What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
144 Comments
- shellacked, on 10/11/2007, -14/+87you are a dick, and deserve a beating
- JCSaint, on 10/11/2007, -9/+58It raises an interesting question. What kind of right to protest do minors in High School have while on school property? Especially when the protest could interfere with normal classroom procedures.
I think the principal could have handled this better and worked with the students to accommodate their protest. He could have even given them little notebooks to communicate. The article didn't really explain why the students were called to the office. (didn't answer during roll call in homeroom?) There is also no response from the principal or school board. - Aeaus, on 10/11/2007, -12/+53I don't see why it should be a problem. I've seen the protest done at schools before and there is no interference, Most people have a little pin or sign that says they'll be part of it and they don't get called on. Now obviously if there's something big going on it could be a hinderence, but everyday class should not be negatively effected. This just seems to be a homophobic attack on the student.
- saleem, on 10/11/2007, -8/+42ACLU defends those who were on the right side of the law in how they spoke or acted. They don't necessarily approve of what they were saying or doing.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -14/+46I actually know a few who participated in it as I live literally 15 mins away and for the most part the area that I live in has a lot of gays and lesbians. It's only a matter of time till law makers actually grow up and realise that they cannot be ignored.
I'm not gay, personally it's not my thing. However in a country where we have a choice, why can't they? - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30Wow the capital letters have so swung my point of view.
THANK YOU TRACKER2XL FOR BRINGING ME BACK TO THE LIGHT - outhouseinput, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26Based on Tinker v Des Moines and some other cases I found at http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/EdLaw.htm , it seems like freedom of speech does not end as soon as you walk into school.
- mrmcbastard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22@tracker2xl
Wow, that was a pretty perverse statement. Maybe you should have your moral compass examined; it seems to be broken. - airquotes, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21If you need to look to others for a "moral Compass" then you're broken anyways.
- Tebixan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+221) What does that have to do with whether or not this kids rights have been infringed?
2) ACLU does not support those things, they just believe that those accused deserve a fair trail. Society is all too ready to place an automatic guilty verdict on anyone accused of hurting a child.
3) Civil liberties should apply to everyone, period. If you think otherwise move to North Korea. - GTBuzz22, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20Isn't this type of reaction by the principal the very thing that the movement wants? It is a silent protest that will hopefully get attention. And it looks like they received some attention by this, so I think it worked.
- Ishiguro, on 10/11/2007, -14/+30This story is gay.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20Didn't You Get the memo?
- TheMahdi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16I hope to God that was sarcasm
- proghead, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15maybe you need to do some learning yourself...
part of one's education is understanding one's basic rights and being able to freely use them. - Navicerts, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17Actually the article has what might be the school's reasoning... "According to the students, Marable claimed that he was trying to protect them from other students who might react badly to their demonstration."
Granted, this is according to the student's; but if it is accurate then the school made the wrong choice. - Daisuke, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11@mrmcbastard (#6697875)
if I had to guess, tracker2xl is behind a content filter that doesn't allow such words as FAG, QUEER, and HOMOSEXUAL to be sent or received.
... problem solved! :D - desqjockey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Liam76
I disagree- your definition of disruptive is so broad as to compel action and that violates the first amendment in ways that are actionable (bullhorn example is one that is not).
It is not disruptive for me to refuse to participate: it may be sub optimal from a class perspective, but you cannot force participation other than by grades. Students can still learn from the teachers- that is not being interrupted. If my participation is so integral to their learning I damn well better see a paycheck.
@rishubhav
People that refuse to participate in class discussions for it (no protest) were never suspended when I went to school. It is a double standard alright, but the other direction. - Strat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I staged a vocal protest with about all of our junior class to keep two teachers. No one was suspended and it went on for 3 days outside on the front lawn of the school.
- jkizzle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8well, you obviously know why they are doing it, so i think their form of protest worked just fine. its about raising awareness it seems, not taking a violent stance against anti-gays....
- jerr0328, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I participated in this protest. Our Gay-Straight Alliance discussed this with the principal, and we were even allowed to have a table set up and posters put up. Part of the guidelines for the event was that, if it was crucially important to speak (i.e. an oral that day), then it was OK to speak. I remained silent the whole day, up to one class where we had to work in groups and it would be too difficult not to speak. But I had shown my teachers a slip of paper explaining everything, and they took it well. I still learned the same amount, and this was just for a day. If it had been week-long, then maybe it could have been something bad, since it would limit my personal gain from the class. But how would it disrupt others? By not speaking, I was just not participating in class discussions. If not speaking is distracting, what would you say to mute people? What about the deaf who cannot speak? The point of the silence is to show the silence of those who are abused all the time and can't say anything. I think that too many people overreact and don't know how to handle issues dealing with gays and lesbians. Administrators need to realize the difference between being homosexual (or open to it) and saying "stop being such a fag" and learn not to discriminate against anyone based on religion, sex, race, sexual orientation, etc.
