Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Court says student can wear anti-gay T-shirt
chicagotribune.com — A federal appeals court says a suburban Chicago student can wear a "Be Happy, Not Gay" T-shirt at his high school. The decision overturns a lower court's ruling that sided with the Naperville school's move to ban the anti-gay shirt. The school argued the shirt's message is derogatory and could disrupt education.
ColonelTribune- 827 diggs
- digg it
- jurnei, on 04/25/2008, -7/+103It is freedom of speech, however schools can and do have dress codes. I have worked in many that do.. Many in California can't wear sports team's logos as they are seen as "gang" related attire and disruptive to education. I really don't see how the court can over turn the dress code as it relates to an educational facility.
- marabout40, on 04/25/2008, -3/+36That's right. The school dress code would apply here. My son would not be allowed to wear anything like this to school.
- boogie606, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7he couldn't either until he sued...
- jpstanle, on 04/25/2008, -2/+18The courts and whatnot for a while seem to have pretty well established the concept of "classroom disruption" with regard to school dress codes. That is, you can't wear anything that is deemed disruptive to the classroom environment. This is the basis for banning any number of types of attire in public schools, from "Big Johnson" shirts to short skirts. Seems like this kind of shirt would fit that 'classroom disruption' test pretty well... controversial messages tend to be fair game for banning in schools. An unusal ruling indeed.
Disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with aformentioned "Classroom disruption" standard.- aladrin, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Oh man, the vice principal of my high school figured out what 'Big Johnson' shirts were like 2 years after I graduated... They'd been worn in the school for years already. I had a good laugh that day thinking about that dumb prick's ignorance.
- robthom, on 04/25/2008, -4/+19Lol, you say that as if California has any basis in reality.
- cawpin, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1That is, unfortunately, very true.
- stonewaljacksn, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1that was probably the best comment i've ever seen on digg. ah man i almost spit my coffee at this stupid computer
- Maver1c, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I loled.
- banmaster, on 04/25/2008, -18/+7free speech /= hate speech which this clearly is!
- theHM, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6Surely hate speech would be "Kill all gays" or something similar. While I disagree with the students, they are only advocating a non-violent opinion.
- InspectorGadget, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9"Hate speech" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. The US uses a "clear and present danger" test for most speech issues.
- ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3The interpretation in educational settings is much more general. Students in public schools *do* cede some of their rights upon entering the classroom. Any conduct, speech included, which unreasonably impairs the ability of students to learn is not protected by the First Amendment.
- InspectorGadget, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3This is clearly not that type of conduct. See the Tinker case.
- ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3Tinker has been tried and limited by more recent cases (most notably Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier and Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser) such that gestures of self-expression are only protected by the First Amendment if they are not inherently disruptive presences in the school. Whereas Tinker was expressing a personal opinion without implication or comment on any of the other students, here the student in question is specifically targeting a segment of the student body as being undesirable. If this lawsuit had instead been raised by a homosexual student who found the shirt disruptive, the lower court's decision most likely would have been upheld.
- ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3The interpretation in educational settings is much more general. Students in public schools *do* cede some of their rights upon entering the classroom. Any conduct, speech included, which unreasonably impairs the ability of students to learn is not protected by the First Amendment.
- jpstanle, on 04/25/2008, -3/+13This story is in the US, not the EU. In the US, so long as you're not inciting riot/unrest in a public forum (Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater), hate speech *is* free speech.
- al3efroman, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Unless it badmouths jesus or promotes bong rips.
- ventralnet, on 04/25/2008, -6/+18They should see if the court over turns "Be happy, not a negro"
- Jubalo, on 04/25/2008, -24/+8Huge difference between being black and being gay and I for one am tired of the comparison. There is no comparison. It is an insult to us when you compare your lifestyle to our race.
- MaxPayne3476, on 04/25/2008, -5/+19... what? We're not saying that blacks and gays are similar, but just that both are seen as typically opressed factions in society. Maybe I will wear my Be happy, not a ***** t-shirt.
- se1zure, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1yeah black people are so oppressed in todays societies, what with racist programs like affirmative action.
- Coven, on 04/25/2008, -8/+14You can't help being born black. Most homosexuals can't help being born homosexual (or turning out that way after a few years). Every gay person I have ever known knew that they were gay at a young age.
- mtwoar, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5I agree. It's an insult to us when my lifestyle is compared to your race. *rolls eyes*
I'm sorry but it's not often I see gays compared to blacks. Occasionally you will here a comparison between the rights of blacks in the past and the rights of gays today. Sorry we insult you so Jubalo. I hate it you have to deal with being compared to someone you detest so often. - ventralnet, on 04/25/2008, -6/+15You can't help being black just as you can't help being gay. They are one in the same and a relevant comparison in today's society due to the fact that they are both the most discriminated factions (at least in the US.. possibly the world)
- drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -14/+12First off, whether or not one can help "being gay" is still a matter of dispute. There are quite a few people who have successfully overcome same-sex attraction. And secondly, just because one is tempted toward a certain behavior does not mean one has to participate in that behavior, so the action and the lifestyle are something that most certainly can be chosen. And there are moral implications to that choice. Those of us who oppose homosexuality are opposing the behaviors, not so much the orientation (though we do seek ways to control and change the orientation to make it easier for people to leave the lifestyle).
Being black, on the other hand, doesn't really define anything except the color of one's skin. - ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -8/+12"First off, whether or not one can help "being gay" is still a matter of dispute."
No. It isn't.
"There are quite a few people who have successfully overcome same-sex attraction."
I'm sure there are quite a few people who could 'become' homosexual if they would be ostracized and repudiated by their friends and family if they didn't.
"And secondly, just because one is tempted toward a certain behavior does not mean one has to participate in that behavior..."
Ahh, I see - gay people should live their lives without love because their genetic makeup offends your religious sensibilities. ***** you. - ventralnet, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1wrong
- drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -11/+4"gay people should live their lives without love"
If you think fornication and love are the same thing, you're quite the shallowest person I've ever met. - ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -1/+12Ah, right - so I'm to believe you'd be perfectly okay with gay people living together, as long as they never displayed any outward affection, because that would be icky. If you think sex can't be an act of love, you're the stupidest person I've ever met.
- dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -1/+9If you're Christian and believe that gay people go to hell, why would you bother giving them grief while they live?
- ashfish, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5To drache, if you think homosexuality is simply about ***** someone of the same sex you're in that shallow end of the gene pool too.
- flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2@dynelol---excellent question. Most Christians are not out to give gays "grief" as you say but we are called to minister to the lost. I realize that a number of so-called Christians engage in name calling and hate inspired speech concerning gays which does nothing positive in my opinion. Let me say this up front, real Christians don't hate gays but there is concern because we know that homosexual acts are sinful and separate them from God. My Church would never turn a gay person away from our doors, but neither could we condone homosexuality. It's the same if we had a drunkard who wanted to come to the Church, he would be accepted, not his behavior. By giving homosexuals a free pass, saying it's normal behavior, is not helping that person reach God, but encouraging them down a road that will lead to utter darkness.
- ashfish, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1What, exactly, is wrong with homosexual "behavior?" Is it the sex? Is it not being in a relationship that produces children? Is it simply being attracted to someone of the same sex? Or all or none of the above? I've searched around for some passages about this but what I find are verses that can be construed in so many different ways that it's hard to tell what's really being said, if homosexuality is really even being condemned in the bible. I see what the passages have been translated into, but then I read the actual passage (or what I can find as a lot of the books have been trimmed down and translated to provide "easier" reading.) and it's really ambiguous, or sometimes I don't even come away with the same meaning the translations and interpretations do. I just can't see how we can be so sure that that's actually what the bible is saying if there's so many different variations of the same thing.
- drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -14/+12First off, whether or not one can help "being gay" is still a matter of dispute. There are quite a few people who have successfully overcome same-sex attraction. And secondly, just because one is tempted toward a certain behavior does not mean one has to participate in that behavior, so the action and the lifestyle are something that most certainly can be chosen. And there are moral implications to that choice. Those of us who oppose homosexuality are opposing the behaviors, not so much the orientation (though we do seek ways to control and change the orientation to make it easier for people to leave the lifestyle).
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6What you have in common with non-straight people is inequality and prejudice from bigots. Bickering over who experiences more injustice just detracts from the issue.
Obviously there's a difference between being black and being gay, but in this case the point is that public racism is treated as a worse offense than public homophobia in this country.
As a culture, we've had more time to educate our kids about race and progress as a society than we've had time to debate the issues of sexual orientation.
I'm not saying that black people have it easier, I'm just trying to clarify what I'm assuming was ventralnet's motivation behind the comment. - macweirdo42, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Let's see... In both cases, you're talking about a superficial trait being used to judge and discriminate against an entire group of people. In both cases, it's just something that you're born with and over which you have no control. Seems like an apt comparison to me.
And just to clarify, being gay is not a lifestyle. It's simply an attraction to people of the same gender. Yes, there is a gay culture, but not being a part of that culture doesn't make you any less gay. You could live your life without even once having sex with someone of your same gender, and that wouldn't make you any less gay. Hell, you could get married, have children, raise a family... It wouldn't change a thing. - Jubalo, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2GTFO here folks, you know exactly what the original post I responded to was getting at. This is not the first time I've seen the gay=new black comment. It is a comparison, you are claiming to be marginalized because you are gay as we were marginalized because we are black. I don't subscribe to the "I was born this way ideology" so that dog won't hunt here. Again, it is an insult and that is my opinion. Digg it down and feel as you may...I beg to differ
Max.. that would be an awesome T-shirt.. You should wear it often.- ventralnet, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7We do know exactly what you were getting and and it was thoroughly disputed.
- ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8Please stop being black, as I find it offensive. Also, I don't subscribe to the 'I was born this way' excuse, so forget it.
- ssn697, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I haven't seen the gay=new black.
I have seen the middle eastern=new black though. I get ignored in airports now. - dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Well i'm joining this party, too. I'm tired of getting so much ***** over me being an *****. I was born this way, god damnit.
- macweirdo42, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3You don't have to have sex with men to be gay, you just have to be attracted to them. How is that a lifestyle choice?
- burnblue, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Jubalo, I'll get dugg down for this but I offer you support. I am also of the opinion that what you do is a lifestyle, and you have choices there, even if you have hormonal imbalances. I understand that this is disputed and I may concede on some levels.. if it is true that wanting same-sex intercourse is in its majority genetic (though upbringing and experience will always play a part) then maybe its not fair to deny them fulfillment of that.
Your point though I definitely agree with: I've seen the gay=black thing. Everyone should be protected from hate crimes, discrimination, and the inability to do what you love, but the big difference between being gay and being black is that blackness isn't something I do. My skin color in no way determines my actions. At the same time, a guy who likes guys but just has sex with women is probably still called gay, but whatever.
Whatever your point of view, it shouldn't be illegal to wear a t-shirt about it. If my blackness makes you puke, by all means put it on your bumper sticker. Just make sure to treat me like you treat everyone else.- macweirdo42, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2A guy who likes guys but has sex with women IS gay. It's not a lifestyle issue. You don't have to have sex with men to be gay, you weirdo.
- ashfish, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1umm, wouldn't singling you out because you're black and it is your particular color that said person doesn't like about you be not treating you like everyone else?
- MaxPayne3476, on 04/25/2008, -5/+19... what? We're not saying that blacks and gays are similar, but just that both are seen as typically opressed factions in society. Maybe I will wear my Be happy, not a ***** t-shirt.
- se1zure, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1The court shouldn't overturn that shirt... it is your first amendment right to wear it.
- Jubalo, on 04/25/2008, -24/+8Huge difference between being black and being gay and I for one am tired of the comparison. There is no comparison. It is an insult to us when you compare your lifestyle to our race.
- Veretax, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6This is why some schools have banned wearing any shirt with text on it, except for those that promote the school.
- blankman, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6This isn't really part of a dress code though. Like it says in the article, they cannot chose to allow one saying on a shirt and not another just because they agree with it more. They are singling out this particular shirt, and even said they would allow a "be happy, be straight" shirt specifically because it doesn't have the word "gay" on it. That's not right.
If they truly wanted a dress code, then they should ban all t-shirts with messages on them, not just ones they don't agree with. - ravage86, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3Dress codes shouldn't be allowed. If I don't dress the way they want me to, they can deny me my education. But the law says they have to provide an education, not providing it for something so trivial as exercising my 1st amendment right should put the administration in jail.
- Scheissen, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You have no civil rights in public schools. You are on government property. You are being molded into what the elite want.
- ascendingPig, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0My school bans any shirt that denigrates a group based on race, religion, sexuality, or creed. I think that's a good policy; you can't pick and choose which statements you agree with, and a shirt that says "Nazis burn in Hell" would be banned just like one that said "Republicans burn in Hell."
- marabout40, on 04/25/2008, -3/+36That's right. The school dress code would apply here. My son would not be allowed to wear anything like this to school.
- mcquitty, on 04/25/2008, -37/+23How is it any different than having a Gay and Lesbian Student Group?
- lydecker, on 04/25/2008, -8/+27It's purpose is defamatory, not complimentary, which I think is the primary point. I wouldn't expect a lot of schools to accept some defamatory clothing, putting down their school or mascot or a group of people, but would be in favor of groups positively uniting.
- idoj, on 04/25/2008, -4/+14I agree with lydecker here. Gay and Lesbian groups are meant as a means for support for students, whereas the t-shirts in this story--even by headline--are believed to be "anti" gay.
- mcquitty, on 04/25/2008, -22/+6But it isn't anti-gay. It just isn't pro-gay.
- idoj, on 04/25/2008, -4/+8Can you explain the difference to me, mcquitty? I'm not sure I follow..
If you're saying it's something you cannot support, even though I don't agree, I'd certainly respect your right to feel that way. However, is it necessary to have demeaning t-shirts on campus? The article in question from Chicago does explicitly say "anti-gay." - lydecker, on 04/25/2008, -3/+18It is anti gay, it's a shirt, paraphrasing, saying "Don't Be Gay"
- idoj, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Yeah, got that, thanks. Though to be fair, the paper does say "anti-gay."
I was really more interested in hearing from mcquitty as to the stance he took with anti-gay vs. not pro gay. - estvir, on 04/25/2008, -6/+3Why can't someone be against homosexuals? Whether you think their reason(s) are valid or not do not matter, what matters is that people harp for 'freedom of speech' and so on for things but when someone does something they're not a fan of they're up in arms.
Hypocrisy. You can call him a bigot or whatever but it doesn't change the hypocrisy. - Coven, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6@estvir
People are free to have their opinions. I am free to call them out as a bigot for their opinions. - ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8@estvir
Some of us actually understand free speech. This does not, interestingly enough, make us hypocrites.
Speech which constitutes an unreasonable barrier to the educational mission of a school is not protected by the First Amendment. Creating an environment hostile to a group of people has the effect of, get this, making that group of people feel unconformable and impairing their ability to learn. - se1zure, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1@ncairns
Just because certain people are offended by a shirt does not mean it should be ruled out. If someone wore a shirt critical of people who wear polos from abercrombie saying "preps suck" or something along those lines, should that shirt be outlawed from schools?
- idoj, on 04/25/2008, -4/+8Can you explain the difference to me, mcquitty? I'm not sure I follow..
- mcquitty, on 04/25/2008, -22/+6But it isn't anti-gay. It just isn't pro-gay.
- jpstanle, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6It's not even a matter of being supportive/derogatory. A student group is an organization that meets outside of class time. A shirt is a constant presence in the classroom environment.
- idoj, on 04/25/2008, -4/+14I agree with lydecker here. Gay and Lesbian groups are meant as a means for support for students, whereas the t-shirts in this story--even by headline--are believed to be "anti" gay.
- RustyJ, on 04/25/2008, -4/+10Because gay and lesbian student groups don't all gather together and yell "Huzzah, Death to the breeders!"
- willdiggforfood, on 04/25/2008, -8/+6So? Heterosexuals don't either. Your point?
- staticneuron, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7Why would heterosexuals yell "Huzzah, Death to the breeders!" ?
- crypticlok, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7I must have missed the part in the article where it said "Huzzah, Death to gays!" Oh wait it didn't. Over dramatize much?
- willdiggforfood, on 04/25/2008, -8/+6So? Heterosexuals don't either. Your point?
- lydecker, on 04/25/2008, -8/+27It's purpose is defamatory, not complimentary, which I think is the primary point. I wouldn't expect a lot of schools to accept some defamatory clothing, putting down their school or mascot or a group of people, but would be in favor of groups positively uniting.
- zlatinb, on 04/25/2008, -40/+148Well, I'm gay. I guess I would feel ok if I were able to yell at that guy to ***** OFF every time I see him. Cause that's what a T-shirt basically is.
- Laughsatyou, on 04/25/2008, -8/+39you can
- Aitese, on 04/25/2008, -5/+12Try walking around your school and yelling ***** off to people then cite your freedom of speech as the reason.
- ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6This court decision established a rather supportive precedent for his right to do so.
- Aitese, on 04/25/2008, -5/+12Try walking around your school and yelling ***** off to people then cite your freedom of speech as the reason.
- Beestie, on 04/25/2008, -20/+57His T-Shirt isn't aimed directly at you. Its his general opinion. You shouting F-off at him is neither an opinion nor is it general and not aimed at a specific person. I understand that you are offended by it. But your offense cannot be used to restrict his right to express an opinion. Instead of "taking the bait" perhaps you could make your own T-shirt with your own opinion. I would then defend your right to do so.
- TheThirdLevel, on 04/25/2008, -18/+11Why not? If he tells him to ***** OFF then it's his right and opinion, no more and no less than the guy wearing the T-shirt's.
- luckyguy2000, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4reread beesties post. its perfect. youre wrong.
- spartan777, on 04/25/2008, -12/+6then suppose zlatinb went to this naperville highschool. zlatinb should be allowed to yell "***** OFF" to nobody everytime the kid with the shirt walked by wearing the shirt.
I don't see the difference between the two, the shirt and yelling "***** off." Either high schoolers should be able to say and behave however they damn well please, under the guise of freedom of expression, or there should be limits. for example, nobody should be allowed to verballly attack anyone, and nobody should be allowed to wear a t-shirt attacking somebody else. its one or the other.- Beestie, on 04/25/2008, -6/+5Taken literally, all the t-shirt says is that you can't be happy if you are gay. I think that's pretty different from shouting F-off. I wouldn't mind if someone wore a t-shirt that said be happy not hetero. I certainly wouldn't feel the need to tell them to F-off.
Its not ok to hate somebody that disagrees with you simply because they disagree with you.- ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3It's not a question of whether or not the two are semantically equivalent. It's about whether one creates more of a hostile learning environment than the other. Frankly, given that the shirt in question is an insult to the immutable genetic makeup that makes him who he is as a person and yelling '***** OFF' is just a vague, angry sentiment - I think the shirt is much, much more offensive.
