Saturday, April 22, 2006
Free Speech in High School
A Ninth Circuit split panel decision this past week, Harper v. Poway Unified School District has a lot of people up in arms with actually quite good criticism of the decision--mainly Eugene Volokh and his crew--but they are, I believe, nipping at the edges and the core of the outcome, if not the decision, is sound.
Briefest of statements of fact: High Schooler wears shirt on Day of Silence (Honoring? gay students) saying, on the front: BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL HAS EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED, and on the back: HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL Romans 1:27. Young Master Harper was told to take the shirt off, he refused--punishment followed by lawsuit.
Outside a school, the majority ruled, no one could make Harper take the shirt off but in a school it was OK.
What's wrong with that? If a student wanted to wear a Swastika shirt (like the guy in The Believer) I think the school could make him take it off--or if he wore shirt with the same message Bruce Willis wore on his signboard in Die Hard with a Vengeance, I think the school could make him take it off. Aren't we conservatives usually worried that the schools are not doing enough to enforce the 'peace' in school? Except about the moronic zero tolerance about pen knives and toy soldiers.
What troubles Volokh and his ilk is found starting on page 29 of the opinion and the pay off comes on page 31 where the court OKs banning free speech in "instances of derogatory and injurious remarks at student's minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation." Many see that as creating a right not to be offended, which is anathema to free speech (of course the pleasant speech doesn't need any protection). Others are concerned that race and religion (mentioned in the Constitution and amendments specifically) are now joined by and are equal to sexual orientation (not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution).
I'm a little troubled that the statements on the shirt were deemed derogatory and injurious. The Church speaks for God here on Earth and it condemns homosexuality as a sin. Harper even had a supporting cite for his statement to Paul's letter to the Romans. When did truth become derogatory and injurious?
As an optimist, I hope that our wise Supreme Court will take the time to sort this out in the near future.
Briefest of statements of fact: High Schooler wears shirt on Day of Silence (Honoring? gay students) saying, on the front: BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL HAS EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED, and on the back: HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL Romans 1:27. Young Master Harper was told to take the shirt off, he refused--punishment followed by lawsuit.
Outside a school, the majority ruled, no one could make Harper take the shirt off but in a school it was OK.
What's wrong with that? If a student wanted to wear a Swastika shirt (like the guy in The Believer) I think the school could make him take it off--or if he wore shirt with the same message Bruce Willis wore on his signboard in Die Hard with a Vengeance, I think the school could make him take it off. Aren't we conservatives usually worried that the schools are not doing enough to enforce the 'peace' in school? Except about the moronic zero tolerance about pen knives and toy soldiers.
What troubles Volokh and his ilk is found starting on page 29 of the opinion and the pay off comes on page 31 where the court OKs banning free speech in "instances of derogatory and injurious remarks at student's minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation." Many see that as creating a right not to be offended, which is anathema to free speech (of course the pleasant speech doesn't need any protection). Others are concerned that race and religion (mentioned in the Constitution and amendments specifically) are now joined by and are equal to sexual orientation (not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution).
I'm a little troubled that the statements on the shirt were deemed derogatory and injurious. The Church speaks for God here on Earth and it condemns homosexuality as a sin. Harper even had a supporting cite for his statement to Paul's letter to the Romans. When did truth become derogatory and injurious?
As an optimist, I hope that our wise Supreme Court will take the time to sort this out in the near future.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:53 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Roger,
Are you saying that you think homosexuality is a sin? Am I reading that right?
Also, can't a school district decide on any kind of dress code they want?
Are you saying that you think homosexuality is a sin? Am I reading that right?
Also, can't a school district decide on any kind of dress code they want?
R,
I know the Church's stance on homosexulality but where in the Bible is it mentioned. I need a cite here Big Guy.
I know the Church's stance on homosexulality but where in the Bible is it mentioned. I need a cite here Big Guy.
# posted by 
: 7:33 PM
: 7:33 PM
Mike, no, and yes, the Church thinks all sex outside marriage is a sin. So homosexual sex is no more a sin than heterosexual sex but no less. I've sinned a lot, just not lately. Yes, a school can stop kids wearing certain clothes but a T shirt is ok just not one with a fighting words like message or a swastika or curse words, etc.
Tony, why do I have to do your heavy lifting? Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:21-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. The story of Soddom and Gomorah is none too approving of homosexuality either.
Tony, why do I have to do your heavy lifting? Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:21-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10. The story of Soddom and Gomorah is none too approving of homosexuality either.
That's a relief.
So you split with the curch on that one. Cool.
Couldn't they have just filed this under fighting words, since the language was likely to incite a violent reaction?
So you split with the curch on that one. Cool.
Couldn't they have just filed this under fighting words, since the language was likely to incite a violent reaction?
Romans 1: "25Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.
26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved."
Well it doesn't exactly say that homosexuality is shameful, but I suppose it's a reasonable inference. But this is not a clear passage - what is the connection of 26/27 to waht went previously? Why did God abandon them? What was the penalty these guys suffered within? And isn't the problem more one of focussing on "things" rather than on the Creator? Clearly I'm not a bible scholar, nor would I agree that quotes from any religious text thereby consist truth - what a weird, contradictory world we would be living in if that were true! anyway, perhaps our shirtwearing friend should have read on:
"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Romans 1.2
26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved."
Well it doesn't exactly say that homosexuality is shameful, but I suppose it's a reasonable inference. But this is not a clear passage - what is the connection of 26/27 to waht went previously? Why did God abandon them? What was the penalty these guys suffered within? And isn't the problem more one of focussing on "things" rather than on the Creator? Clearly I'm not a bible scholar, nor would I agree that quotes from any religious text thereby consist truth - what a weird, contradictory world we would be living in if that were true! anyway, perhaps our shirtwearing friend should have read on:
"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Romans 1.2
Mark quoting the Bible (that's one of the signs of the Apocalypse isn't it?) There is a lot of judge not lest you be judged in the Bible but what if God tells you an act is wrong. Is it OK to judge those who do that as acting wrong? I condemn theives, murders and liars without being hypocritical, do I not?
Post a Comment
<< Home
