Okay then; you can read all of the following to draw your own conclusions, but here's the deal in a nutshell:
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was a bad thing for a student to wear a shirt to school that professed disapproval of homosexuality. "Be Ashamed", and the like was printed on the shirt, and the court took this to mean that the attire was inappropriate.
But of course it was. If someone was wearing an article of clothing that made sport or, or condemned Christianity, or Judaism, or even something Dirty Ol' Mo passed down to appease headchoppers the world over, then it's inciting hatred and really isn't the thing to be wearing to school.
To the mall, perhaps, or around the house, or out with the gang stealing hub-caps, then sure; as long as the language doesn't offend community standards, why not. One SHOULD be able to express oneself in such a manner, but NOT in a FRICKIN SCHOOL.
Is such speech NOT protected by the Constitution? Would Fuck You, Jesus be protected?
I have a problem with the legal system getting involved in what should be a dress-code policy, and since it's the 9th Circuit then you KNOW the kneejerk response from sane folks everywhere is going to be one helluva doozy.
Anyway, here's the whole magilla, and PS: We ALL give up certain 1st Amendment rights depending upon what passes for common sense versus nasty ass stupidity. Kids are not fully vested for lots of reasons, and adults cannot scream THEATER! in a crowded fire.
_____________________________
Unbelievable! The 9th Circus strikes again!
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/04/20/9th-circuit-court-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-anti-gay-message-in-schools/
Tyler Harper wore an anti-homosexuality T-shirt to school, apparently responding to a pro-gay-rights event put on at the school by the Gay-Straight Alliance at the school. On the front, the T-shirt said, "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned," and on the back, it said "Homosexuality is Shameful." The principal insisted that Harper take off the T-shirt. Harper sued, claiming this violated his First Amendment rights.
Harper's speech is constitutionally unprotected, the Ninth Circuit just ruled today, in an opinion written by Judge Reinhardt and joined by Judge Thomas; Judge Kozinski dissented. According to the majority, "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation" — which essentially means expressions of viewpoints that are hostile to certain races, religions, and sexual orientations — are simply unprotected by the First Amendment in K-12 schools. Such speech, Judge Reinhardt said, violates "the rights of other students" by constituting a "verbal assault[] that may destroy the self-esteem of our most vulnerable teenagers and interfere with their educational development."
So, according to 9th Circuit "logic" the Gay Straight Alliance, supported by the ACLU, are apparantly Constitutionally protected to encourage indoctrinating second graders with gay "tolerance", any view expressed by a student from K to 12 does not have that same Constitutional protection. This is very disturbing and chilling.
Eugene Volokh agrees.
The Gay-Straight Alliance has a constitutional right to argue that homosexuality is quite proper, that same-sex marriages should be recognized, that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be banned, and that antigay bigotry is an abomination. But when the other side of this debate "about controversial issues" wants to express its views, which will often have to rest on the theory that homosexuality is wrong, sorry, apparently it's not important to preserve student speech that expresses that view.
"[T]here is an equality of status in the field of ideas," the Supreme Court has said. "Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea." "The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction." And yet according to Judge Reinhardt, the First Amendment itself discriminates against viewpoints that express hostility to minority races, religions, and sexual orientations.
The Alliance Defense Fund are stepping up to the plate.
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund say they plan to appeal today's ruling by two judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who upheld a high school's decision to prohibit a student from expressing his views regarding homosexual behavior on a T-shirt.
"Students do not give up their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Kevin Theriot. "This panel has upheld school censorship of student expression if it is the Christian view of homosexual behavior. They have essentially determined that student quotation of Scripture can be prohibited. This case will proceed at the district court level, but we intend to appeal today's extremely poor ruling to the full 9th Circuit."
ADF attorneys represent Poway High School student Chase Harper, who was forbidden by school officials from wearing a T-shirt expressing his religious point of view on homosexual behavior. A school administrator told Harper to "leave his faith in the car" when his faith might offend others ( www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=2746).
The decision today by the two-judge majority of a three-judge 9th Circuit panel upholds a lower court's denial of a motion by ADF attorneys that asked for Poway High School's policy regarding the T-shirt to be immediately halted while the case moves forward.
The third judge, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, vigorously dissented: "I have considerable difficulty with giving school authorities the power to decide that only one side of a controversial topic may be discussed in the school environment because the opposing point of view is too extreme or demeaning…. The fundamental problem with the majority's approach is that it has no anchor anywhere in the record or in the law. It is entirely a judicial creation, hatched to deal with the situation before us, but likely to cause innumerable problems in the future."
The two-judge majority criticized Kozinski, suggesting that the majority could rely upon the motion pictures Brokeback Mountain or The Matthew Shepard Story "as evidence of the harmful effects of anti-gay harassment…."
"The majority implied that Brokeback Mountain is in, and the Bible is out. What's really broken here is the majority's approach to the First Amendment," Theriot observed.
"The court has manufactured new law in the area of student speech in saying students cannot say anything that school officials deem 'demeaning' to another," Theriot explained. "This is the same court that ruled that parental rights stop at the schoolhouse gate and that 'God' should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. This case is not over."
3 comments:
"Is such speech NOT protected by the Constitution? Would Fuck You, Jesus be protected?"
I doubt that "fuck" would be allowed in a high school, however "Jesus was only a man" should be as should something expressing the biblical view of homosexuality.
If you are such a delicate little flower that you cannot endure challenge then stay at home.
That isn't the point at all, strays prodigiously from the question, and makes so little sense as to be mere contrarianism.
Schools do not need more bullshit, but less. Certain things are bullshit and take them elsewhere isn't a stretch or we'll see every nonsensical jingoism represented simply because it's "free speech".
This PC BS has to stop. If one kid is so offended by another kid's shirt that he causes a disturbance you do not make the first kid take his shirt off you land on the second kid with both feet.
Otherwise the next step is forcing girls to wear head coverings because Muslim students are offended. Or forcing Muslim girls to take off their head coverings because feminist students are offended by them.
Post a Comment