- swimmin00, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Freedom of speech should be freedom of speech, period. I don't remember the first amendment advocating freedom of speech, but only when people feel that it's appropriate.
- ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1@swimmin00
Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are many ways it can, and should be limited. The kind of absolutist, strict constructionist nonsense that says otherwise is wholly incontinent. Imagine a world where freedom is absolute. Not so nice.
- oblique63, on 04/25/2008, -6/+6yea... one tiny ltty-bitty problem with that Beestie... I dont recall 'heteros' ever being specifically targeted for prejudice, or much less ever enduring any oppression, constant scrutiny, or fights for civil rights and liberties... so the implicit meaning of the statement on that shirt is obvious, its not a matter of 'disagreement', its a matter of prejudice..
calling this a disagreement is like calling the Israel-Palestine conflict a 'misunderstanding'.... - aladrin, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5It doesn't actually say you can't be happy if you are gay. It only says to be happy, and not to be gay. The 2 are not mutually exclusive and the shirt isn't even implying it.
It is, however, suggesting that being gay is a bad thing. Even as a 'hetero' I dislike the shirt and I can imagine I'd be pretty insulted if I were gay.
- Beestie, on 04/25/2008, -6/+5Taken literally, all the t-shirt says is that you can't be happy if you are gay. I think that's pretty different from shouting F-off. I wouldn't mind if someone wore a t-shirt that said be happy not hetero. I certainly wouldn't feel the need to tell them to F-off.
- KenOh, on 04/25/2008, -9/+6***** OFF
- rolii, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5Right on, Beestie!
- MagMarCat, on 04/28/2008, -2/+0Ditto!! Beestie is the voice of reason in all of these ***** comments.
- badenglishihave, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2A correct response might be "Be Gay, Not Straight." Much more civil and appropriate.
- chrisaug18, on 04/25/2008, -3/+14How about your own shirt something along the lines of: "Be happy, not a homophobe"
- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -12/+4Homophobia- fear of the *****. Homophobe - a person that fears the homosexual. Hmmmmm NOT!~ Try not flattering yourself. No one fears you. Most of us are just disgusted by your BEHAVIOR and the constant barrage we have to endure trying to convince us all that you and your behavior is normal. Like it or not hetero is the norm as evidenced by the fact that the world is populated...period! To be more specific 1) I do not have anything against you as a homosexual it is the behavior I find repulsive and 2) I do not as a rule look forward to putting my privates in a sewer as a form of showing affection to my significant other.
So no, it is not normal. And I do not fear you. - StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10That's all fine and good, you're entitled to your own disgust. However, I'll take the time to say that your generalizations are false.
Plenty of people out there don't understand homosexuality, or bisexuality, or anything that is different from their own experiences. Without understanding, fear of the unknown sets in. Fear can easily lead to mistrust, even outright hatred over time, especially when it's learned behavior from parents and role models.
This is why Homophobia is much more than simple fear. It's a culturally perpetuated ignorance, and it should be denounced and treated as a serious problem, which it is by most sensible people out there.
And on an unrelated note:
The whole idea of debating serious issues with t-shirt slogans is kinda dumb. Instead, the administration should do a better job of minimizing conflict and discrimination within their own school by not allowing shirts like this.- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -10/+5Many people may not have the desire to learn more about your lifestyle. I have had enough real life experience the individuals and the lifestyle to know I do not want to know anymore about it. I am not ignorant to the lifestyle or the repercussions of said lifestyle. I do not advocate hatred of homosexuals. I have friends and family that are homosexual. I am not friends with them because they are *****. In many cases I am friends with them in spite of it.
I look at the picture you hold up for the world to see and it is not pretty nor does it endear your movement to me. Your psychoanalysis on its face sounds good but it is just not something many of us seek to immerse ourselves in. Everthing we are exposed to informs our opinion of the *****. Just like in my life i make it a point to live outside the stereotypes of the "*****". I just refuse to participate in something that could cause me to lose respect.
There is no need for treatment as a serious problem. People are free to think what they want. The serious problem is that you want to make us learn more aboutyou and your lifestyle whether I want to or not. Go on and live your life and leave us alone. I deal with it everyday. I just know I cannot change the world today but today I can change that one or two folks I meet by pulling my pants up and wearing the bill of my hat to the front and marching from the waist down like a good soldier (Hoo-ahh) so that the stereotypes that folks have are not brought to life upon my arrival. Oh yes and speaking the Kings english and conversing with people as opposed to "conversating". Ya feel me? - drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -9/+4"This is why Homophobia is much more than simple fear. It's a culturally perpetuated ignorance, and it should be denounced and treated as a serious problem, which it is by most sensible people out there."
You're overanalyzing "homophobia". It has nothing to do with ignorance. It has everything to do with the fact that the Christian religion, to which most Americans at least nominally belong, teaches that sexuality is limited to one man and one woman, and explicitly excludes homosexual behavior. That's what Christianity teaches; it's in the Bible in black and white. You're not going to change it by talking about "ignorance" and "homophobia". It has nothing to do with ignorance or fear and everything to do with Christian morality. - ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2Bingo drach!
- herecomes, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Oh well if it's in the Bible it must be right.
/sarcasm - ikbrooks, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1our point exactly! lol
- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -10/+5Many people may not have the desire to learn more about your lifestyle. I have had enough real life experience the individuals and the lifestyle to know I do not want to know anymore about it. I am not ignorant to the lifestyle or the repercussions of said lifestyle. I do not advocate hatred of homosexuals. I have friends and family that are homosexual. I am not friends with them because they are *****. In many cases I am friends with them in spite of it.
- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -12/+4Homophobia- fear of the *****. Homophobe - a person that fears the homosexual. Hmmmmm NOT!~ Try not flattering yourself. No one fears you. Most of us are just disgusted by your BEHAVIOR and the constant barrage we have to endure trying to convince us all that you and your behavior is normal. Like it or not hetero is the norm as evidenced by the fact that the world is populated...period! To be more specific 1) I do not have anything against you as a homosexual it is the behavior I find repulsive and 2) I do not as a rule look forward to putting my privates in a sewer as a form of showing affection to my significant other.
- Jezon, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1How about a shirt that says:
I don't think people should wear shirts that say "Be Happy Not Gay"
- TheThirdLevel, on 04/25/2008, -18/+11Why not? If he tells him to ***** OFF then it's his right and opinion, no more and no less than the guy wearing the T-shirt's.
- foxhaze, on 04/25/2008, -21/+12Be happy, not gay.
- willdiggforfood, on 04/25/2008, -10/+19F-off is not the same in either intention than what his T-shirt says. I think your response is overdramatic.
- estvir, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5And petty. Be the better person and ignore it.
- Balloondoggies, on 04/25/2008, -9/+4*GASP* A gay guy being over dramatic? I don't believe that could ever happen! Now excuse me while I go for a walk with my walkin petunias.
- Slagtits, on 04/25/2008, -18/+13You might be gay but that dosen't stop you being a *****. The shirt isn't anti gay it's just a play on words. You just want it to be anti gay so you can get all fired up. Gay is just another word for happy.
- Velnich, on 04/25/2008, -3/+14What do you think the message of such a phrase is if not anti-gay?
- hcharger, on 04/25/2008, -9/+0 If you do not approve of homosexual lifestyles you are anti gay and homophobic. God does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle, are you in turn gonna tell him so, lol?
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -1/+61. You assume that I believe in your God.
2. You think that being homosexual is a "lifestyle", therefore a choice.
3. You truly believe that, if there is a God, he/she/it actually discriminates against specific groups of people (nevermind all that Jesus talk of "love one another")- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -7/+3Where did God say He discriminates against specific groups? Name one time that God the Father and/or Christ EVER discriminated against a specific group! If you read the Bible you will see it was the behavior of a specific group that was challenged and punished.
Your premise is faulty thus any conclusion you draw or argument you make will also be faulty.
The first step in criticizing ANYTHING is having an understanding and mastery of the subject matter. Sadly, you have neither. - MacBigot, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4This verse may be an example to consider:
Matt. 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” - ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1...to the Jew first and then the Gentile. I would argue the "lost sheep" could mean everyone. God knew Christ would be rejected by the Jews just like H knew we would sin in the garden but He did not stop us He gave us the choice all the putting in place a plan to save us all. That is the God I serve! So Christ saying this in essence means that we as gentiles are also of the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -7/+3Where did God say He discriminates against specific groups? Name one time that God the Father and/or Christ EVER discriminated against a specific group! If you read the Bible you will see it was the behavior of a specific group that was challenged and punished.
- Slagtits, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3Velnich, up until the 60's to be gay was to be happy, this shirt was contrasting this with the meaning of the word now, its just a play on words. If it were to say "Be happy not a poof" now that would be different and offensive. ....................now where is my "Put a cigarette in your mouth not a fag" t-shirt?...
- Velnich, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1You didn't answer my question. If the message has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, what is it's point?
I agree that it is a play on words, but that doesn't mean it is not "anti-gay". If you believe I'm wrong and that there is another meaning, I'd like to know what it is.
- Velnich, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1You didn't answer my question. If the message has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, what is it's point?
- londonium, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1What if the shirt said:
"Be Bright, Not Black!"
