'Barbie Is a Lesbian' Shirt Suit Settled

[rainman::|:|]

They still have PE in schools today? And who's to say she didnt hinder anyone's education. I'm sure she distracted some students.

PE is a requirement to graduate at the majority of high schools today. I can understand the reasoning behind it (kids = fat), but it's pretty solidly pointless (fat kids = skip PE).

It doesn't take ritalin to *not* look at the writing on some girl's shirt. If written messages provoked such mind-numbing confusion, teens would be wondering into walls every time someone walked by with an A&F shirt on.

I will admit that it might instigate conversation, but it's the teacher's choice to end that conversation during classtime.

paul

 

[mactastic]

They still have PE in schools today? And who's to say she didnt hinder anyone's education. I'm sure she distracted some students.

So the criteria is 'if it distracts one student'? And who's to say someone's red backpack didn't hinder anyone's education. Or their Dawson's Creek Trapper Keeper.

 

[mkrishnan]

So, we see that students' free speech is not entirely without restrictions (neither is adult FOS, for that matter), but is overall still free. None of the cases above would affect the case in hand, because she did not use a school publication OR threaten someone OR hinder education for others. What she did was express a viewpoint at odds with the administration, which she is protected in doing--

I agree wiith Paul about this. I'm not arguing for unlimited FOS for students either. But good jurisprudence calls for a law which can be applied consistently (so administrators have the same understanding of the dress code, without ambiguity), and can actually be followed by the students (so students know what they can and cannot wear). That's why I have a problem with saying, "let's wait and see if there's a disruption, and then kick out the kid with the t-shirt."

I suppose there ought to be some better standard, although they're all prone to abuse. For instance, free speech in the form of a threat to physical violence is not protected in general, and so it shouldn't be in school either. No "Kill all the whiteys" t-shirts. To the extent that there are hate crimes laws in a certain area, and those laws apply to speech, the same law ought to apply in a school.

I don't know what to think about Dippo's "All gays are going to burn in hell" t-shirt. I'm not inclined personally to view it as a threat or hate speech, though to me its awful close. And even if a school had an obscenity ban, I definitely wouldn't support using the word "hell" in proper context as obscenity. I guess if I apply my notion of a good consistent standard, and I imagine a student politely saying, "as a Christian, I believe that homosexual lifestyle is made up of unrepentent sin, and that unrepentent sinners go to Hell, and so I believe that gay people will go to Hell," I would not view this as threatening or hate speech. So, although I don't like such a thing at all, I suppose I'd have to say it ought to be allowed.

The alternative would be to construe this as hate speech or as threatening. But then I'm not sure what would prevent a hetero from making the same argument about the Barbie t-shirt....

I suppose, beyond being supportive from an ideological bent for this girl, I'm also slightly swayed by the fact that I think it's funny, which isn't fair to people like Dippo at all (who probably don't find it amusing).

Reminds me, a friend had a t-shirt that, at the top read, "God is dead -- Nietzsche," and at the bottom, "Nietzsche is dead -- God". We used to think it was really funny how much it offended people (especially middle-agers) who did not read the whole thing before becoming irate.

 

[takao]

just an addition:
if i want to offend people with my clothes i don't wear my "bitch","sex" t-shirts (just for the record: both were presents)

i don't get attention with them anymore ..everbody has similiar shirts and think they are funny

if i really want to get attention i wear one of these 3 tshirts :
"US NAVY" (big on front,grey)
"US Army" (smaller font but with additional stars and stripes,black)
"US 127th Security Squadron: Operation Noble Eagle" (with small eagle,black)

all of them were presents from an american friend of my mother (all before the war)
never got so many negative reactions for my choice of clothes (and everybody wants to tell me his political opinion especially those with che gevuara t-shirts )

 

[absolut_mac]

Sorry, you're wrong!!!

The ACLU would have championed her right to wear a christian tshirt, provided that other students were not being discriminated against....

WRONG!!!

There was a case recently where a teacher was wearing a (Christian) cross to school and was asked to remove it by the school. She asked the ACLU for legal help and was flat out turned down by them.

She sued the school and eventually won, no thanks to the ACLU for helping her out with her First Amendment rights.

But they didn't hesitate to sue the city of San Diego for leasing a city park to the Boy Scouts of America - accused them of being a religious organization and discriminating against gays.

Somebody with more energy than me right now can dig up those links, I'm sure

 

[rainman::|:|]

WRONG!!!

There was a case recently where a teacher was wearing a (Christian) cross to school and was asked to remove it by the school. She asked the ACLU for legal help and was flat out turned down by them.

She sued the school and eventually won, no thanks to the ACLU for helping her out with her First Amendment rights.

But they didn't hesitate to sue the city of San Diego for leasing a city park to the Boy Scouts of America - accused them of being a religious organization and discriminating against gays.

Somebody with more energy than me right now can dig up those links, I'm sure

I hope someone does, because I could not find any information on the case you were referring to. I did, however, find a case where the ACLU sued because a student was NOT allowed to wear a star-of-david. Pro religion if not pro christianity. But, there's a key difference here-- A teacher is an employee, not a student. It's entirely appropriate for the school board to decide when and where religious symbolism and speech are appropriate from it's employees, just like employers everywhere else-- Your employer could make his own rules about this, which is something I support. You do NOT have freedom of speech at work, which you should know by now-- There are dozens of things I could say at my office right now that would get me fired and sued. teachers = no freedom of speech on the job. students = freedom of speech. And even if the ACLU did reject her (again, i'd like to see a link), it's because she is part of a union that takes legal action on behalf of it's members, a priviledge most people do not enjoy.

