Heh. Go to a theater. Start blowing a whistle and see what happens. It won't cause a panic, but I doubt you won't get kicked out. And again you seem to think your bad analogies as proof of your point when you've still stated nothing of which that can be called expressions of thoughts and ideas. Yelling fire and lying hardly fit in that catagory. But again even if you could give a legitimate example it would still be meaningless due to a classroom being the most appropriate place for thoughts and ideas.
I have said nothing about blowing whistles in theaters. This thread is about the permissibility of hateful and provocative messages on clothing in a school setting. The theater analogy went along with other examples where freedom of speech is curtailed in the interest of public well-being. We are not free to spread lies and misinformation that have bad social consequences. The educational setting argument is exactly this type of argument--that the restrictions on freedom of expression are appropriate for that limited setting.
I really don't need to show any case that a dress code shows unreasonable restrictions. I'm perfectly fine if a public school adopted a uniform as private schools do. The hypocrisy I find in this case is that shirts with logos, slogans, or pictures is perfectly allowed with the current standard of dress, and thus this shirt's message or even a clear cut hate message is perfectly allowed within that parameter. Either allow it all or ban even shirts with anti-drug messages. After all, it may provoke drug users since "not everyone agrees with your moral views and judgments."
Unfortunately, life presents us with messy situations, and general solutions to problems almost always run up against borderline cases. That does not mean that we should propose no remedy at all for a problem. In the case under discussion, the message on the T-shirt was clearly intended to provoke anger and intimidate those who do not share the opinions. That may be something that we can tolerate in public adult settings, but not in settings that are exclusively to the education of minors.
It is perfectly appropriate to discuss civil rights in social studies classes, and nothing I have said prevents a school from carrying out that mission. It is quite another thing to hold that students should be subjected to abusive messages on the clothing of their schoolmates. One of the things that we do try to instill in American schools (or ought to) is tolerance for diverse backgrounds and respect for people whose opinions may differ from one's own. Clothing that displays hateful messages would seem to contradict that purpose.
You really can't do anything but give proof by assertions of "abusive messages" and a hypocritical cry for tolerance while being intolerant of such messages, can you? Weak Cop. Real weak.
What is weak is your failure to acknowledge that there is a difference between a school setting and the public park. Our freedoms are not absolute in the sense that they hold at all times in all places and under all conditions. It may be appropriate to wear bikinis and swim trunks on the beach, but it is not appropriate to wear them in a social studies classroom. Different situations, different standards of behavior. That is the point I have been making and you have been ignoring. If you disagree, then respond to that argument, not the argument that I failed to make--that free speech should be restricted in all situations.
Huh? I'm giving you a hypothetical case of a T-shirt that might not display a message that you feel comfortable with. This isn't just about a few Christians getting away with their own messages of hatred and intolerance.
As you've been arguing on this forum that Christianity is a lie for some time, I find you to fit the bill perfectly when you say calling Islam a lie is considered a hate message.
A lie is an intentional falsehood. I have never argued that any religion is an intentional falsehood. Quite the contrary. I have argued that religions are false beliefs, but ones held sincerely by most people who profess them.
You are confusing the classroom with the street. We are talking about creating an atmosphere of learning, openness and tolerance--something that is necessary for learning and rational discussion to take place, especially among children and teenagers. A public speech in the park is not the same kind of situation. That seems to be the point that you are missing in the discussion--that different situations call for different forms of behavior. It is one thing to promote your political or religious views in public places, where people can walk away. It is quite another to force people in a closed, required setting to be subjected to that kind of treatment. Then your freedom begins to trample on the rights of others.
You are imagining a meaningful difference between the two when there isn't one. The only difference you've listed being that messages in the street can be ignored (very appropriate behavior regarding important issues). And you've completely missed the point that people can do that anyway. In fact, it would be easier to ignore a shirt than someone talking given that reading is an effort above hearing. At worst, someone would be aware of what is said, but how a person reacts is entirely up to him/her. And the right to ignore it is entirely within a person's ability.
I've bolded that part of your statement that is patently false. It is not just a matter of being able to ignore the messages but the audience that the message is being sent to. Children and teenagers are not yet able to respond maturely to such situations. Here you have explicitly denied what we both know to be true--that the schoolyard is a very different place from the public park, and it is appropriate to restrict the behavior of minors in such a way that education and learning can take place in an orderly way.
I find your call for the ability to ignore major issues to be quite contradicting to your call of schools being a place of learning and tolerance. This can be said even more for the issue of abortion due to the fact that sex education is introduced to students as early as Jr. High. You want them to be ignorant of such issues till life hits them?
Where have I ever called for the ability to ignore major issues? I have repeatedly taken the position that controversial issues should be discussed in school. Provocative behavior does not count as rational discussion in an educational setting. I am particularly in favor of sex education, since it has been proven effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies. It is ludicrous to believe that ignorance will somehow cause teenagers to abstain from sex. Teaching children about condoms is not the same as allowing them to wear shirts that exhort other children to use condoms.
And spare me the double standard. I can easily reverse this so-called "right" of others to trample on the explicitedly stated right of everyone.
Arguing for standards in restricted venues is not the same as promoting a double standard.
...I just find it interesting how you call for schools to be a place of learning, tolerance, and self-discipline, but argue for students to be able to ignore or be ignorant of disagreeing views on major issues till they're blind sided by life as well as simultaneously saying schools can't do their jobs well enough that a T-shirt ruins everything. If you find statements of a schools fragility unrealistic then stop argueing based on it.