Black is a kind of mood, right? The (ignorant) owner of such a t-shirt would assume that an offended observer is -- actively looking -- for trouble. Because OBVIOUSLY "black" means "sad or moody" in this context. Note sarcasm.
Whatevs, lots of ignorance and suffering in the world. Let's just chill and let it be.- Slagtits, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Good argument.
- ikbrooks, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Poor argument. I have heard it said that a person may be in a dark mood but not a black mood. Either way it would not bother me. You have got to pick your battles and getting upset and twisted out of shape at every idiot that wears his brains on a t-shirt is just not where I live.
- flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -3/+3Actually to be proper the shirt would have to read "Be Bright not Dim."
- Velnich, on 04/25/2008, -3/+14What do you think the message of such a phrase is if not anti-gay?
- Jubalo, on 04/25/2008, -11/+15So at what point in time does your right to be gay override my right to disagree with your lifestyle?
- cawpin, on 04/25/2008, -5/+7That isn't the point. We all have a right of freedom of speech/expression. What this judge did, correctly I might add, was reaffirm this and the fact that nobody has a right to not be offended. People seem to have forgotten that second part lately.
- godofpumpkins, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1so how do television and public "decency" rules fall into that?
- Jubalo, on 04/25/2008, -3/+0I would agree, everyone is offended by one thing or another. However, the underlying cause to support a ban on this T-shirt is to promote the right to be gay and treated with "equality". So I still pose my original question to anyone, At what point in time does your right to be gay infringe in my right to disagree with your lifestyle?
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5When you take that right to disagree and turn it into a public statement, in a federally regulated public school that has dress codes designed to minimize disruption and prevent students from harming each other (physically and emotionally), you are doing more than just having an opinion, and the school has a right to prohibit your use of the shirt.
They aren't saying you can't have an opinion, they're saying that you can't wear a shirt that targets your fellow students in a negative way.
And you're not disagreeing with someone's "lifestyle", you're disagreeing with who they are as a person, something that they can't change.
A person's "lifestyle" is the clothes they wear, the music they listen to, the books they read, the hobbies they have, the places they like to visit, etc.- flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2"And you're not disagreeing with someone's "lifestyle", you're disagreeing with who they are as a person, something that they can't change."
Leftist drivel. People change from that behavior all the time.
- flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -4/+2"And you're not disagreeing with someone's "lifestyle", you're disagreeing with who they are as a person, something that they can't change."
- ncairns, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5"However, the underlying cause to support a ban on this T-shirt is to promote the right to be gay and treated with "equality". "
And you don't think gay people should have the rights to be gay and to be treated with equality?
"At what point in time does your right to be gay infringe in my right to disagree with your lifestyle?"
In this case, as soon as we enter a school. The First Amendment doesn't protect speech which hinders a school's educational mission. If this case had instead been raised by one or more homosexual students who found the shirt created a hostile learning environment, they almost certainly would have won. Allowing demeaning conduct targeted at a group of people creates de facto segregation, or at least unequal access to education.
In general, you can disagree with homosexuals all you want - up until you convince yourself that your disapproval of their genetics is sufficient cause to limit their rights.- flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1"In general, you can disagree with homosexuals all you want - up until you convince yourself that your disapproval of their genetics is sufficient cause to limit their rights."
Genetics? Nice try. There is no evidence of a gay gene.
- flip2trip, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1"In general, you can disagree with homosexuals all you want - up until you convince yourself that your disapproval of their genetics is sufficient cause to limit their rights."
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5When you take that right to disagree and turn it into a public statement, in a federally regulated public school that has dress codes designed to minimize disruption and prevent students from harming each other (physically and emotionally), you are doing more than just having an opinion, and the school has a right to prohibit your use of the shirt.
- Slagtits, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3Why do you have to disagree with his life style?...............What has it to do with you?................Nothing I suggest.
- dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Ask the media.
- cawpin, on 04/25/2008, -5/+7That isn't the point. We all have a right of freedom of speech/expression. What this judge did, correctly I might add, was reaffirm this and the fact that nobody has a right to not be offended. People seem to have forgotten that second part lately.
- removesstains, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6Your response would make me laugh, plus its exactly the reaction the kid wants.
- herecomes, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Actually, the kid is dying to have some sweet man take him in his arms and say "it's OK, I went through the same period of self-hatred when I was younger".
- fatrandy13, on 04/25/2008, -7/+4you're gay?
- NecroDigg, on 04/25/2008, -6/+2Pack that fudge!
Shift that *****!
Spin that meat!- rand0mm0nkey, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Says the guy with necro in his name.
- wurtis16, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3That'd be a pretty gay thing to do, imho.
- liquidpele, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Yelling "F-you" to him? You sound angry.
You should be happy, not gay...
sorry, couldn't resist :)
- Laughsatyou, on 04/25/2008, -8/+39you can
- leoburg, on 04/25/2008, -24/+7Shouldn't we all have the right to our opinions? Even though I hate what Hannity and company are doing to with the MEDIA-RIGHT-STORM, I guess now, he still has the right. But our founders had no clue as to what harm big-bus./and the religious right (not) could do with the TV. I guess we are stuck (for now) to let everyone be as was the last advice given to John in Revelation 22:10-11. But they all will be exposed for their stone throwing, and its fruits.
- skully1337, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4And that also gives me the ability to wear a shirt that says "I Hate Jews" Dosen't it. Leoburg your an *****.
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and "I hate baseball players!"
- wurtis16, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Theres nothing wrong with hating jews, as long as you don't act on it.
- austin006, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2really though, there's never a good reason to hate an entire group of people
- skully1337, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4And that also gives me the ability to wear a shirt that says "I Hate Jews" Dosen't it. Leoburg your an *****.
- ColonelTribune, on 04/25/2008, -11/+33But nobody's answering the question: Is it possible to draw the line between freedom of expression and hate speech? Should we?
- Laughsatyou, on 04/25/2008, -6/+51no. thought crimes are ridiculous.
- Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Speaking as a bisexual: I agree with you 100%.
- dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Have you heard that Queen parody of Bicycle?
- Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Speaking as a bisexual: I agree with you 100%.
- apophenic, on 04/25/2008, -1/+15The question is poorly worded, but if you mean "Is hate speech protected?" then the answer is yes.
- Beestie, on 04/25/2008, -5/+13There is such a thing as hate speech. You can't really define it but its one of those things that "you know it when you see it."
'Be happy, not gay' does not, in my opinion pass the hate-speech sniff test however ignorant I think it might be.- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7You're right.
"Kill Fags" is hate speech. Telling people to not be gay (as though they have a choice) is not hate speech.- dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1It's only a choice for the girls. lol
- MaxPayne3476, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Cdahlkvist nails it on the head. In the United States, we don't have many laws actually regarding hate speech. The basic precedent is the rule surrounding freedom of speech where your words can not directly threat or harm another person. So saying "I hate fags" would be fine. All your doing is expressing your opinion. Saying "Let's lynch the blacks" would in fact be threatening.
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7You're right.
- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -12/+7Of course it is, Your freedom of expression ends as soon as it causes someone else harm.
Now there are obvious situations like inciting violence like someone wearing a shirt that says "Gay people should be stoned to death"
But obviously there exists a fuzzy line between people saying "I hate gay people"(hate speech) and "I don't approve of gay people"(protected speech). There really is no prefect solution,on one end you allow discrimination or on the other you hinder free speech. it's a lose lose situation for everybody.- amdahlj, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6No, the line can and should only be drawn when threatening acts of violence,
- MaxPayne3476, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3I was with you until the lst paragraph. Either phrase is okay - neither are hate speech. They're both just pinions, and if you ask me, probably the major opinion of the United States. The line is drawn when the speech actually directly threatens/
- estvir, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5How does speech, especially something like this, cause harm? It brings to mind the old adage, "'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
Outside of letting someone's words affect you, how would they? If someone has a shirt saying to kill someone, if they're blamed as the sole [or even main] cause for someone enacting upon their T-SHIRT, that would strike me as kind of silly.- komodovaraan, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1its not about blaming the shirt wearer should someone act on it.
its the principle that wearing a shirt that poses a concrete thread is in itself an act of violence because it crosses the boundary of free opinion.
- komodovaraan, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1its not about blaming the shirt wearer should someone act on it.
- Fartbandit, on 04/25/2008, -2/+10Christopher Hitchens was invited to speak at the University of Toronto's Hart House Debating Club on the topic, "Be It Resolved: Freedom of Speech Includes the Freedom to Hate."
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EUphTYPMB4o
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9jnD4Mc3VUw- stonewaljacksn, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1having hitchens agree with your side only sets your side back.
- bgrah449, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1no, christopher hitchens is dazzlingly smart and if he supports a cause, you can bet there is at least some merit to it.
- stonewaljacksn, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1having hitchens agree with your side only sets your side back.
- vestlandsfanden, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8"No fat chicks!" Hate speech?
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5I think you mean "Know Fat Chicks!"
- dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Fat people have to get in line. Blacks went first. Now it's the gays turn.
- cowman, on 04/25/2008, -2/+29Freedom of speech is worthless if it does not apply to everyone and every idea.
- Slagtits, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2There has to be limits. There is a difference between "Die you fag cnut" and "what a nancy boy". Basically it comes down to human decency and tolerance of people. You can't legislate against these things on a global scale, people must fight for and maintain the standards they choose. Court cases are meant as a reference point or a marker.
- rgranger, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Saying "Die you fag cnut" isn't freedom of speech it's just crude. So many people think freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. It actually means you can express whatever idea you want.
