisely. Freedom of speech has limits within the confines of a public school.
sabot3ur
she's a rejecter!
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Posts
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
public high schools have their own rules, if he were out of the school system and in the real world it would've been fine. but just like how I can't say fuck or shit or cuntpisstitwhatever at school, he can't put down anyone because of their race, religion, sexuality, sex, or anything else like that. them's the rules, but it also always depends on the environment and administrators involved on whether or not they will be enforced.
which is why I'm glad they did in his case. it's a shame when only a select few teachers care if someone harasses another because of their sexuality, nothing like that should be tolerated at all.
which is why I'm glad they did in his case. it's a shame when only a select few teachers care if someone harasses another because of their sexuality, nothing like that should be tolerated at all.
sunoftheskye
Still Dirrty
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Posts
- 4,580
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Not in a school setting, it isn't.
sunoftheskye
Still Dirrty
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Posts
- 4,580
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
You just made the entire point of why it's not allowed. This is a place of learning, NOT a place for personal confrontations.
prudyprudestein
Sex God
Under California education code, freedom of speech on a school campus is limited. It is a right for all students to be educated in an environment that promotes tolerance for all. Derogatory statements, slogans, put downs, slander. etc are not allowed on the school campuses. That statement is derogatory towards a specific group of people. Californians believe in fairness, and tolerance and that is demonstrated in the numerous laws that project minority groups including gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered.
The decision of the court is consistent with California Law in not permitting put downs or derogatory statements towards another group. Discussion of issues is encouraged in California public schools. Presentations and discussions must include looking at issues from many viewpoints. Schools are learning centers and places where a variety of viewpoints are and must be presented.
Students have a lot of freedoms protected by the state constitution. Along with freedom is responsibility.
The decision of the court is consistent with California Law in not permitting put downs or derogatory statements towards another group. Discussion of issues is encouraged in California public schools. Presentations and discussions must include looking at issues from many viewpoints. Schools are learning centers and places where a variety of viewpoints are and must be presented.
Students have a lot of freedoms protected by the state constitution. Along with freedom is responsibility.
Such things have no business in a public High School. You go to School to learn, not protest. It doesn't violate anyone's rights to forbid shirts with controversial words or images. A lot of schools have dress codes that doesn't allow certain things. It's well within the school's rights to decide what things are disruptive and shouldn't be allowed.
This has gone back and forth over the past 40 years, with a tendency for a school setting to be exempt from normal rules when the court is majority-right and not when it's majority-moderate (hasn't been a leftist court in my lifetime).
Are you saying that the current state of the law is that school settings ARE exempt from the First Amendment? Because that wasn't true when I was in high school, and IMO shouldn't be true now. It has not always been so, for certain.
So are you claiming specific familiarity with current SCOTUS rulings and caselaw, or are you simply incorrect?
Whats kind of amusing is that when you enter a school (both public and private), your first amendment rights are limited. Most schools would have just asked the kid to either remove the tape, turn it inside out, or go home (with disciplinary action).
This kid is probably a lonely jesus freak and some attention seeking whore. Let the baby have his bottle and not fuel his hatred.
This kid is probably a lonely jesus freak and some attention seeking whore. Let the baby have his bottle and not fuel his hatred.
The question is whether this case changed the law, or whether the law was changed before this case.
My guess is that the law hasn't changed. It's just being applied. The notion that free speech can be limited in certain respects is nothing new, but, in times past, any interest in protecting gay kids generally just wasn't there..
To me, the complaints about restrictions of free speech and over-political correctness in this context just come across as knee-jerk negative political correctness.
Imagine if the tee-shirt writing had said "Inter-racial marriage is shameful" or "Muslims are shameful". On what basis is the freedom of someone to say that kind of stuff in a school context more important than protecting racial or religious groups and why should sexual orientaton be any differently treated?
Gay children shouldn't have to put up with being targeted in this kind of way simply because protecting them from hate speech (or religiously coded hate speech) may or may not lead schools to impose restrictions in other areas. As with any free speech case, each new instance has to be assessed on its merits and not on some absurdist thin-edge-of-the-wedge basis.
