Fun and games with the Supremes

[kallend 2,182]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901696.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

This line in the article hits it right on target. And it is an argument for vouchers and private school support

"Even Chief Justice John Roberts, though sympathetic to Starr's case, pointed out: "The problem, Mr. Starr, is that school boards these days take it upon themselves to broaden their mission well beyond education.""

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

The only thing missing was "nuke gay whales for Christ"!

[rehmwa 2]

Apparently a very disjointedly written article about a very disjointedly run court session.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[masterrig 1]

I thought, this was going to be about the singing group from the '60's.


Chuck

[Andy9o8 3]

Wish I'd been there.

The Justices should have asked, "But Mr. Starr, suppose the sign had said 'Clinton Got a Blowjob'? "

[lawrocket 3]

And incidentally, a lot of people found it okay that a school was allowed to suspend a student for wearing a shirt that said, "BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED" handwritten on the front, and "HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL" handwritten on the back. Harper v. Poway Unified
Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d 1166, 1193 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006)
(Kozinski, J., dissenting).

I posted about it - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2187462

In that case, the kid wore his T-shirt after students involved in the Gay-Straight Alliance organized a “Day of Silence” in support of those of a different
sexual orientation. School administrators permitted the “Day of Silence” - but prohibited Harper from offering a different view. Blatant discrimination on the content of speech is fine. It IS political correctness.

And you know, the case that the 9th circuit used to ban offensive speech is the same one that is being used by the school board in this one to ban the "Bong Hits" conduct - Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

How many times have I suggested on here that the methodology used to get more enlightened rulings will come back to bite in the ass? The advocates of preventing speech that is "non-offensive" will find that in winning, they have set up a process in which they also get hosed. Did you know that the school district in this case cited Harper v. Poway?

You know, one would think that governmental discrination against speech because of its message is content-based, and therefore unconstitutional.

So if you've got government discrimination against speech advocating pot use while openly advocating being drug-free, it is unconstitutional.

If you have government discrimination against statements that homosexuality is wrong because it conflicts with its policies, it would be unconstitutional.

If you've got government discrimination against wearing a shirt with the Confederate flag because it conflicts with the message that the government agency is sending, it should be unconstitional. - Castorina ex rel. Rewt v. Madison County Sch. Bd., 246 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2001)

If you've got a government agency that bans student’s T-shirt depicting President Bush as a drug-abusing drunk because it conflicts with a policy that disallows depictions of alcohol or drugs, it should be unconstitutional. Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 2006).

And yet, we have people who believe that it is right to censor some forms of speech but other forms should be sacrosanct.

I'd suggest to all of you to either agree with content-based censorship or disagree with content-based censorship. I believe that the issues are quite simple here and in the Harper case - whenever a school forwards the idea that one form of belief is acceptable, the school must allow opposing ideas.

I'll put it this way - if a public school suspended a student for wearing a shirt that said "Evolution - Science over Superstition" because it was deemed offensive and contrary to the school's policy of teaching "Intelligent Design," there'd be plenty of people erupting.

We are finding the same thing, only from the opposite end of the belief spectrum. I don't care who is doing it, it's wrong, and opposite ideas and statements should damned well be protected.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

And incidentally, a lot of people found it okay that a school was allowed to suspend a student for wearing a shirt that said, "BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED" handwritten on the front, and "HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL" handwritten on the back. Harper v. Poway Unified
Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d 1166, 1193 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006)
(Kozinski, J., dissenting).

.

You are comparing different situations - one concerned a dress code violation IN SCHOOL, and the other a banner displayed in a public street.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

one concerned a dress code violation IN SCHOOL, and the other a banner displayed in a public street

So are you of the opinion that the school should be squelching speech if it is inimical to the school's teachings? Indeed, it was a school-sanctioned activity to go view the passing Olympic torch. It was a school activity in which this occurred.

Your argument is not unreasonable. But, it is the quaternary argument that the kid was not subject to the school's authority when the principal told him to take the sign down. There actually must only be demonstrated _some_ nexus between the speech and the school.

John, the issue is really this: whether a school official who deems the content of a student's speech to be contradictory to the school's policy of what statements re acceptable.