- Slagtits, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2There has to be limits. There is a difference between "Die you fag cnut" and "what a nancy boy". Basically it comes down to human decency and tolerance of people. You can't legislate against these things on a global scale, people must fight for and maintain the standards they choose. Court cases are meant as a reference point or a marker.
- Slagtits, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Where is the hate? I can't see any. I can see freedom of speech problems though.
- Spudster, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2Is it free speech to yell racial obscenities at a sports star while they play to the point that it screws up their performance? I bring this up because it is a relevant in Europe during soccer matches.
- InspectorGadget, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9Europe has a whole bunch of retarded speech codes. The United States is for the most part blissfully free of them.
- MaxPayne3476, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4In Europe it actually may be. Many countries within Europe, thanks to a little thing known as WWII and socialism, have much stricter hate speech laws enacted that actually prohibit the things you may say. See the Public Order Act of 1986, the German Constitution, and Loi Gayssot for more information :) In Canada they have the Criminal Code of Canada. Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 for Victoria, Australia. And Article 10 of the European Convention.
However, in the United States we don't have generally what are regarded as hate speech laws. The standard ruling is that what we say and how we say it cannot be regulated by the government as long as said speech is not to incite a riot or directly threaten a group or an individual. So it's fine for me to hold Anti-Gay rallys and speak out against how these ***** are an abomination - but cannot stand there and go aight lets go riot and kill some ***** - sphigel, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2People seem to apply free speech when it's not relevant. In your case, at a sporting event, someone yelling racial obscenities at a sports player can be asked to leave the stadium. At least in the US, free speech guaranteed in the constitution does not protect you from getting fired or being asked to leave an event. It protects you from government prosecution.
- SpinningHead, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4The line can be drawn in the public at large when it incites violence. A school is a different situation. Kids should not have to deal with bigotry in a learning environment. Maybe Ill go work on my "Be like Christ, Not Like Christians" shirt.
"Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Ghandi- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -9/+2You make a good point as cynical as it may be. But you miss the point of Christ which is God knew we could not be like Him (Christ) due to our sin nature so He had to come and die for us. So your be like Christ and not like Christians advertises your complete lack of understanding of the reason for Christ to have come in the first place.
Kevin B.
p.s. when you start marketing those shirts let me know. I want a couple of them. - sphigel, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4How is a school different at all. Assuming it's a public school don't you think it should follow the Constitution of the United States? People like you argue for speech codes at universities. Which I might add are complete BS.
- SpinningHead, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Its different because youre dealing with minors. Kids cant walk in and out of the classroom at will either. You can burn a cross in your yard if you want, but I dont think kids should be able to do that either.
- toekneebullard, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3"Kids should not have to deal with bigotry in a learning environment."
Indeed. School should be as little like the real world as possible.
- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -9/+2You make a good point as cynical as it may be. But you miss the point of Christ which is God knew we could not be like Him (Christ) due to our sin nature so He had to come and die for us. So your be like Christ and not like Christians advertises your complete lack of understanding of the reason for Christ to have come in the first place.
- kocurejd, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4Have we gotten so backwards in this country that a person can't express his/her opinion without it being hate speech? The pro-gay community can picket and yell and do whatever they want towards anyone who is "anti-gay" and it's acceptable, but as soon as it's coming back the other way, "Oh no, it's hate speech!"
- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Roger that!
- kayala, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Try having a little hatred directed at you, and then see how you feel.
- absurdist, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1The only cure for free speech is more free speech.
- Laughsatyou, on 04/25/2008, -6/+51no. thought crimes are ridiculous.
- insomniacal, on 04/25/2008, -7/+27The ACLU didn't defend the kid? Weird. They're usually pretty good about defending speech rights even of those they disagree with.
- Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -6/+15He was defended by the ADF, a group that represents Christians (and only Christians) in religious freedom cases. Not just the cases with merit, either. The ACLU might well have approached him, but since they have a reputation as godless heathens I'm pretty sure he would have gone with the ADF instead given the choice.
- designer, on 04/25/2008, -12/+5The ACLU is communist. They are anti traditional values.
- Hypersapien, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6The ACLU only gets involved in a case if they are asked. Chances are that anyone who would wear an anti-gay t-shirt would think that the ACLU is evil incarnate and would never ask them.
- exgop, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1The ACLU would only help if it would hurt America. Shakespeare was right "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers"
- maretten, on 04/25/2008, -13/+19Lots of assholes in my school say they hate gays on a regular basis, so wearing a t-shirt saying it will just mean they won't talk as much, which is really a win for society.
- Nannybell, on 04/25/2008, -4/+11Do the students you refer to actually state, "I hate gays" -- or do they just say they are opposed to accepting homosexuality as a normal behavior? There is a difference between those two things.
- PeppermintPig, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Whatever the case, knowing who they are makes it easier to ostracize them. It's a shame that their ignorance and hostility ruins things for others.
- RealmDown, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4"knowing who they are makes it easier to ostracize them"
Same intolerance on the other side of the coin.- PeppermintPig, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3Not all ideas are equally valuable. Ostracism doesn't automatically mean being ignorant in return.
- sodade, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3There is nothing so intolerable as intolerance.
- Slagtits, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I'll kill the next cnut who says I'm intolerant.
- RealmDown, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4"knowing who they are makes it easier to ostracize them"
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1it's not much of a difference, really. One is simply a more polite way of saying "I see your life as something different from all other normal human beings."
It implies that homosexuals are unnatural.
- PeppermintPig, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Whatever the case, knowing who they are makes it easier to ostracize them. It's a shame that their ignorance and hostility ruins things for others.
- Slagtits, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5The shirt said "be happy not gay" it didn't say "I hate gays"
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5It said "Be happy, don't be gay", which means that being gay is wrong.
it's like saying "don't be who you are", and it offers no reasons or logic.
It's a dumb t-shirt that has no purpose other than to instigate conflict, and it should not be allowed in a public school.- dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You can tell somebody not to do something for more reasons than it being wrong.
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5It said "Be happy, don't be gay", which means that being gay is wrong.
- komodovaraan, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6People that 'hate gays' are usually themselves still dealing with insecurities about their own sexuality.
Not so strange therefore that it is mostly the American Christians that have so much troubles with gays. - stonewaljacksn, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2komodovaraan
by the same logic, people who "hate religion" are usually themselves still dealing with insecurities about their spirituality.
it sounds as off as yours right?- maretten, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1....aaaand by your logic instead of people hating gays, they hate the idea of homosexuality. Hating religion is not hating religious people. *****.
- eir574, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3@Nannybell,
"Do the students you refer to actually state, "I hate gays" -- or do they just say they are opposed to accepting homosexuality as a normal behavior? There is a difference between those two things."
I can't speak for the original poster, but there are plenty of people in this country who say that they hate gays, and not just homosexuality. I went to a public high school with relatively few discipline problems, and there were still people who would say those things. Surely you've seen that behavior on digg.
- Nannybell, on 04/25/2008, -4/+11Do the students you refer to actually state, "I hate gays" -- or do they just say they are opposed to accepting homosexuality as a normal behavior? There is a difference between those two things.
- Kali075, on 04/25/2008, -18/+101I'm gay, and I think the guy should be allowed to wear the T-shirt in public, but not at school. The school wouldn't tolerate something that said "Don't be Jewish" and they should act the same way.
Outside of school though, hes allowed to be an ass if he wants to be.- RevJonathan, on 04/25/2008, -15/+15I'm a Republican, does that mean that I have the right to prevent people from wearing anti-GOP t-shirts around campus? Of course not.
When confronted with speech I suggest you consider the merits of the message and see if it applies to you. The five seconds that takes to do that is much more effective than getting pissed and suing.- kaeryn, on 04/25/2008, -10/+3Another GAY REPUBLICAN heard from.
SLOGANS are not speech but you are right no one told me I couldn't wear my BUSH NORIEGA shirt nor my SAVE AMERICA, KILL A REPUBLICAN WITH HIS SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPON TODAY!!!! shirt. BUT then again I wouldn't wear it to school, it's simply inappropriate to wear SLOGANS to school but as a republican I'm sure you didn't attend school very much, you might have gotten educated then and we can't have that.- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2OK now I do feel sorry for you. Satisfied?
- kawaiirobo, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1IT's people like you who are ruining the democratic party, bitterness and hate doesn't solve anything.
- banmaster, on 04/25/2008, -14/+11Being a Republican is a choice (a rather ***** up one), being gay ISN'T. One should NEVER be attacked for what one had no choice in.
- drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -9/+1One certainly has the choice whether or not to engage in a gay lifestyle. If one never acts on homosexual desires no one would even know he's gay. People who oppose homosexuality, in the vast majority of cases, are opposing the behavior.
And even so, there are plenty of documented cases of people overcoming the inclination itself, so it's not entirely accurate to say that's not a choice, either. - ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -7/+2You don't like rep's. OK I don't either. But you start of with a faulty premise when you state "...had no choice in". In the grand scheme of things we are created and have what we need to survive. if you were born gay why do you need sperm or a uterus or ovaries? You aint gonna use em! Your argument just don't hold water or anything else for that matter. Maybe you just have sperm because it taste yummy? Enlighten me...please. I am just a dumb old conservative here.
- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Hmmm, a bunch of down diggs and only a question as a reply. i guess the response committee is still in session on this one. Or maybe no cares lol
- jaxcs, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3"You don't like rep's. OK I don't either.....please. I am just a dumb old conservative here."
