Homosexuality and freedom of speech--double standard?

[Guest]

How about a shirt that says, "I support pedobear"?

The meaning of that could vary significantly based on context, hey? It could be a subtle jab at gays, implying they're the equivalent of pedophiles. It could just be showing the person finds pedobear hilarious. It could also be a genuine double-ironic way of showing support of pedophilia.

If you are asking if I'm cool with it, I am legally, and ethically my answer would vary based on context.

If you are asking if schools could ban it, they probably could. Schools have the right to ban speech that entails advocating an illegal activity. This principal tried to argue that those showing support of gay rights by doing things like writing "GP" on their notebooks, threatening to walk out of his anti-gay "morality" assembly, etc. were part of an illegal organization banned by the school. Everyone had a good laugh. But schools can get away with banning students from wearing pot leaves on their shirts. The theory behind that is it advocates participation in the illegal drug trade, even if the person might just be really into hemp rope. I could easily see Pedobear falling under the same reasoning, only with child molestation replacing illicit drug use.

[_EAllusion]

Suppose you were in a school filled with violent homophobes though. Would that justify banning a shirt that says, "I support gays" if it would result in the wearer being attacked? It's the same concept as a "Die Niggers" shirt as it might incite violence.

I said the same thing myself. As I already said, my answer is no.

[_EAllusion]

Here's Ed Brayton, a guy I tend to quote a lot, quoting some of the facts of this case:

The facts as stipulated by the court are actually worse than what was originally reported. You really have to read this ruling to believe just how insane this principal was. It started when a lesbian student complained to a teacher about being bullied and harassed by a group of students. Rather than dealing with the harassment, the principal called the lesbian student into his office and berated her. I'll let the court ruling lay it out:

At the end of the school day on the following Monday, September 10, 2007, Davis called Jane into his office. Davis asked Jane if she had told the teacher's aide that she identified herself as a lesbian. Jane answered, "Yes." Davis then asked, "Are you a lesbian?" Jane again answered, "Yes." Davis counseled Jane that it was not "right" to be homosexual. He then questioned Jane about whether her parents were aware of her sexual orientation. When Jane answered in the negative, Davis asked Jane for her parents' telephone number so that he could call them and inform them of her sexual orientation. Davis also instructed Jane to "stay away" from the middle school students or that he would suspend her. Jane left Davis's office in tears.

Gosh, I can't imagine why. And it actually gets worse from there. Davis then brought in a local minister to hold a "morality assembly" for the whole school. At that point, a group of students began expressing their support for Jane, wearing t-shirts and buttons showing their support. And yes, it actually gets worse:

Following the assembly, Davis began investigating what had come to be known as the "Gay Pride" movement at the school. He interviewed approximately thirty students, interrogated them about their sexual orientations, and questioned them about their involvement in the planned walk-out of the assembly and their activities in relation to the movement. During those meetings, Davis instructed students who were homosexual not to discuss their sexual orientations. He also prohibited students from wearing rainbow belts or writing "Gay Pride" or "GP" on their arms and notebooks.

But wait, there's more. Believe it or not, it actually gets worse:

He required students to wash "GP" or "Gay Pride" from their arms and hands and lifted the shirts of female students to verify that no such writings were present on their bodies.

A nice touch, don't you think? But no, we still have not hit the depths of this cretin's behavior.

On Friday, September 21, 2007, and Monday, September 24, 2007, Davis suspended eleven students, including Gillman's cousin, for five school days each as punishment for their involvement in the "Gay Pride" movement. As grounds for the suspensions, Davis explained that the students belonged to a "secret society" or "illegal organization" forbidden by school board policy; had threatened to walk out of an assembly; and had disrupted the school. Davis told the mother of a student whom he had suspended that he could secretly "send her [daughter] off to a private Christian school down in Tallahassee" or to the juvenile detention center and that "if there was a man in your house, your children were in church, you wouldn't be having any of these gay issues."

This is all beginning to sound like the script from a John Hughes movie, where the brave students stand up to the evil principal - but this sonofabitch actually exists! And the school board was just as idiotic:

In light of Davis's prohibition of messages relating to the support and acceptance of homosexuals, Gillman sought clarification from the School Board about its own position on the matter. On November 2, 2007, Gillman and her cousin (who had previously been suspended by Davis), through legal counsel, sent a letter to the attorney for the School Board. The letter requested guidance on which phrases and symbols students could display at school without being disciplined. Specifically, Gillman sought permission from the School Board to display rainbows, pink triangles, and the following slogans: "Equal, Not Special Rights," "Gay? Fine By Me," "Gay Pride" or "GP," "I Support My Gay Friends," "I Support Gays," "God Loves Me Just the Way I Am," "I'm Straight, But I Vote Pro-Gay," "I Support Equal Marriage Rights," "Pro-Gay Marriage," "Sexual Orientation is Not a Choice. Religion, However, Is."