Again, you misunderstand and distort what I have been saying, possibly because you can't refute it. Teaching students to think critically about controversial issues is not the same as promoting a side of those issues. You seem to be arguing that students must be exposed to every social pressure inside the classroom that they face outside of it. That is absurd. Just because a school child must walk past the neighborhood drug dealer on the way to school, that does not mean that this child must be forced to contend with pro-drug messages in the classroom. Writing about the experience and discussing it in a controlled classroom setting is different. That would promote the purpose of the school--to teach critical thinking.
...The Christian position is one by and large commited to virtuous living. Now I say by and large because there are a lot in Christendom who are not deeply committed to following Christ. But if one is deeply committed to following Christ and following that which Jesus taught and his disciples passed onto us, then one who is that kind of Christian is also deeply committed to living a virtuous life. So therefore if "X" is shown to be in accordance to what Jesus and his disciples taught, then it is by definition and reasonable to call "X" the Christian position. There is nothing arrogant or disingenuous about it.
Notice your use of the conditional:
if "X" is shown to be in accordance to what Jesus and his disciples taught. This is a simple "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Since Christians can disagree quite vehemently on what Christ and his disciples taught, it is fallacious and arrogant to apply the label of "Christian" only to those positions that you think represent "true Christianity". Christians are people who believe themselves to be followers of Christ, regardless of whether they believe what Christ actually taught or whether Christ even existed historically. To try to narrow the definition as you have done is a rhetorical ploy.
But public schools are not streets or public parks. Like a funeral or a private home, they have a special purpose, and civil freedoms must be restricted to conform to that purpose. Children represent a captive audience. They have no choice but to attend a school, and it is the responsibility of the school to provide them with a place where they don't have to put up with every behavior that is legal on a street corner. Calling the school "public" does not mean that it is indistinguishable from all other public places.
So do streets and parks. You can say they're special purpose is to accomadate travel and enjoy nature and thus there shouldn't be free speech there either. It's getting to the point where there no longer is a public place for free speech anywhere. See my remarks about you calling for students to be ignorant or able to ignore above. Your point of the government making school mandatory (private schools are still an option), only goes into the fact that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof". And this still goes into the fact as an arena for thoughts and ideas the classroom is still the most appropriate place for expressing them.
The problem with your argument is that there is no absolute way to interpret expressions like the establishment clause independently of a context. Rights can conflict with each other, and the law attempts to resolve those conflicts in the most sensible fashion. So the courts have determined that the government has no right to restrict free expression in parks or on the streets unless that expression can be shown to directly threaten public safety. Similarly, freedom of expression in school settings should be tolerated to the extent that nobody's right to a safe and secure environment is threatened. Children and adolescents do not behave with the same self-restraint as adults, so it is necessary to restrict their behavior in ways that would be inappropriate in other settings.
I didn't say that I had no trouble with hate speech in public. I have trouble with attempts to ban hateful messages in all places at all times.
Your entire arguement suggests otherwise.
Then you have not been paying attention. Consider your knuckles to have been rapped with a ruler.
I said that rights can conflict with each other, and there are times when some rights must be curtailed in favor of others. Moral and religious messages are permitted in places where people who disagree with those messages are not forced to listen to them. A person of color should not have to take a school exam, sitting next to someone who displays a shirt emblazoned with the n-word. It can be, to say the least, a bit of a distraction.
Well if rights conflict and should be curtailed then it goes in favor to the right that was clearly handed down over this ambiguous "right" for people to be ignorant and removed from life.
I don't see the relevance of your point here. Is it supposed to be a reference to abortion?
Yes, I don't need to distinguash when the "free exercise thereof" means "free exercise thereof". Surprisingly these issues of free speech are so self-evident they could have been decided by the very eight-graders whose interest we're looking out for (supposedly). Sadly others of a one-diminsional mind set can't seem to see what's plain to everyone else.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Again, you ignore the fact that rights conflict and we restrict all rights differently in different settings so as to minimize the conflicts.
Again, you fail to distinguish between promoting an idea in a provocative fashion and discussing it rationally. Reading ideas in a book is not the same thing as having to deal with open hostility in the behavior of one's schoolmates.
Your failure to outline where the shirt promotes behavior (the only evidence of behavior is on the one being violent), how it's anymore hateful then calling a spade a spade, and anymore provocative than the straight-forwardness of "The Mets suck." only shows how much of your arguement is based more on the fallacy of proof by assertion and empty bluster.
Oh, I understand provocative behavior. I once sat in the bleacher section of a football game between Ohio State and Michigan, waving a Michigan flag at an Ohio home game. Luckily, I survived the experience (although the flag did not), and I have become more mature as a result.
Right. No right is absolute. All are restricted under some circumstances. The courts have the responsibility of judging when and how rights can be restricted.
No, the courts have the responsibility to apply law. Even if the law is shown to be immoral they have no right to strike it down. The First Amendment is law and specificlly prohibits restrictions from the government. And again you face the irony that this so-called "right" to go through life unoffended can be ignored under the same reasoning. I see nothing compelling in favoring one over the other just because you say so. Even less so as I've shown how your reasoning to be contradicting.
So, it is your opinion that laws prohibiting slander and libel are illegal, right? And you also believe that it should be legal to sell poison labeled as baby food. Free speech uber alles, eh? I don't think so.
