School/T-shirt issue.

Originally Posted by Yahoo! News

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Public schools can bar clothing with slogans that are hurtful, a U.S. appeals court ruled Thursday in the case of a student who wore a T-shirt saying "Homosexuality is shameful."

The 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals backed a San Diego-area high school's argument that it was entitled to tell a student to remove a T-shirt with that message.

The officials were concerned the slogan could raise tension at the school, where there had been conflict between gay and straight students.

The student sued, claiming the school's dress code violated his free speech, religious freedom and due process rights.

Writing for the panel's majority, Judge Stephen Reinhardt affirmed a lower court's decision against an injunction against the school and said schools may bar slogans believed to be hurtful.

Students "who may be injured by verbal assaults on the basis of a core identifying characteristic such as race, religion, or sexual orientation, have a right to be free from such attacks while on school campuses," Reinhardt wrote.

"The demeaning of young gay and lesbian students in a school environment is detrimental not only to their psychological health and well-being, but also to their educational development," Reinhardt added.

In his dissent, Judge Alex Kozinski said the majority would gag campus dissent to Poway High School's policies.

"The types of speech that could be banned by the school authorities under the Poway High School hate policy are practically without limit. Any speech code that has at its heart avoiding offense to others gives anyone with a thin skin a heckler's veto - something the Supreme Court has not approved in the past," Kozinski wrote.

Reinhardt rejected this argument.

"Perhaps our dissenting colleague believes that one can condemn homosexuality without condemning homosexuals. If so, he is wrong. To say that homosexuality is shameful is to say, necessarily, that gays and lesbians are shameful," Reinhardt.

"There are numerous locations and opportunities available to those who wish to advance such an argument. It is not necessary to do so by directly condemning, to their faces, young students trying to obtain a fair and full education in our public schools," Reinhardt added.

I read that, and was quite shocked. I mean, a student could probably walk in wih a T-shirt saying "F*** you" and not be nailed becuase of free speech, but this student was becuase of a T-shirt denouncing homosexuality. Do you think this ruling was appropriate? Why do you think so?

I also see how they try to keep gays from being persecuted, which I think is great, but they "protect" gays from t-shirts yet fail to support a kid who is beaten up becuase he is a "geek." (Posters: please note this isn't a homoexuality issue, its more of a free speech issue really.)

well there is nothing wrong with a T-shirt that says "F*** you!", an anti-homosexual T-shirt is bad though.

Originally Posted by mind-friend`

well there is nothing wrong with a T-shirt that says "F*** you!", an anti-homosexual T-shirt is bad though.

It depends on what the Anti-homosexual shirt says. If it says "All homosexuals should die" then yeah it is bad and should be barred. On the other hand, if the shirt said, "God forgives" or something of that nature, then no. This is a violation of freedom of religion and speech.

I mean, a student could probably walk in wih a T-shirt saying "F*** you" and not be nailed becuase of free speech, but this student was becuase of a T-shirt denouncing homosexuality.

I disagree, I don't know about your public school but I know for sure anyone who came to school with that shirt would be forced to go home and replace it or isn't allowed to come to school with such an offensive thing. Along with other questionable sexual clothing.

Do you think this ruling was appropriate? Why do you think so?

I think it is very appropriate because it protects individuals and reduces hostility in a school environment. People should feel safe in public schools and such shirts like that represents hostility and could wind up in violence, something that school apparently already had.

they "protect" gays from t-shirts yet fail to support a kid who is beaten up becuase he is a "geek."

What is this, an attempt to connect with any online users by using the "geek" arguement? I doubt the school won't do anything if somebody is harmed, especially if they were harmed for something like "being a geek" regardless if someone is hurt the school will take action.

It depends on what the Anti-homosexual shirt says. If it says "All homosexuals should die" then yeah it is bad and should be barred. On the other hand, if the shirt said, "God forgives" or something of that nature, then no. This is a violation of freedom of religion and speech.

Why? Whats the difference between the T-shirts listed above in the eyes of free speech? Sure, hating is very wrong, but isn't tolerating messages you don't like to hear what free speech is all about?

Originally Posted by Mr. Fish

Why? Whats the difference between the T-shirts listed above in the eyes of free speech? Sure, hating is very wrong, but isn't tolerating messages you don't like to hear what free speech is all about?

Okay, lets say I sent you a letter threatening to kill you, am I protected by freedom of speech? Not necessaringly, there are limits and I can be punished for threathening you. Besides, this is a school environment, they can do whatever they want as long as it's for the good of the students. They're trying to protect the students so they have all the right. The T-shirt stronghammer suggested wasn't as harmful, a t-shirt saying "god forgives" is okay, but if it said "God forgives, even homosexuality" then that may not be allowed, as they would bring harmful attention to the one wearing the t-shirt.

