Judge rejects students' free-speech suit over anti-gay T-shirt

[Duggy]

"SAN DIEGO—A federal judge has rejected a claim that the Poway Unified School District violated a teenager's First Amendment rights by pulling him out of class for wearing a T-shirt with an anti-gay slogan.

Tuesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge John Houston reaffirmed an earlier decision in which he found the school district's policy on hate speech lawful.

Tyler Harper sued the school in 2004 after the district said he could not wear a shirt printed with a Bible verse condemning homosexuality. His younger sister, Kelsie, was named as a plaintiff after he graduated."

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8251029

I mean, this guy is obviously a Bible-toting fucktard, but I reserved the right to hate on Jesus-pushers just as much as they may reserve the right to use their little Bible against me, right?

Too many fucktards out there on both sides. What do you all think?

xx,

Duggy

[gaybucks_chip]

Delicate issue. Free speech vs. the right to live your life without having threats, hate speech, etc. tossed at you.

This is one of those issues where I have a really hard time coming to a resolution. On the one hand, anything that limits speech is a slippery slope. On the other hand, it's been proven that certain types of hate speech incite violence against particular classes of people, and so limiting that sort of speech doesn't seem so unreasonable.

But as soon as we start limiting any speech (which happened a long time ago in this country) it becomes easy to start chipping away at freedoms, and that's what we have to guard against.

[chadknowslaw]

Hate speech is still free speech, but limits on time, place and manner of speech are acceptable.

A black arm band to protest the war is acceptable speech in school, while hate speech is _not_ acceptable in school. However, hate speech _outside_ of the school grounds is still protected speech.

The location of the message -- in a school environment where the listeners cannot really leave -- is important. The same shirt worn on the sidewalk would be protected speech.

[Duggy]

Hate speech is still free speech, but limits on time, place and manner of speech are acceptable.

A black arm band to protest the war is acceptable speech in school, while hate speech is _not_ acceptable in school. However, hate speech _outside_ of the school grounds is still protected speech.

The location of the message -- in a school environment where the listeners cannot really leave -- is important. The same shirt worn on the sidewalk would be protected speech.

ah we've got a lawyer in the house! nice!

thanks Chad

xo,

Duggy

[DEVELISH]

Chad,

could you explain in a short way why pornography is free speech?

[chadknowslaw]

Chad,

could you explain in a short way why pornography is free speech?

In a short way>?

no.


Only in a long way.

[gaybucks_chip]

Chad will probably speak more eloquently about this later, but as I understand it, the First Amendment in the US recognizes both free speech (the right to write or say anything) and free expression (the right to produce art or images or whatever).

The US Supreme Court ruled on the issue of obscenity as it relates to pornography some 20+ years ago, and ruled that obscene images, speech, acts, etc are not protected by the First Amendment (nor is certain speech, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) The Supremes came up with a set of rules that had to be met in order for content to be considered obscene, and that became what is now known as the three-pronged Miller Test, which I won't reprint here but will provide this Wikipedia link.

Hope that helps.

[Squirt]

Free speech is a right but freedom from consequences of that speech is not.

I'm glad his free speech suit was rejected. Preaching hate with a bible verse shouldn't be acceptable in schools, or churches. Just my opinion.

[chadknowslaw]

Free speech is a right but freedom from consequences of that speech is not.

I disagree. And the current state of law disagrees as well.

Free speech is not about protecting speech that other people agree with, it is about protecting speech that the majority _disagrees_ with. In order for that expression to be protected, there should be no consequences from voicing your opinions. The speaker should not be assaulted by onlookers, angry mobs, or police officers. The speaker should not be hauled off to jail and punished. The police should prevent attacks against the speaker and protect his right to make a fool out of himself.
HOWEVER, the unpopular speaker will always face being ostracized, outcast, and shunned but the unpopular speaker should not face any physical harm or government punishment for his expression.

Even hate speech is protected, so that stupid kid that drove his pickup truck with some nooses hanging from a bar over the truck bed will (likely) not be convicted of anything. What he did was stupid and abhorrent and hateful, but it is that kind of expression that cannot be suppressed.

The student with the bible verse on the T-shirt would have had full First Amendment free speech protections _outside_ of the school setting. Had that student worn the same T-shirt on the sidewalk outside a gay pride rally he would have had his full free speech protections. Wearing the t-shirt in a school setting, where order must be maintained and it is a legitimate government purpose to maintain a non-threatening environment, will get the poor misguided hateful bible beating schmuck a legitimate order to cover it up or get out.

In order for me to say the things I want to say, I have to tolerate the fact that people I really really really really don't like get to say what they want to as well.

[DonMike]

We have one kid wearing a bible verse condemning homosexuals. We have a 14 year old shooting a 15 year old for being homosexual. Anyone see the connection?

[rdynow]

Once again we have a case of thought crime, while the kid's parents should not have let the shirt to be worn it shouldn't be a crime.

One thing I have found out is in a government school kids don't have the rights that you or I would going say to a mall or a government event.

[Squirt]

I disagree. And the current state of law disagrees as well.

Honey most people have broken laws they don't agree with, or have no respect for. Stating that the current state disagrees with me, a homosexual that by law is not an equal citizen, is a moot point.

HOWEVER, the unpopular speaker will always face being ostracized, outcast, and shunned...

That was my point "Free speech is a right but freedom from consequences of that speech is not. "

[Squirt]

We have one kid wearing a bible verse condemning homosexuals. We have a 14 year old shooting a 15 year old for being homosexual. Anyone see the connection?

We are not equal citizens in the eyes of the government, therefore it's acceptable for us to be treated this way. Acceptable as in "Oh the boy was wearing womens clothes and nail polish you can't blame the guy for being enraged". Kind of like Matthew Shepard and the guy saying that he made a pass at him, that why they killed him.

I mean look at Ellen D. She was destroyed by coming out, now she's the Gay lapdog for straight America. Rarely do you see an openly Gay guest, or Gay topic, and she's in a powerful position. It used to be the same with Oprah and black guests, until she amassed enough power to be true to herself, and her people openly.

I do have to say, I tangoed with the government and media in my court case and won in conservative republican Orange County, so there is hope and not every story is a tragedy.

[gaystoryman]

Interesting Chad, but what about the recent case of the student who held up a sign perceived to be supporting drug use? It was on public property across from the school, and the Supremes denied his free speech argument? So how can a kid wearing a hate slogan across the street be okay, and the druggie not?

btw, I agree, to insure we all have the rights, protecting the rights of those who spout what we perceive to be vile is essential in insuring our own rights remain viable

[chadknowslaw]

Interesting Chad, but what about the recent case of the student who held up a sign perceived to be supporting drug use? It was on public property across from the school, and the Supremes denied his free speech argument? So how can a kid wearing a hate slogan across the street be okay, and the druggie not?

THAT fucking case~~~


The slender majority had to find that this was, in fact, a school-sponsored event. In their tortured reasoning they first found that the student was participating in a school event, and because of that, they found that the school could suspend him for his pro-drug message.

The opinion SUCKED, in my opinion. First, they had to really really stretch to determine that this was a school event. Second, they had to stretch to find that what he was saying could be punished -- they seemed to come down on the side that pro-drug speech could be less protected than other speech, and finally, Thomas, writing on his own, thought that the Tinker v Des Moines case from 1969 should be overturned. Tinker said that students do not leave their free speech rights at the door of the schoolhouse. Thomas is of the opinion that students should not be allowed to express their opinions that the schoolmaster does not like while they are in school. I am glad Thomas did not speak for the majority on THAT point.