Finally, the comments objecting to the judgement might have some merit on a level playing field, where gay kids weren't directly and indirectly gay bashed, or at risk to suicidal or other self-destructive behaviors, or being encouraged to repress their sexuality and so on. But the playing field is far from level and kudos to the court (or to this particular court at least) for not ignoring that.
To me, the complaints about restrictions of free speech and over-political correctness in this context just come across as knee-jerk negative political correctness.
Imagine if the tee-shirt writing had said "Inter-racial marriage is shameful" or "Muslims are shameful". On what basis is the freedom of someone to say that kind of stuff in a school context more important than protecting racial or religious groups and why should sexual orientaton be any differently treated?
Gay children shouldn't have to put up with being targeted in this kind of way simply because protecting them from hate speech (or religiously coded hate speech) may or may not lead schools to impose restrictions in other areas. As with any free speech case, each new instance has to be assessed on its merits and not on some absurdist thin-edge-of-the-wedge basis.
Finally, the comments objecting to the judgement might have some merit on a level playing field, where gay kids weren't directly and indirectly gay bashed, or at risk to suicidal or other self-destructive behaviors, or being encouraged to repress their sexuality and so on. But the playing field is far from level and kudos to the court (or to this particular court at least) for not ignoring that.
andysayshi
JUB Addict
Good example why school uniforms are a good idea. Each child adhering to a dress code removes the need for this and similar discussions, plus reduces differentiation between kids with different economic stature. And they're kind of hot...
If I was at work wearing a "I love vagina!" t-shirt... would it not be considered a form of sexual harassment?
Freedom of speech and a few other laws are limited with the confines of state governed public schools. So if I were to walk around with a shirt that read: "Go back to Mexico!" The school reserves that right to pull me from classes until I change that shirt or they could potentially send me home for the day. It's the same for someone wearing a shirt with people having sex or supporting illegal drugs.
Schools always reserve the right to stop students from doing things that cause or have the potential for causing major distraction amongst the student body. Since children under 16 legally have to be in school, state runs schools have to take it upon themselves to govern the student body in such a way that the peace can be kept. Trying to tell yourself "I can express myself however the hell I want" is, in terms of children in a public school, foolish to say the very least. You know how hard it would be to keep control over a school where something like a race war could spark off at any moment? Keeping hate speech out of the schools is imperative to the safety of the children which the school is ultimately held responsible for.
Another example is smoking... Even if you're a senior over 18 who has the right to smoke, you aren't allowed to do so anywhere on campus. I could go on-and-on about things like this, but I think I got my point across already.
](/images/smilies/bang.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Posts
- 246,156
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 0
- Location
- The Shepherd's Arms
- Website
- justusboys.com
In seven months, I have seen that young man here under at least twenty user names, and with the venomous stuff like the shirt.
Shep+
Shep+
You mean that very kid, Tyler Chase Harper? How do you know it was him?
If so, then I REALLY think he's sucking dick in men's rooms! (Which, curiously, doesn't make him a hypocrite: what he knows of homosexuality IS shameful...in fact the shame factor may be essential to the turnon for him.)
If you're using a metaphor and saying that kids like him are a dime a dozen and come here on a regular basis, ostensibly to tell us how bad we are but actually to "unavoidably" look at the porn and interact with gay men so they can then jerk off later, I agree with that too.
If you knew anything about America (like, say, as much as the average Canadian knows) you would know that "okay" and "acceptable" are not the same as "protected" and "legal."
It's perfectly legal to eat at a restaurant and not tip. It's not acceptable.
It's perfectly legal to stand on a street corner and say "Whore!" every time a woman passes. It's not OK.
I think one difference between the US and Canada is that we don't see a need to forbid by law everything we object to. We use other means when possible. And the trouble with restricting any form of speech is that the people in power determine what's restricted. What happens in Canada when some Christianist loonie arrests someone for saying that "The God of the Bible isn't the only god," claiming that it's hate speech against Christians?
No doubt that you'd find some sensible Canadian way to work it all out. I'm an admirer of many things about Canada, but its whole system requires people to be sane and reasonable all the time...and while there's a higher percentage in Canada than in the US of sane, reasonable people, it's not 100%, and that makes it a dangerous thing to rely on.