Free speech?

Wearing nothing gets you a fine for indecent exposure?

Freedom of speech is not absolute, isnpiring others to hate another group or person is not allowed (At least, here in Canada.) That means that, yes, a shirt saying "Homosexuals are shameful" would probably count, although I'm not sure either way.

Limitless free speech is probably one of the worst things that could happen, why? Because then anyone can say anything to or about you, and never have any repercussion, they could say that you were the worst person alive who did your job, and you'd be unable to do anything about it.

The ruling was a good one. Free speech and freedom of the press were originally meant to allow anything to be published or said, but after that was done it was up to the Courts(after an appeal from an offended citizen) to decide whether or not that kind of freedom of speech/press was constitutional. For instance, pornography was illegal for a long time, though it was allowed to be published; the main point is, pornography was censored after being published. Freedom of speech just means that you can say it, not that you can't get in trouble for it.

It seems that, these days, we have some kind of moral obligation to try and forcibly shape students' opinions when it comes down to discrimination, regardless of whether or not this trounces upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. People cannot, seemingly, say what they think about an individual or generalize about a group of people without getting some kind of official chastisement by a judiciary power. Why? "Because it's 'harmful' to the minority's psychological and educational development."

Albeit, such apparel could be offensive. Does that mean you become a special case? That you have to turn to some kind of allegedly moral justice to avert such hate? Because you're too sensitive to not dismiss such individuals wearing a demoralizing T-shirt as intolerant asshats? Spare me.

However, one could argue this was not a matter of Freedom of Speech; last I checked, speech involves using your mouth. This was text, slapped across a T-shirt. But what's this referred to as? Freedom of Expression? I don't think there is such thing in the Constitution. If someone is wearing, "I'm Going to Bomb the !@#$ Out Of You America" with a picture of Osama bin Laden over it, I'm pretty sure we can't seize him because it's supposedly "Freedom of Speech", correct?

Originally Posted by Hostis of Angelus

Freedom of speech just means that you can say it, not that you can't get in trouble for it.

...No, I'm pretty sure you'd only have to take resonsibility and accept the repurcussions if what you say involves threatning messages, however not offensive ones.

Originally Posted by Haruhiko

However, one could argue this was not a matter of Freedom of Speech; last I checked, speech involves using your mouth. This was text, slapped across a T-shirt. But what's this referred to as? Freedom of Expression? I don't think there is such thing in the Constitution. If someone is wearing, "I'm Going to Bomb the !@#$ Out Of You America" with a picture of Osama bin Laden over it, I'm pretty sure we can't seize him because it's supposedly "Freedom of Speech", correct?

Freedom of Speech extends to messages that aren't 'spoken.' I mean, posting on a forum isn't 'speaking,' either, if you take that interpretation.

We can't seize because of, "Free Speech," but we perhaps can because he is making a death threat.

Among the exceptions to, 'free speech,' are defamation, clear and present danger (causing panic, shouting "fire" in a crowded building), fighting words and obscenity.

I would imagine that speech advocating crimes, especially of the more heinous variety, would not be covered under 'free speech.'

Um... if freedom of speech only applies to verbal actions, why does the supreme court use the first amendment to regularly rule on pornography and pamphlet-distribution cases? The bill of rights was written in the late 1700s - it includes freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Which, if you'd notice, were the two main ways ideas were spread in the days before television and print-screen T-shirts. Your powers of inflexibility are amazing, haruhiko. May god help us all if you're ever made a supreme court justice.

And why the heck can't the kid wear the shirt? I'm bi myself, and the shirt does piss me off, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to express his own opinions. People who are saying that they want to make schools a safer place by banning offensive t-shirts are simply attacking a (damn minor) symptom of the disease. Just because a kid wears a shirt that says he thinks something's shameful (a stupid opinion, i think, but he's welcome to it), that does not mean he's going to go out and beat up someone. If schools would step up disciplinary issues and actually crack down on kids while they're on school property, then your issue would be solved. School apathy allows whatever violence you're talking about to flourish. And if someone is frightened by *simply* a shirt and not just other violence that is going on in the area, he needs to lighten up.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Freedom of Speech extends to messages that aren't 'spoken.' I mean, posting on a forum isn't 'speaking,' either, if you take that interpretation.

Let's call it "internet speak", just for kicks.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

We can't seize because of, "Free Speech," but we perhaps can because he is making a death threat.

Mhmm, mhmm...

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Among the exceptions to, 'free speech,' are defamation, clear and present danger (causing panic, shouting "fire" in a crowded building), fighting words and obscenity.