By this I mean whether it is okay for a school to ban anti-gay speech while sponsoring pro-gay speech? Or whether it is okay for a school to ban pro-evolution speech while sponsoring anti-evolution speech?

To me, this is black or white - it was speech, not conduct. The kid with the anti-gay shirt was conveying his ideas that the school considered anathema to their own ideas. It stands for "competing viewpoints will be punished."

That is anathema to free speech - they aren't banning how it's said, only what is said.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

one concerned a dress code violation IN SCHOOL, and the other a banner displayed in a public street

So are you of the opinion that the school should be squelching speech if it is inimical to the school's teachings? Indeed, it was a school-sanctioned activity to go view the passing Olympic torch. It was a school activity in which this occurred.

Your argument is not unreasonable. But, it is the quaternary argument that the kid was not subject to the school's authority when the principal told him to take the sign down. There actually must only be demonstrated _some_ nexus between the speech and the school.

John, the issue is really this: whether a school official who deems the content of a student's speech to be contradictory to the school's policy of what statements re acceptable.

By this I mean whether it is okay for a school to ban anti-gay speech while sponsoring pro-gay speech? Or whether it is okay for a school to ban pro-evolution speech while sponsoring anti-evolution speech?

To me, this is black or white - it was speech, not conduct. The kid with the anti-gay shirt was conveying his ideas that the school considered anathema to their own ideas. It stands for "competing viewpoints will be punished."

That is anathema to free speech - they aren't banning how it's said, only what is said.

I disagree. I believe the school is entitled to define a code of conduct for its premises. I do not believe the authority of a school board and its administrators extends to the rest of the world beyond the school boundaries. It has NOTHING to do with the particular message's content.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

believe the school is entitled to define a code of conduct for its premises.

If it had been on the school premises and the kid held up a big poster saying, "GO USA!" then that would have been fine. It comports with the values that the school forwards.

The difference is in holding up a sign with a message that is contrary to the school's message.

On campus or off-campus, don't ban something because of the message. You wanna ban signs? Fine. Go for it - that's content neutral. Just don't ban certain messages on signs.

You yourself said it - a code of "conduct." The schools are changing it to a code of "thought" and "expression."

The fact is, this case had EVERYTHING to do with the kid's message - both briefs list the message as the question presented.

I agree with you that school administrators should not be banning content-based speech outside of schools. I also believe that they should not be doing it in schools, either.

Although it would be a preparation for future scientists, eh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

I think in a classroom setting, black armbands have a far lower potential to be disruptive than than a t-shirt with "BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED" and "HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL" printed on it. IIRC potential or actual disruption has been a factor in Supreme Court decisions involving First Amendment rights in public schools.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Shut up or I'll ask to have you banned. You are causing a disruption, in my determination, or at the very least are likely to cause people to perhaps see another side of the issue that does not deserve to be spoken. I am offended, for your viewpoint is not tolerable and evidence of deep seeded bigotry.

Instead of defending yourself or your ideas - the surest sign of denial - I would suggest you work towards developing a tolerance of my viewpoint. Dissent is not tolerated. I am the authority, got it? Not you. Dissent = disruption. If you think I am wrong about anything, keep it to yourself and don't say a word.

Don't go bringging up how I need to tolerate your viewpoint. That will REALLY cause a disruption.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Shut up or I'll ask to have you banned. You are causing a disruption, in my determination, or at the very least are likely to cause people to perhaps see another side of the issue that does not deserve to be spoken. I am offended, for your viewpoint is not tolerable and evidence of deep seeded bigotry.

Instead of defending yourself or your ideas - the surest sign of denial - I would suggest you work towards developing a tolerance of my viewpoint. Dissent is not tolerated. I am the authority, got it? Not you. Dissent = disruption. If you think I am wrong about anything, keep it to yourself and don't say a word.

Don't go bringging up how I need to tolerate your viewpoint. That will REALLY cause a disruption.

I don't necessarily agree with the Harper v. Poway Unified decision, but I don't believe it contradicts the Tinker precedent.