Maybe that's your answer right there. You hate yourself but are too dumb to know it. - ikbrooks, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1Can you clarify your point? Or are you just one of the typical sodomites that hit and run? Oops pardon the pun. hehe
- dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3How do we know that some people aren't genetically predisposed towards discriminative behavior and opinions?
- ikbrooks, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1Wd do not. But I bet the data would be hard to collect an the "discriminatory behavior and opinions" gene.
- drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -9/+1One certainly has the choice whether or not to engage in a gay lifestyle. If one never acts on homosexual desires no one would even know he's gay. People who oppose homosexuality, in the vast majority of cases, are opposing the behavior.
- Veretax, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2I used to wear a shirt to school that had two texts. On the front it said dare to be different, and on the back it said dare to D-V-8 onit. Grow up already, if you don't like the text you don't have to read it.
- dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Ignoring something doesn't make people feel empowered, though. Think about chat rooms. Do people put you on ignore (which is sensible) or do they do what they can to get you kicked out? Same way in normal life.
- 221MXV, on 04/25/2008, -8/+8Expressing ones opinion about a political party is much different then expressing ones opinion against a minority of people who were born a minority. You have a choice, you can become democratic, they don't have a choice .. they can't become straight.
- drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -6/+4Incorrect. People can and do overcome the inclination. And if nothing else they can certainly choose to not act on those impulses, just as straight people can (and should) choose not to act on theirs until the proper time.
- jaxcs, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1If you really believe that then cite statistics, success and recidivism rates.
- priegog, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8Dude a highschol and a uni campus are 2 VERY different things. But if your uni decided you can't wear something, they are free to do so. What's the matter with people not understanding the difference between freedom of speech and and rules of private facilities.
- kosmoX, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Public universities aren't private facilities. Too many public universities think that their speech codes and campus handbooks trump the Constitution, and it is laughable. It is so insane that they are being sued by the boatload to rescind their speech codes.
- Adamande, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1What banmaster said. RevJonathan, your comment is really incredibly dumb. What political party you choose (!) to support ought to be something you are able to defend. And political criticism ought to be encouraged widely in any democratic society.
Being gay or jewish isn't something you choose. You're born with it. You can't change it. If you hate people for things they can't change you are a complete douche. How is a black person supposed to "consider the merits of the message and see if it applies to you " when the message is "be white, not black"?
And for all you other Christian morons who don't understand the first thing about nature and how it works, how about you tell these several hundred species of animals that they should stop displaying homosexual behavior since you obviously expect humans to be able to do this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displ ...- Adamande, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1And since digg cut off the link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
- Adamande, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1And since digg cut off the link:
- kaeryn, on 04/25/2008, -10/+3Another GAY REPUBLICAN heard from.
- boogie606, on 04/25/2008, -13/+5i think that's the first time i've ever heard someone say that being jewish, which is a nationality and a religious affiliation, is comparable to being gay, which, whether genetic or a choice, is a lifestyle. if you promote gaiety at a school, should that be banned as well?
- eatbeefjerky, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Judaism is... NOT a nationality. There is no nation of Jewish...ness... I believe Israeli is the term you seek. However, most Conservative and Orthodox (possibly Reform as well...not sure) say that if your mother is Jewish, then you are Jewish, no matter what you think. Actually, as one who was born Jewish and is now atheist, I think it's a tad unfair... but whatever.
- wacki, on 04/25/2008, -4/+18"I'm gay, and I think the guy should be allowed to wear the T-shirt in public, but not at school."
In other words you don't support freedom of thought at schools. As long as the kid isn't disrupting the learning process it shouldn't matter what he wears.- cawpin, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Exactly, my rights don't end at a door. I'm glad they didn't try this crap when I was still in high school. We could pretty much wear anything as long as it didn't break any laws.
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Freedom of Thought has no bearing here. The student can think whatever he wants, but if he wears a shirt then it brings those thoughts into the realm of the schools jurisdiction, and the school has the right to regulate the dress code.
It might not disrupt the learning process for some kids, but for any student who was gay or felt offended by it, it would most definitely have a disruptive impact. Therefore, it's inappropriate.
- designer, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7What does being gay have to do with being Jewish? Sexual preference vs race?
- MadHarvey, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3The point that you and Mr I'm-black-don't-compare-me-to-gay up there are failing to realize is: all of these things make you different than other people.
Somebody should not allowed to make you feel bad because you're different at school. School is a place for learning, and kids should feel comfortable and unthreatened in that environment. Its not a free speech issue.
So whether someone was wearing a shirt that says Be happy, not Gay, not Jewish, not Black, not Red-headed, not Crosseyed, not Emo, you shouldn't be allowed to wear it at school. Well, maybe the Emo one would be ok... those ***** are annoying.- Conspiracy20, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2The problem is the Day of Silence that's been introduced into the schools. It's okay to be gay...well, it's okay not to be too. That's not hate, it's an opinion.
- jbettineski, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1"Somebody should not allowed to make you feel bad because you're different at school. "
I disagree. I think that's exactly a function of school. It teaches you to grow a skin and learn to be ok with yourself. Yeah, some people won't like you, and in fact, they will make fun of you.
Learn to shrug it off, not legislate against it.
My kid gets called names at school sometimes. Last week it was 'freaking retard.' So we had a discussion about what mentally handicapped people are like. Afterwards I asked him: 'So, are you retarded? Do you have a learning disabailty?' He said no. And I told him 'Then your friends were wrong, and don't sound like good friends to have.' He got it, and went on his way, much happier.
- MadHarvey, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3The point that you and Mr I'm-black-don't-compare-me-to-gay up there are failing to realize is: all of these things make you different than other people.
- hcharger, on 04/25/2008, -10/+3 Sure son, he can wear that T shirt and be an ass if he wants to, just as you can be a fag that sucks *****.
- HanSolo69, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Ok, now you've just tried to change the subject to focus on this guy's ass.
- Hypersapien, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7Is it ok for students to wear pro-gay t-shirts at school?
- Hypersapien, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Whoever dugg me down, what problem do you have with what I said? It's a legitimate question. If an honest person thinks that anti-gay t-shirts shouldn't be worn in school, then by all rights they should think that pro-gay t-shirts shouldn't be worn either, regardless of whether they, themselves, are gay or not.
- FalkenAX3, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Y'know... Does it really matter? If schools didn't suck they would have a proper dress code that allowed people to wear t-shirt and jeans but any statement made by a shirt for example would get you a warning by a teacher.
You can't make specific rules, you either have a dress code or you don't, everything else falls under freespeech imo....
- RevJonathan, on 04/25/2008, -15/+15I'm a Republican, does that mean that I have the right to prevent people from wearing anti-GOP t-shirts around campus? Of course not.
- jonr, on 04/25/2008, -11/+10Fabulous!
- Born4Surf, on 04/25/2008, -16/+11How about this revelation: "If you got nothing good to say, say nothing at all!" - There is nothing clever, positive or anything about having a t-shirt with this on. Cool if it's funny....but this one isn't....so why bother?
- Veretax, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6The first amendment does not prohibit speech due to its negative implications.
- aladrin, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3The first amendment is also not a moral or ethical guide to life. He said nothing about laws or rules, he only talked about being a good person.
- drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2"The first amendment is also not a moral or ethical guide to life. "
The way some people around here talk, you'd think it was.
- drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2"The first amendment is also not a moral or ethical guide to life. "
- aladrin, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3The first amendment is also not a moral or ethical guide to life. He said nothing about laws or rules, he only talked about being a good person.
- stonewaljacksn, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3What's funny to you isnt to someone else. Notice all the FSM and Jesus jokes here on digg? Yeah well there's people who think that's inappropriate and not funny.
- NecroDigg, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Well maybe he thinks it is a good thing to say. I think it's bad taste but It's totally up to him if he wants to wear it.
- Veretax, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6The first amendment does not prohibit speech due to its negative implications.
- davidwasman, on 04/25/2008, -32/+26You cannot stand up in a crowded theatre and yell 'Fire!'. You WILL be arrested.
You cannot mention the word 'Bomb' on an airplane. You WILL be arrested.
These are not violations of free speech, they are reasonable precautions. Such things would cause chaos, injury, and possibly death.
This kid's t-shirt is inflammatory, could cause some students to act out against gays, and would ultimately affect the level of education those kids in his class can get because of the distractions.
For those reasons and many more I applaud the lower courts ruling. The higher court is obviously run by some archaic homophobe.
Would you allow him to wear a shirt that says 'kill all abortionists' or 'Go back to picking cotton, N-word' or 'f*ck women's rights.' or even 'Euthanasia for all retards'?- apophenic, on 04/25/2008, -2/+15Your first two examples (fire in a crowded theater, bomb on an airplane) aren't relevant, because they are DIRECTLY disruptive and threaten the safety of people around you. This is not that, at all.
- gl77, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7as distasteful as those ideas and his shirt may be, and as much as you or i or anyone else may disagree with those ideas, yes they could make shirts like that and people could wear them all day. i could organize a group of 200 people to walk around outside of a school wearing those shirts, it would then be a form of protest, which is permitted under the constitution. comparing it to yelling "fire" in a theater or "bomb" on an airplane is ridiculous because in those situations, people would not be able to reasonably restrain themselves. seeing a tshirt that i dont agree with would not fall under that category because in order to flip out on that person and cause a scene, i would have to choose to do so, knowing full well the consequences of my actions, or i could just choose to bite my tongue and not say a word. even if i do flip out on the guy, chances are i would be the only one doing so, unless i get 2 or 3 other people who agree with me to do the same and we would all look like jackasses, causing a bigger scene than the guy in the shirt.. but 2 or 3 def. does not equal widespread panic nor a riot. maybe i could gather my 200 together and wear anti-douchebag t-shirts outside the school and protest the guy though.
- Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -2/+15In order: no, yes, yes and yes. The first T-shirt is inciting a crime. The others, while utterly vile, are and should be allowable. There is distinction between causing a clear and present danger ("Fire!" in a crowded theatre) and espousing "dangerous" ideas (McCarthyism).
Put it like this: there are a lot of people in the US who believe that atheism espouses a complete lack of moral values, and exposing students to it will have serious detrimental effects to the country. They're ignorant *****, sure, but they believe it and there are a lot of them. They could use the exact same argument for banning any expression of atheism. And without the legal protection that the principle of free speech provides, there wouldn't be any obstacles beyond bribing a couple of politicians. I think avoiding that danger, and dangers like it, is worth putting up with a few *****. - Nannybell, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3"..., could cause some students to act out against gays,..."
Actually, if any students are going to *act out* toward homosexuals, they will do so regardless. The shirt will not cause it. It would be another matter if the shirt said "Kill Homosexuals," because that is literally promoting violence. A public school funded by taxpayer money is not the proper venue for this Day of Silence to begin with, since homosexuality is an issue the culture is seriously divided over. - ryeland, on 04/25/2008, -2/+10Shirts don't make people act violently, people are in control of themselves. Its called accountability, we all have it. No shirt forces you to do anything. If you commit a hate crime its because you choose to, not because a shirt told you to.
- priegog, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5And more simply put, because the school should be able to enforce a dress code. Or else be expelled. It's a simple matter of property. If you come into my house I can decide what is appropriate to wear, or else I have the liberty to ask you to leave.
- jcastillo81, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2*applause*
- hcharger, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0 Do you think that hiding all these negative jesters and sayings will deteer ones who are motivated by hatred. I would sooner have someone come up to me in person and say; "I hate you, you piece of *****," rather than have him supress his anger towards me, because that hatred is still there no matter what laws and regulations prevail and when these same hate incentives are eventually let loose, someone gets hurt or possibly killed.
At least when I hear it first hand, I already know where I stand with this fellow and chances are, most times he has expelled his anger for the time being and no harm would be done.
Supressing human emotions regardless if negative or not, creates a very dangerous society. - veriix, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2But could you wear a T-Shirts saying "Fire!" in a crowded theater and "BOMB!" on a plane?
- dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2What's wrong with saying bomb on an airplane? BOMB BOMB BOMB! BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB!
- apophenic, on 04/25/2008, -7/+66How many people here would be outraged if the kid was in trouble for wearing a shirt that was pro-marijuana?
You can't pick and choose what is protected by free speech.- gethane, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4At school a pro-mj shirt would be and IS banned.
- swimmin00, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1But that's only because it would advocate an activity that has been deemed illegal, not because it would be found offensive.
- ModernDayDarwin, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6There's a very big difference between personal beliefs and blanket rules. Blanket rules are designed to be neutral and cover all points of view, including the ones you don't necessarily agree with. Anyone that says "ban this, but not this" shouldn't be listened to, and in no way should be making policy. This judge very clearly decided that something suiting his/her personal belief is worth making an exception for. That is wrong.
- dobestpossible, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1It wasn't his personal beliefs (the judge's) that called for the ruling...it is the fact that our court system uses Constitution as the foundation for all of our U.S. governments laws, policy making, legislation. The right to wear a shirt that doesn't have any foul language on it (or promoting illegal drug use) is absolutely fair to everyone. Had the shirt say something pro beat a gay up, the judge would have deemed the shirt inappropiate for school.
But it didn't and so it is what it is.- al3efroman, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You're kinda all over the place here.
Please show me in the Constitution where where you read this nonsense about foul language or illegal drug use. Seems to me that this is your opinion, so perhaps you should state that rather than invoking the Constitution.
- al3efroman, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You're kinda all over the place here.
- dobestpossible, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1It wasn't his personal beliefs (the judge's) that called for the ruling...it is the fact that our court system uses Constitution as the foundation for all of our U.S. governments laws, policy making, legislation. The right to wear a shirt that doesn't have any foul language on it (or promoting illegal drug use) is absolutely fair to everyone. Had the shirt say something pro beat a gay up, the judge would have deemed the shirt inappropiate for school.
- Duositex, on 04/25/2008, -2/+9Marijuana is illegal. Being gay isn't. Perhaps that is grounds for allowing a shirt that "discusses" the topic, pro or con.
- drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2I read "pro-marijuana" as favoring its legalization rather than favoring breaking the law. Then again, that provides a useful parallel. A shirt that says "smoke weed" would be advocating illegal behavior; one that says "free the weed" would not. A shirt that says "kill all gays" would be advocating illegal behavior; one that says "don't be gay" would not. Seems like a useful place to draw the line is at the point of incitement to breaking the law.
- tbstudee, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Not every law is just. Our system of laws needs constant attention and revision as we evolve as a society. Disallowing any type of proposals for reform seems pretty silly, and fascist.
- bearsinthesea, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Sadly, i think being gay is illegal in some states. Has texas overturned the anti-sodomy laws (that only affect homosexuals, married anal sex is ok)?
- dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1How do you get in trouble for a victimless act that goes on behind closed doors?
- HanSolo69, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Actually, picking and choosing what is and isn't free speech happens all the time. Take for example..I dunno...this very story.
- NecroDigg, on 04/25/2008, -2/+0In Florida it's illegal to have sex in anything other than missionary position.
- gethane, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4At school a pro-mj shirt would be and IS banned.
- gfindlay, on 04/25/2008, -15/+7lol, gays
- RevJonathan, on 04/25/2008, -9/+14I hate when a victory for civil liberties leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, but there was no other outcome that would be satisfactory.
- CressCrowbits, on 04/25/2008, -6/+8[homophobic joke referencing bitter taste left in mouth]
- dobestpossible, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1I don't see any "phobia" (which means "fear of", ignorant people) in the comment. You gay people sure do misconstrue facts and reality to be something its not (just to whine and cry about....boo hoo boo hoo, my poor little feelings woe is me wwwaaahhhh)
- komodovaraan, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3dobestpossible i think CressCrowbits was only trying to share with us that he saw the potential for a homophobic joke as a reaction to Rev Jonathans post.
But he was then too lazy to think of one... but still decided to leave us his observation between brackets.
So i think it is unlikely he is gay, and also unlikely he is a homophobic.
With you i don't know, what is your issue with Homosexuality? People like you that 'hate' gays are usually themselves still dealing with insecurities about their own sexuality - lydecker, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Homophobia would etymologically mean "fear of the same," ignorant one. Obviously, this is one word that doesn't mean it's etymology.
- ThoughtfulWi, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I like the taste, and the aftertaste; nothing bitter about it.
- komodovaraan, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3dobestpossible i think CressCrowbits was only trying to share with us that he saw the potential for a homophobic joke as a reaction to Rev Jonathans post.
- dobestpossible, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1I don't see any "phobia" (which means "fear of", ignorant people) in the comment. You gay people sure do misconstrue facts and reality to be something its not (just to whine and cry about....boo hoo boo hoo, my poor little feelings woe is me wwwaaahhhh)
- CressCrowbits, on 04/25/2008, -6/+8[homophobic joke referencing bitter taste left in mouth]
- da_bradler, on 04/25/2008, -5/+44The school also approved the shirt:
"Eat the Chickens, Not the *****"- jaxcs, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I guess semi witty comments are ok then?
- skully1337, on 04/25/2008, -8/+34If we can discriminate against their sexual preference why I can't I discriminate against their race?
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -9/+1What are you trying to say? You are fine with gays as long as they are white ?
- ModernDayDarwin, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9No he's trying to make a point about why the T-shirt exception is hypocritical.
- dobestpossible, on 04/25/2008, -8/+0Although doesn't really have a case since race and gender is beyond a persons control whereas a gay chooses to screw same gender. Two different things altogether.
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Yes, people that are gay just woke up one day and said "Hey! I think I will be attracted to the same sex."
Just as you woke up one day and decided "Hey! I think I'll be a moron!" - StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6"Hmm, I think I'll choose to be gay and get my ass kicked by rednecks and jocks today! That will be awesome, much better than choosing to be straight and left alone."
I've seen the whole "being gay is a choice" argument far too many times on Digg.
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Yes, people that are gay just woke up one day and said "Hey! I think I will be attracted to the same sex."
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I guess I should have added /sarcasm.
Thanks for the bury. - dynelol, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1NO. Sarcasm tags are bad.
- dobestpossible, on 04/25/2008, -8/+0Although doesn't really have a case since race and gender is beyond a persons control whereas a gay chooses to screw same gender. Two different things altogether.
- Christianptriot, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You assume that the commenter is white....why is that?! Are you racist??
- kayala, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1WHOOSH!
- ModernDayDarwin, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9No he's trying to make a point about why the T-shirt exception is hypocritical.
- Duositex, on 04/25/2008, -3/+11I would say this is the best point on the entire list of comments. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the decision to allow the shirt. What matters is that the court system has protected someone's right to make discriminatory remarks against a group of people. That isn't really progress per se.
- Domdogg123, on 04/25/2008, -6/+3Gay isn't a race?
- zacharytelschow, on 04/25/2008, -12/+3Because homosexuality is an unnatural choice; race is biologically inherited.