I would imagine that speech advocating crimes, especially of the more heinous variety, would not be covered under 'free speech.'

Of course not. But, is meandering into school campus with a t-shirt with plain text reading, "!@#$ YOU, TEACHERS!" freedom of speech, or is it some kind of idiotic expression? Can one, logically, argue against the school administration for forbidding said shirt? This is basically the road many people are taking, magically coalescing some non-existent right.

I'm not quite sure where I stand on the entirety of the issue; on the one hand, I disapprove of any kind of anti-homosexual[ity] sentiment, even if it's something along the lines of "God Forgives" (in fact, that just annoys me more, despite my continued affiliation with Christianity...I just think that's trying to soften the protest as if to justify intolerance by making it seem all happy-happy). On the other hand, however, I think that if blondes and brunettes can get take the whole 'hair color war' as a joke, I'm pretty sure homosexuals just may be able to handle unavailing apparel.

Originally Posted by andi

Um... if freedom of speech only applies to verbal actions, why does the supreme court use the first amendment to regularly rule on pornography and pamphlet-distribution cases?

Because, my friend, the federal government is becoming substantially talented at "interpreting" the law.

Originally Posted by andi

Your powers of inflexibility are amazing, haruhiko. May god help us all if you're ever made a supreme court justice.

Yeah, damn Libertarians interpreting the law AS IT IS WRITTEN. :]...Oh, and to make yourself sound more politically correct, call it "distortion of the law." Even if that's not the case.

Here's how it goes: At school, your rights of speech are severely constricted. In the analysis system in the courts, there are "levels of scrutiny". They denote the requirements that must be met for a decision concerning expression to pass. The lower the level of scrutiny a subject reaches, the less authority must be exerted to pass a decision. For instance, in schools, wearing a shirt that says "!@#$ You, Teachers!". School administrators assume responsibility for all students as parents.

So....teachers can give as rudimentary a reason as "He is flaming teachers" to revoke his rights to wearing that t-shirt. Now, if the student was communicating against a ligitimate cause (say, wearing a black armband to denouce the vietnam war, which actually happened, resulting in setting the precepts for freedom of expression cases in schools), there's a certain acception. But in digression, if you are protesting something with a communicative message, then the school must meet a higher level of scrutiny. Random swear words and malicious and are always axed in the school system, at least as far as most can tell. I believe discriminatory t-shirts are included.
This is based on a research paper my friend did for class. :]

Haruhiko, freedom of speech has in built limits, this case violates the limitation that hate speech is not protected. If you can show me how it isn't hate speech, then I'd agree that this was wrong.

If free speech didn't have limitations, as I said earlier, anyone could say anything they liked about anyone, it wouldn't have to be true, and no one could do anything about it. I could insult you, call you every name in the book, imply all sorts of stuff about how well you do your job and various things about your mother, and you'd be unable to do a single thing. I could then go on and call everyone in earshot to attack you, or to at least insult you also, and that would be legal. Free speech has limits for a reason.

Originally Posted by Haruhiko

Let's call it "internet speak", just for kicks.

Then let's call words on t-shirts, "t-shirt speak." Just for kicks.

Of course not. But, is meandering into school campus with a t-shirt with plain text reading, "!@#$ YOU, TEACHERS!" freedom of speech, or is it some kind of idiotic expression? Can one, logically, argue against the school administration for forbidding said shirt? This is basically the road many people are taking, magically coalescing some non-existent right.

An expression can simultaneously be idiotic, and be under the protection of free speech. (Or, in our case, incredibly tacky.)

Not magically, though. Obscenity is a recognized exception to free speech.

Because, my friend, the federal government is becoming substantially talented at "interpreting" the law.

Freedom of speech, like freedom of the press, must be understood with its intent and in context. Freedom of the press, when read literally, only protects the printing press. Not the media as it exists on radio or television. I can't believe how overreaching the federal gummint is, pretending the freedom of the press extends to radio and television (and the internet). Free speech is generally the right to express an opinion without government censorship.

Yeah, damn Libertarians interpreting the law AS IT IS WRITTEN. :]...Oh, and to make yourself sound more politically correct, call it "distortion of the law." Even if that's not the case.

You aren't being literal, you're being literalistic. There is a huge difference. Your method of interpretation would take, "the sun rose this morning," as decreeing the movement of the sun. To examine the literal meaning of a document you have to find out what it meant. Do you think the statement, "It's raining cats and dogs," has to do with the descent of furry domesticated animals from the heavens?

I was just wondering if any of the distinctions from cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines or Hazelwood might be relevant-- but I can't seem to remember the facts of the cases and the findings (well, to any degree that I can apply it here). Perhaps someone should go do that next and contribute to this topic.