Back on topic, I think a non-sensical banner off (or even on) campus is protected speech/expression. Of course, like everyone else, I'll have to wait and see if the nation's highest court agrees with me.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

On campus or off-campus, don't ban something because of the message.

Would you feel the same if the sign had some of the more steamier passages of Lolita writen on it, highlighting the sexual arousal given by a 12 year old girl?

Or maybe the students own version of the same book?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

On campus or off-campus, don't ban something because of the message.

Would you feel the same if the sign had some of the more steamier passages of Lolita writen on it, highlighting the sexual arousal given by a 12 year old girl?

Or maybe the students own version of the same book?

precedent

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

On campus or off-campus, don't ban something because of the message.

Would you feel the same if the sign had some of the more steamier passages of Lolita writen on it, highlighting the sexual arousal given by a 12 year old girl?

Or maybe the students own version of the same book?

Yep. I mean, we could burn Lolita and Ordinary People and Native Son. The Communist Manifesto? It experienced a resurgence after the 1950's. Uncle Tom's Cabin should also be wiped out - racist overtones and frequent use of the word "nigger." Ulysses and Ordinary People with their shocking sexual overtones.

Check out what books are the most challenged - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Of Mice and Men, the Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Flowers for Algernon, etc. Anything by Judy Blume and Toni Morrison.

Here's a quote from "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill:
" the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 3]

If God exists, He sent His son in the form of John Stuart Mill.
But I digress.

[billvon 3,132]

>On campus or off-campus, don't ban something because of the message.

You have to, but not because a message is against the grain. As a school you ban things that interrupt education.

If someone wears a cross on a chain around their neck? Fine. But if they wear a shirt that says "GAYS ARE PEOPLE TOO YOU FUCKING BREEDERS" then they get the boot. Not because that message is wrong, but because it's disruptive, and it's going to hamper the school's mission (which is to teach kids, not express politics.)

A little "support the US" pin, or a little pink triangle pin? Might be OK, might not be. School officials decide which one of those is OK. A little round blue pin that identifies affiliation in a violent gang? Might be completely unacceptable. Gang tattoo? Might be unacceptable. Big tattoo of Christ, or Osama bin Laden? Might be acceptable, might not be. Again, the school should make that decision based on what is compatible with education, not free speech. That's a separate issue.

[lawrocket 3]

I actually agree with you - to an extent. I think the case of the idiot kid with the anti-gay shirt is the best example. The school was sending a message with which the kid disagreed. The kid stated his disagreement on his shirt.

It was not an issue of the kid just showign up one day wearing the shirt. It was his protest against the "Day of Silence" that the administration sponsored in support of those with different sexual orientations. The kid stated an opposing viewpoint - in writing - on his shirt.

It was the fact that he brought up a viewpoint opposed to the school line on a political issue that was the disruption. Had he shown up wearing a rainbow shirt, no problem. Had he shown up wearing a Judas Priest shirt it probably would have been cool once he explained the significance of Rob Halford to the event.

It was only that he wore a shirt espousing a message that was contrary to the school line that his viewpoint was a disruption. This is the source of my problem - that a response that is not in agreement is inappropriate. That the political ideal that the school is teaching is to be accepted and absorbed without criticism or resistance, which is indoctrination.

This makes it no better than a church preaching that homosexuality is wrong. It is the kid's own indoctrination that is at odds with the school's attempt at indoctrination. Incidentally, this causes huge conflict, doesn't it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It was not an issue of the kid just showign up one day wearing the shirt. It was his protest against the "Day of Silence" that the administration sponsored in support of those with different sexual orientations. The kid stated an opposing viewpoint - in writing - on his shirt.

so was it the same day?

(He honored the silence by protesting in writing?)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>This makes it no better than a church preaching that homosexuality is wrong.

I think those are two different things. I have no constitutional objection to a church that teaches homosexuality is wrong. I may think they are somewhat bigoted and intolerant, but the members of the church can decide on their own if they want to keep going to a church that preaches that.