- schroeder, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Just being silent doesn't mean they couldn't do their written work. Doesn't mean they couldn't learn. How many times have kids in high school spent the whole day in class not raising their hands or talking to anyone in general? They never got suspended. It's an important issue if students are being harassed in school, a place they have to go, and no one does anything about it. The fault lies in the faculty and their inability to deal with the situation before it came to protest.
- rpong1981, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I just had a lengthy conversation with Principal Marable over the phone. He claims that the students were not suspended and that the students were violating the student handbook. Not sure what the deal is with the article claiming the students were suspended. It was a weird phone call.. I didn't expect him to pick up
- TKardinal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7The price of civil disobedience is that you pay the price for your protest. If his silence included refusing to answer questions asked of him by teachers, or other things legitimately disruptive, then his suspension was warranted, no matter what the topic of protest.
If his silence was not disruptive, then the suspension was unwarranted and should be overturned. - candre23, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11@ironrex Back when I was in school some group (it may have been SADD) did the same sort of thing. They claimed that every 40-something minutes, somebody dies from drunk driving. They got a bunch of volunteers and set up a schedule and every 40-something minutes a student would put on a "killed by a drunk driver" sign and not speak for the rest of the day. The point was to show just how many people are affected by the problem.
MY point is that it was an effective demonstration and did not really disrupt class. Homosexuals are a sizable group of citizens that are marginalized and oppressed by the mainstream. A protest like this is a logical and probably effective method to convey what it must be like to have to pretend you're something you're not. In a more educated state the students would likely have been praised for their ingenuity. In Tennessee they are suspended for three days. - Reap, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10"The ACLU has a very clear agenda of what civil liberties they think should be protected. Ever ask yourself why they ignore the second ammendment?
If they are defending the rights of a pedophile or someone who likes child porn, they ARE defending that type of action. Unless they take up every case (which they don't) then you can't say them taking up specific cases dealing with those issues doesn't reflect the groups ideals."
So... what you're saying is that an organization that defends certain rights is evil because they don't defend ALL rights?
There are plenty of people who will defend the second ammendment. Just because someone dosn't ACTIVELY defend something dosn't mean they're attacking it. I would argue that if the ACLU as a whole disagrees with the second ammendment, doing absolutly nothing about it is the fairest thing they can do. Are you arguing they should subsidize cases against gun manufacturers because they disagree with the second ammendment?
As to your second paragraph- let's look at it this way. Say I get my hands on some child porn (hypothetically... don't be an ass and jump on me for that). What if I come to your house, copy the porn to your computer, call the cops, and tell them you have child porn on your computer. Let's say they get a legal search warrant and find child porn on your computer. At that point, as far as pretty much any joe shmoe on the street is concerned, you're a sick ***** and should rot in prison. I think you still have the right to a fair trial, and so does the ACLU. Are you seriously saying you disagree?
Finally, just because they don't take every case dosn't mean they don't have feelings about it. The ACLU dosn't have infinite resources, if they did they very well may take every case in existance. But they can't. So saying they should makes you look like an idiot. - apophisitis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Hello, and greetings from the United States of America!
You must be new here, so I'll be so kind as to explain an element with which you seem to be unfamiliar.
We here in America value a concept known as Freedom (note that this is free as in speech, not as in beer. You may like to do further reading to more concretely understand the concept). Because of the degree to which this concept is embedded in our government, American like myself (and also possibly yourself) are allowed personal liberty up to the violation of a (congressionally approved) law.
Why is this important? Public schools are government institutions. Although there have been many court cases denying students certain freedoms from the Bill of Rights (and a fair amount affirming certain other ones), there is one element in common: the school's ability to teach.
That being said, it could be concluded that if a students behavior prohibits the school's ability to instruct, it is well within the school's guidelines to take action.
Now we invoke Freedom. If a students behavior does not prohibit the school's ability to teach or violate some law, then Freedom dictates that that student should have the liberty to perform that action.
Take, for example, your point, "1. ban women from trying out for prom king". Noting that there is no law prohibiting women from trying out for the position of Prom King, and that Prom is only vaguely connected to a school's instruction, we apply the concept of Freedom and conclude that it is within the liberty of a woman to try out for Prom King.
Thank you for your time! I have not studied Law at a formal institution, but I hope that you judge my message by its content. Feel free to refute any of my arguments. That being said, I would like to congratulate you on your first step to becoming an upstanding American Citizen! - dragon76, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Q: "It raises an interesting question. What kind of right to protest do minors in High School have while on school property? Especially when the protest could interfere with normal classroom procedures."
A:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District
This was decided in 1969. Your grasp of American history sucks. - schroeder, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I don't think it is.... Who the ***** are you to force your idea of morals on others? In my opinion, if you do something that doesn't harm anyone else, it's moral. Gays don't harm each other, so it's fine. It sucks that people like you are always trying to take every freedom from Americans.
- bluejays47, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Most of the laws currently on the books actually aren't in the Constitution. By your logic, that's about 231 years' worth of laws passed to protect gays.