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7It's a good thing you've got such inarguable proof on your side. DEBATE OVER! YOU HAVE CHOSEN POORLY, GAYS!
- hardyboy, on 04/25/2008, -6/+1Strange, may I ask what proof you have that homosexuality is the natural preference of some people? While logic tells me that I can choose whether or not to be a homosexual, I have seen little actual proof of the opposite.
- lydecker, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Logic tells you that you can turn on a homosexual sexual, emotional, physical attraction, and turn that off for heterosexuality?
- eir574, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5@hardboy
I think that's actually the first time I've seen a heterosexual person say that he/she could choose to be attracted to a person of the same gender. Most say it's totally unimaginable.
- al3efroman, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Ummm.. show me a biology book that describes race as a biological trait. It's a social construct.
- eir574, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2The sharp boundaries we use to define races are somewhat arbitrary. The variability among humans that gives rise to groups with different characteristics has its roots in biology.
- bgrah449, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1In what context?
- londonium, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0How about this context: Be Bright, Not Black!
- iceperson, on 04/25/2008, -2/+9you can discriminate against race, it's called affirmative action...
- kocurejd, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Why is it discrimination just because the kid has an opinion you don't like? He's not denying anyone their rights, he's not shoving gay kids in the hallway. He's on one side of the issue, and he's expressing his opinion about it. I'd love nothing more than to punch every idiot I see with a Hilary Clinton bumper sticker, but I don't. Bottom line is, actions are discriminatory, not opinions.
- maanwi, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Some opinions, when voiced, can be discriminatory, and this kid's shirt is denying someone their rights - their right to be unmolested in an institution of learning. Although the shirt seems like a light-hearted play on words, the basic message is that it's not okay to be gay. These types of messages, reinforced over time, are why gays are more often victims of violence and suicide. I see the message as wrong, and allowing it to be worn in a school setting is disruptive.
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -9/+1What are you trying to say? You are fine with gays as long as they are white ?
- vestlandsfanden, on 04/25/2008, -8/+34I don't support the T-shirt, but I enjoy living in a society where basic rights still trumps political correctness.
- pintomp3, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2i wonder if the school would be ok with student wearing swastika's on their t-shirts.
- CommissarVlad, on 04/25/2008, -7/+11Its been said, but freedom of speech!
- banmaster, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1freedom of speech /= freedom of hate speech
- DraconWolf, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Yes it does. How do you think the KKK can have rallies in public places? I'm not condoning it but you can't pick and choose who gets freedom of speech.
- Slagtits, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You can't pick and choose your levels of freedom of speech!
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Students don't have the right to disrupt normal school operations. Shirts like this are purposely controversial and they don't contribute anything to the school other than conflict and misunderstanding. The school has the right to regulate the dress code.
- NecroDigg, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0Freedom of speech is such a crock of *****, and I can't believe Americans defend it as if it's good.
Do you really want people putting stupid ***** on signs and tshirts?
- banmaster, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1freedom of speech /= freedom of hate speech
- chestertonb, on 04/25/2008, -7/+12The way I see it is that many groups have campaigned (quite rightly) for more equality. The flip side to that is being big enough to accept criticism as well.
I do find it annoying when certain groups advocate free speech for their values but seem to want censorship when its not what they want to hear. To be fair this seems to be more of a religion thing than a gay rights issue.
My own opinion is that the benefits of a nation that truly allows free speech is worth being occasionally offended.- 88iou, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Next time a protest in the Middle East calling for "Death to America" occurs, I don't want to hear a word from anybody on this site. After all, they're just exercising their freedom of speech.
- Percele, on 04/25/2008, -8/+58I wonder how a "Be white, not black" t-shirt would fare?
- RealmDown, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Likely with politically correct hatred toward white intolerance.
- Jaablaze, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3THis is the same point I was going to bring up. While I can appreciate winning for freedom of speech, using freedom of speech in this way can cause other forms of intolerance to rear its head in T-Shirts in schools.
- bgrah449, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Intolerance is wrong but not illegal (and it shouldn't be). My beliefs, and the peaceful expression of those beliefs, is outside the reach of government action (and it should be).
- Velnich, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4or a more relevant, "be roman catholic, not Anglican" t-shirt
- pintomp3, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7religion is a choice. being gay or straight is not.
- gweller, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3Nonsense. Everyone is born with tendencies to do something, it's your choice to act out on them or not. People need to stop removing responsibility from themselves.
- lydecker, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5But those tendencies are what makes you gay. Not whether or not you act on them. People who are virgins aren't asexual, they are either heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual depending on their tendencies and their sexual, physical and emotional attractions to people. You need to start understanding what sexual orientation means.
- gweller, on 04/28/2008, -4/+0That's ludicrous. That's like saying someone is a pedophile simply because they have thoughts and desires of having sex with children. It's what someone does that makes them who they are, not what they desire. Your beliefs are the typical homosexual brainwashing that homosexuals use to convert more people.
- lydecker, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3It's not ludicrous. It's fact. You call someone heterosexual or homosexual based on who they are attracted to... You don't call virgins asexual because they haven't done anything yet, they still have a sexual orientation.
Heterosexuals are heterosexual because of their attractions, not because they've had sex with someone of the opposite gender.
If that were the case, there would probably be a lot more bisexuals than homosexuals... And anyone who was ever raped by a man would be a homosexual or bisexual... wouldn't they? Good thing that's not the case.
There are some people with pedophiliac attractions, and they have that attraction whether or not they have committed a criminal act. Typically when we refer to pedophiles, we use the word to refer to convicted felons. We don't do the same for heterosexuals, homosexuals, or bisexuals.
It's what goes on in your brain, and who you are attracted to, that makes you heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, etc.
Your beliefs are typical of a fourth grader. - lydecker, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Also, more information on pedophile (as opposed to child molester)...
Pedophilia or paedophilia (Commonwealth usage) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction of adults to prepubescent children. A person with this attraction is called a pedophile or paedophile. Research into the etiology of pedophilia has been confounded by imprecise use of the term "pedophile" to describe those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse under sociolegal definitions of "child" (inclusive of both prepubescent children and adolescents younger than the local age of consent), rather than the correct usage that describes adult sexual attraction specifically to biological children.
The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (F65.4) defines pedophilia as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."
The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision gives the following as its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Neither the ICD or the APA diagnostic criteria require actual sexual activity with a pre-pubescent youths. The diagnosis can therefore be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges alone, provided the subject meets the remaining criteria. "For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used" - gweller, on 04/29/2008, -3/+0"If that were the case, there would probably be a lot more bisexuals than homosexuals... And anyone who was ever raped by a man would be a homosexual or bisexual... wouldn't they? Good thing that's not the case."
Now that's the argument of a 4th grader. Did the person being raped commit the act? Hell no, so what kind of retarded argument are you presenting? I said it is what people do who makes them what they are, and I don't consider someone being a rape victim as a willing participant in it. Gratz on going to any retarded length to protect your homosexuality. - lydecker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3That's all you have to say in regards to my whole statement? I'll agree, it was a weak argument, because what someone does when he's being overpowered isn't indicative of his choices in a free world. And it certainly isn't indicative of his sexual orientation and his desires.
And "whose" homosexuality? - herecomes, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2"Everyone is born with tendencies to do something, it's your choice to act out on them or not. People need to stop removing responsibility from themselves."
So you're saying that you have tendencies toward homosexuality but you choose not to act on them? That's called "in the closet".
- Punjaber, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1I agree with gweller.
- funkymoose, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2don't get me wrong, people are what they are, you can't change that. So I would agree that to a certain degree you are correct. But I think being gay is more of a mental thing, born with you or not, than a physical thing. There is nothing physically different between a gay person and a straight person. So I would say Velnich is more correct. You could, I suppose make the same argument about religion. "I have always believed this in my heart to be true, etc" Maybe which religion you belong to is a choice, but what you believe is not. You believe what you believe whether you like it or not. It's just what you believe. If that makes any sense. also It is not impossible for a gay man to become straight, or a straight man to become gay later in life. but a black man can never become white (unless you're Micheal Jackson)
- lydecker, on 04/27/2008, -1/+2There are a lot of physical differences that are common among homosexuals vs. heterosexuals of their gender, but do not hold true for all.
- Velnich, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Agreed, I was focusing more on the "you can't tell either at a glance" point.
- gweller, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3Nonsense. Everyone is born with tendencies to do something, it's your choice to act out on them or not. People need to stop removing responsibility from themselves.
- pintomp3, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7religion is a choice. being gay or straight is not.
- alpinweiss88, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3Considering black people make up only 3% of Naperville, I'd say pretty well.
http://naperville.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm - HanSolo69, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5They'd probably say something like "You can wear the shirt but you will be all alone when you get your ass kicked."
- gweller, on 04/25/2008, -10/+3Don't equate a racial slogan to a behavorial one. Being gay and of a different race are not the same thing.
- gryphon50, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4oh, right. Because people "choose" to be gay and not black. I just wonder why all those gay people don't make their lives so much easier and just choose to be straight..../sarcasm
- FLLawLibrarian, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Agreed.
- follower64, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3Sexual orientation is a choice. Race is not.
- herecomes, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2So you're saying that you could choose to be gay? In other words, you're attracted to both sexes, but you on
- gryphon50, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4oh, right. Because people "choose" to be gay and not black. I just wonder why all those gay people don't make their lives so much easier and just choose to be straight..../sarcasm