Schools are not like churches. You cannot just decide which school your kid goes to, and attendance is somewhat mandatory in most states. Schools are places of learning, not places for political stands to be made. When the two do come into conflict, the priorities should be (in order)

providing a safe environment conducive to education
accommodating student's needs (i.e. disabled kids, vegetarians, muslims who want to pray five times a day, christians who want easter off etc)
teaching basic civics (i.e. community responsibility, value of voting etc)
teaching basic values (i.e. don't steal, don't hurt other students)

Much of the problem comes about when educators start mistaking religious/political values for basic values.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Schools are not like churches. You cannot just decide which school your kid goes to, and attendance is somewhat mandatory in most states. Schools are places of learning, not places for political stands to be made.

Exactly! And the school took a political stand to which the kid took an opposing viewpoint. The school took another stand by suspending him for taking to oppositional stand.

The initial political stand was taken by the school. The school squelched the opposition.

As an aside, I'd change the list to:

the priorities should be (in order)
accommodating student's needs, which by iots nature includes a safe environment conducive to learning;
Accommodating the student's special needs (i.e. disabled kids, vegetarians, muslims who want to pray five times a day, christians who want easter off etc)
Teaching foundational subjects (math, reading, writing, science)
Teaching civics (community responsibility (which are basic values (i.e. don't steal, don't hurt other students)), government systems, politics. The school should not be in the business of espousing any particular political or societal philosophy unless it invites discourse.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Schools are not like churches. You cannot just decide which school your kid goes to, and attendance is somewhat mandatory in most states. Schools are places of learning, not places for political stands to be made.

Exactly! And the school took a political stand to which the kid took an opposing viewpoint. The school took another stand by suspending him for taking to oppositional stand.

The initial political stand was taken by the school. The school squelched the opposition.

What political stand did the school take? Tolerance? Would you feel the same way if the t-shirt had said "God hates blacks"?

Displaying an intolerant message in school is likely to disrupt class. As such, the Court, consistent with the Tinker decision, found that the school indeed had the right to take action.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What political stand did the school take?

It allowed a great deal of political speech to occur.

Here are some snippets from the opinion http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement:

"In 2003, the School permitted a student group called the Gay-Straight Alliance to hold a “Day of Silence” at the School which, in the words of an Assistant Principal, is intended to “teach tolerance of others, particularly those of a different sexual orientation.”2

fn3 "On the “Day of Silence,” participating students wore duct tape over their mouths to symbolize the silencing effect of intolerance upon gays and lesbians; these students would not speak in class except through a designated representative. Some students wore black T-shirts that said “National Day of Silence” and contained a purple square with a yellow equal sign in the middle. The Gay-Straight Alliance, with the permission of the School, also put up several posters promoting awareness of harassment on the basis of sexual orientation."

"Because of these conflicts in 2003, when the Gay-Straight Alliance sought to hold another “Day of Silence” in 2004, the School required the organization to consult with the Principal to “problem solve” and find ways to reduce tensions and potential altercations."

Thus, what we find is that there was a day of Silence the year before, which in fact resulted in disruptions resulting in the suspensions of several students. The next year, the administration allowed it to proceed. Apparently, there were no incidents.

The next day, the kid wore the shirt that was found to be disruptive.

See, here's what I find to be the reasons why the school allowed one side but not another: as the record reflects, the "Day of Silence" consists of students wearing duct tape over their mouths and speaking only through rpresentatives. That's not disruptive.

Amazingly, however, when a kid sends an opposite message by wearing a shirt with the message written on it, it is likely to be disruptive and should be squelched.

Quote

Tolerance?

Yes, for one side. Not for the kid's side. That should NOT be tolerated. So many fail to see the irony of "He's so intolerant."

Quote

Would you feel the same way if the t-shirt had said "God hates blacks"?

Yep. I'd feel the same way if it said, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." I'd feel the same way if it said, "I understand O.J."

Quote

Displaying an intolerant message in school is likely to disrupt class.

So is duct taping your mouth and speaking only through representatives. But I guess a shirt is more so.

Quote

As such, the Court, consistent with the Tinker decision, found that the school indeed had the right to take action.

Yep. A decision that was vacated by the US Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision.

My wife is hotter than your wife.