Saturday, April 22, 2006

Schools may ban hurtful T-shirt slogans|Reuters.com

Schools may ban hurtful T-shirt slogans|Reuters.com

So this is what we've come to, gay pride over free speech, wow! Of course we know which court found that to be the case, U.S 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Do you recall what other recent decisions they issued? Gee, does the Pledge of Allegiance ring a bell?

Anyway, I'd have to side with the one dissenting opinion on this one. For two reasons:
1) Sexual preference is not protected by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or other government legislation at the Federal level - making the opinion based on that misguided
2) The right not to be angered or hurt by what you see does not exist. Newspapers and other media routinely put out things offensive to just about any race, color, creed and/or sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, so do our schools.

So give it a rest already 9th Circuit folks! I guarantee if this had been a practicing homosexual with a t-shirt saying 'Christianity is hateful', the court would have upheald that students right to wear it.

All of that being my opinion, I disagree with the kid wearing the shirt. A better shirt, more in line with Christian principles vs hate, would be perhaps 'Love over orientation'. Love isn't about how we feel about someone but how we behave because we are who we are.

Over and out for now...
Tojosan

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm interested in law and especially in civil liberties, so I had to look up the primary source material. I thought I'd share:

This is Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., No. 04-57037 (9th Circuit, April 20, 2006) [opinion][dissent].

As to reason (2): "our holding is
limited to injurious speech that strikes at a core identifying characteristic of
students on the basis of their membership in a minority group" [Opinion p. 30 footnote 27].

As to "Christianity is hateful:" '[A school] need not permit its students to wear T-shirts reading, “Jews Are Christ-Killers” or “All Muslims Are Evil Doers.”' [Opinion p. 37] and "Public school 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" [Opinion pp. 19--20] but also "There is, of course, a difference between a historically oppressed minority group that has been the victim of serious prejudice and discrimination and a group that has always enjoyed a preferred social, economic and political status" [Opinion p. 31 footnote 28].

Tojosan: check out p. 7 to see that the school's resource officer basically concurs with your suggestion about a "better shirt."

Anonymous said...

Maybe I should clarify that in the "[t]here is, of course, a difference..." quote the court strongly implies that Christianity specifically is "a group that has always enjoyed a preferred social, economic and political status."

Tojosan said...

Christianity is quickly losing its preferred social, economic and political status. That said, no group should go out of its way to be hurtful.

In any case, your references are appreciated, and I especially find it interesting that the court likens the t-shirt (very innoccous category) to shirts about "Christ-Killers" and "Evil Doers". Both of which are pretty extreme examples of free speech.

Finally I'd agrue, based on many recent court rulings, business behavoirs and the media, that homosexuality is becoming the new preferred social status. :)

Thanks again.
Tojo