- Chebyshev, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I don't really want to agree with this bigot, but he's right. It seems immoral to me to punish criminals based on motive. Assault is assault regardless of whether you did it because the guy was boning your wife or your brother (or whatever crime was committed).
- Arahka, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Freedom of religion. Not all religions believe that homosexuality is wrong. Some people don't have a religion and that is their choice. Our morals should not be legally mandated to be that of Christianity or any other religion. Laws should be based on what is necessary to keep our civilization running smoothly. That's what laws are for after all. Homosexuality is not having any negative effect on civilization except that people are living together without having children, which considering our over-population, may not be such a bad thing. It's not effecting you or your ability to function in life or society so get off it.
- BrokenVisage, on 10/11/2007, -14/+19So Is This How We're Suppose To Type Digg Descriptions Now? With half the words having the first letter capitalized?
- desqjockey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@chebyshev
Motive is often taken into consideration in criminal law. A man who starts a fire to stay warm and it burns down his house is treated differently than a man who deliberately sets a fire to kill his wife.
This issue always gets me: if I beat down a black guy because he is going to vote it intends to terrorize the whole community. Not true if its a drunken argument. One should be treated differently than the other. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6You are insane.
- reed311, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12Yep, just like conservatives made up the term "pro-life" into scaring people into thinking they were murdering an actual human, when really they were terminating a fetus.
- tekrat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4One of the few posts that make sense on this topic. We need more people like you. People who think with both their heads and their hearts and find truth in the middle.
- desqjockey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I love legal discourse on dig: 'I think it therefore it is so'.
Killerds please keep your legal opinions to yourself or cite sources. - bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6If we give up our constitutional rights when we enter a public institution or job site, that means we spend eight hours a day in a totalitarian country, right?
- bgoodin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Censorship gets handed out on all sides of this issue. You can go run a google search with "students homosexual protest" and you should find quite a few articles about students who were sent home or suspended for peacefully opposing homosexuality. Whether you think homosexuality is right or wrong, both sides of this issue have the right to speak out (or not speak as the case may be). I don't think any person should be abused or hated because of the particular sexual decisions they make. It's time to be done with the nonsensical rhetoric. Let's stop abusing ALL peoples and have some civil and honest dialog.
- StrangeFamous, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5For Christ's sake, people... WAKE UP. It's the modern age, and you're never going to be a part of it until you stop masking your ignorance by making TIRED-ASS jokes and stupid discriminatory comments. These people have every right to voice their opinions and protest. All they did was take a vow of silence for 1 day, for an honest-to-god ISSUE that is incredibly important to them. That's what makes our country great! We actually have the right to speak for ourselves! All your narrow-minded comments prove is that you have NO IDEA how lucky you are to be living here, and instead of trying to learn about people who are different from yourselves, you simply shrug it off and ***** out a joke.
And please, enough with the "but you're doing the same thing back at them!" schlock. I have just as much of a right to disagree with these ***** as they have the right to post their bigoted tripe on Digg. - jkizzle, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8ever think that maybe people can learn from a protest? LEARN to respect viewpoints different than their own. LEARN to be a person surrounded by people of different backgrounds and orientations .
besides, without campus protests, schools very well might have never have been desegregated, the vietnam war might still be a current event, and my old highschool would still be serving a single poptart as a whole meal. - tvh2k, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Wait a second -- if this is anything like the day of silence that those guys did back when I was in high school, all they did was not talk for a day. Are they really being punished for _not_ talking?!?
- Wootery, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@thack
An ex-troll, actually : http://digg.com/users/tracker2xl - blorc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I think he should have done something like this to his bullies instead, because it's probably one of the funniest things I have ever seen and I can't imagine how someone would react if you did that to their face:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54JdtwyQHFU
I don't agree with homosexuality, but it's definitely not right to hate or harm someone because of it. As far as the "protest" goes, though, I think ironrex had it right. - tekrat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6"Yep, just like conservatives made up the term "pro-life" into scaring people into thinking they were murdering an actual human, when really they were terminating a fetus." - reed311
Well, you are killing something that would normally grow into person. Should we user terms like "anti-death" and "pro-death" instead? One group wants the "tissue" to live and become a person, the other side wants that tissue to die for convenience. - phr0ze, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9RTA. The description is merely a copy of a title on the article. Don't blame the submitter. For a title, albeit a long title, the capitalization is correct.
- MaxK, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Get your own moral compass. I don't want to share mine with you. You can't tell north from south.
- StrangeFamous, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Tracker2xl, your mind must be a really dark place, dude. You've got some serious issues to deal with. I feel sorry for you.
- JaybeasCorpus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Yeah, it's a damn shame that kids these days understand their rights and know how to exercise them. It's a shame more digg users don't understand the concept between government and private action...'cause if they did, this whole "I'd be fired if I did this kind of protest at my job" argument would never come up.
I guess the civil rights protests were a waste of time too? And the women's suffrage movement? Seriously, African-Americans and women would have been better off just sticking with the status quo and not doing anything to voice their opinions. -
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is