By letter dated November 12, 2007, the School Board responded that none of the phrases, symbols, or images contained in the letter dated November 2, 2007, could be displayed by students at Ponce de Leon High School. The School Board justified its censorship on the ground that the expressions indicated membership in an "illegal organization" prohibited by School Board policy and were disruptive to the educational process.

Apparently the school board attorney got his degree from Billy Bob's Law School and Bait Shop. They could sue that idiot for malpractice for being that utterly clueless of the law. There's no point in quoting the court's legal conclusions; if ever there was an open and shut case, this was it. The plaintiff's brief could have just said "DUH" in big letters on it and they would have won.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008 ... pal_la.php

I'm little worried that there are "many" in the school district wondering what he did wrong. Seriously?

[Analytics]

The meaning of that could vary significantly based on context, hey? It could be a subtle jab at gays, implying they're the equivalent of pedophiles. It could just be showing the person finds pedobear hilarious. It could also be a genuine double-ironic way of showing support of pedophilia.

Touche.

No, the only reason I brought up pedobear is because someone else here reminds me of another guy found on the internet who used pedobear as his avatar.

I don't particularly think pedobear is funny (because I think child rape is about the most serious crime possible) nor do I consider gays to be the equivalent of pedophiles. In fact, I usually avoid talking about pedophiles when discussing homosexuality because it's a guaranteed way to derail the discussion into how homosexuals are not pedophiles any more than heterosexuals are--which I understand and agree with.

[_asbestosman]

Davis told the mother of a student whom he had suspended that he could secretly "send her [daughter] off to a private Christian school down in Tallahassee" or to the juvenile detention center and that "if there was a man in your house, your children were in church, you wouldn't be having any of these gay issues."

Wow, just wow.

I take it students can't wear a shirt saying that "Davis is going to hell", or maybe,
"F@$% the principal"?

[_Angus McAwesome]

How about a shirt that says, "I support pedobear"?

To late...

[_Sethbag]

Suppose you were in a school filled with violent homophobes though. Would that justify banning a shirt that says, "I support gays" if it would result in the wearer being attacked? It's the same concept as a "Die Niggers" shirt as it might incite violence.

There is a major difference here that hasn't been discussed yet.

A "Die niggers!" shirt is a direct expression by the individual about someone else, but "I support gays" is an expression only about that individual him- or herself. "Die niggers!" attacks someone else directly, ie: if you're a black person, you're targeted.

"I support gays" only attacks someone else by indirect implication, ie: if you don't support gays, this person does not agree with you. But "I support gays" is not even a direct attack on people who don't support gays. That would take a shirt like "People who don't support gays are going to hell!"

I think in this country there has always been a lot more leeway for people to talk about themselves, either positively or in admitting or copping to their own faults. But talking about someone else in a way that is attacking them is on a different plane. It's definitely not the same thing.

You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but you can always stand up in that crowded theater and shout "I'm 80 lbs overweight, and I have a low IQ!" You might get kicked out of the theater for disrupting the movie, but the law wouldn't touch you.

[_EAllusion]

There is a major difference here that hasn't been discussed yet.

A "Die niggers!" shirt is a direct expression by the individual about someone else, but "I support gays" is an expression only about that individual him- or herself. "Die niggers!" attacks someone else directly, ie: if you're a black person, you're targeted.

"I support gays" only attacks someone else by indirect implication, ie: if you don't support gays, this person does not agree with you. But "I support gays" is not even a direct attack on people who don't support gays. That would take a shirt like "People who don't support gays are going to hell!"

With all due respect, I did bring up this point already.

To wit:

I also think they are different kinds of expressions. One is an attack on a group of people, the other is affirming support of a group of people. Of course, through affirmation of support one might be implicitly disagreeing with other views, but it's not quite the same as just out and out attacking on a shirt. The equivalent of "I support gays" would be something like, "I support Southern Baptists." For a Mormon relevant analogy, look no further than comparing a shirt that says, "I support Mormons" with one that says, "Mormons are going to hell."

[_Sethbag]

Technically, you said that one statement is attack on other people, while the other statement is support of other people, and I said that one is an attack on other people, while the other statement is not an attack because it's about one's own attitude, and the attitude expressed does not itself contain an attack.

The question isn't whether one attacks and the other supports, it's whether one attacks and the other doesn't attack. "I support homosexuals" is not an attack on anybody, even on those who don't support gays. The most that can be inferred by an "I support gays" message is that if you don't support gays, the person sporting that shirt doesn't agree with you. But disagreement is not an attack.

[_Sethbag]

Is the following message an attack on anyone?

"My favorite color is red."

I would argue that it is not, even if your favorite color happens to be yellow, no, blue (aaaaaggghhhhhhh).