And, the BSA is a religious organization, for instance they have forced scouts out for refusing to acknowledge God in the way they find appropriate-- and in fact being an atheist (or even non-christian in many cases) is grounds for immediate explusion from the group. BSA discriminates on the grounds of sexual orientation and is protected in doing so because of it's private religious ties. The People for the American Way, for instance, have threatened to withhold all financial support until the discrimination ends. Stephen Spielburg actually did cut off support, and sent them a taped message expressing his disappointment in their decision. I fail to see your point.

Interesting sidenote on what terrible partesan liberals the ACLU is-- Show of hands, how many people know they're defending Rush Limbaugh in his drug investigation? They don't want doctor/patient confidentiality breached.

paul

 

[Sparky's]

I think this thread is leaning to the Political discussion forum, but here goes. My feeling is, a person is a person, wether a teacher or a student. We all have EQUAL rights. So if I want to wear the St. Christopher I have been wearing since I graduated Jr. High School to work (where I do teach and deal with the public), I don't see where my boss would have the right to tell me to remove it. I would however understand that if I was "flaunting" it in everyones face then I would be asked to refrain from doing so (maybe tuck it into my shirt). The choice I make to wear any piece of jewelry or clothing is my personal right, what I can understand is not doing it in a manner that interferes with those around me.

 

[rainman::|:|]

I think this thread is leaning to the Political discussion forum, but here goes. My feeling is, a person is a person, wether a teacher or a student. We all have EQUAL rights. So if I want to wear the St. Christopher I have been wearing since I graduated Jr. High School to work (where I do teach and deal with the public), I don't see where my boss would have the right to tell me to remove it. I would however understand that if I was "flaunting" it in everyones face then I would be asked to refrain from doing so (maybe tuck it into my shirt). The choice I make to wear any piece of jewelry or clothing is my personal right, what I can understand is not doing it in a manner that interferes with those around me.

So, you think an employer should be forced to allow it's employees to evangalize at work? For workers to display religious symbolism that puts the employer at risk of lawsuits (for several reasons)? If you owned a private company, would you be upset if an employee forced you to allow them to wear a "666" t-shirt? How about a pentagram? Should this unprecidented religious free speech carry over to their cubicle/office as well? Can they put up literature which could offend other employees, again exposing the employer to legal risk?

There's a very good reason that freedom of speech is suspended on the job-- employers are responsible for their workers during that time. Teachers are not exempt. This law is why, in recent example, the pilot that scared the hell out of his passengers could be fired for evangelizing on the job.

Obviously I have the utmost respect for individual liberties, but when you're on the clock, you represent your employer in an official capacity, whether you're a janitor or a CEO. It's only good business to keep controvercy out of that. And, when the employer is the government, it's even more important, to comply with the establishment clause.

Even if religious freedom of speech weren't suspended in the workplace, it could be argued that students are required to look at the teacher, and thus the religious symbolism in question. They're not required to look at each other. That's a big part of this.

whether this is a political thread or not, i don't know, but i won't see it if it's in the political forum everyone's behaving well though, and it's not partesan...

paul

 

[MongoTheGeek]

WRONG!!!

There was a case recently where a teacher was wearing a (Christian) cross to school and was asked to remove it by the school. She asked the ACLU for legal help and was flat out turned down by them.

She sued the school and eventually won, no thanks to the ACLU for helping her out with her First Amendment rights.

But they didn't hesitate to sue the city of San Diego for leasing a city park to the Boy Scouts of America - accused them of being a religious organization and discriminating against gays.

Somebody with more energy than me right now can dig up those links, I'm sure

The ACLU is in many ways a house divided against itself. There have been cases where they have had lawyers and amicus briefs on both sides of the issue. There are even times when they side with the NRA.

As Dick Morris says when Liberals have firing squads they stand in a circle.

 

[Danrose1977]

The truth is that its just a darn funny shirt... lol

You crazy yanks! Turning it into some big freedom of speech thing.... If there is no set uniform then of course she should be allowed to wear it!

In the UK this issue rarely would come up, almost all schools have a set uniform... deviation from said uniform is usually at most having your shirt untucked or wearing trainers instead of formal shoes. Uniforms make life so much easier... trust me... I'm a teacher!

Dan

 

[MongoTheGeek]

And, the BSA is a religious organization, for instance they have forced scouts out for refusing to acknowledge God in the way they find appropriate-- and in fact being an atheist (or even non-christian in many cases) is grounds for immediate explusion from the group. BSA discriminates on the grounds of sexual orientation and is protected in doing so because of it's private religious ties. The People for the American Way, for instance, have threatened to withhold all financial support until the discrimination ends. Stephen Spielburg actually did cut off support, and sent them a taped message expressing his disappointment in their decision. I fail to see your point.

The United Way has as well which is a major source of funding for local councils. Our council gets 15% of its funding from the UW. I personally won't support the UW for that reason.

The BSA does not require any particular religion, it does require *A* religion though. There are a number of troops sponsored by synagogs. The LDS sponsors most of the troops in Utah and has gotten into some trouble with national over some of their policies being to exclusionary.

The BSA is allowed to keep out people that it doesn't feel meet its moral standards for the same reason that B'nai Brith is allowed to keep out David Duke and the American Communist Party is allowed to keep out FBI agents. It is freedom of association, guaranteed by the first amendment.

 

[rainman::|:|]

The United Way has as well which is a major source of funding for local councils. Our council gets 15% of its funding from the UW. I personally won't support the UW for that reason.

The BSA does not require any particular religion, it does require *A* religion though. There are a number of troops sponsored by synagogs. The LDS sponsors most of the troops in Utah and has gotten into some trouble with national over some of their policies being to exclusionary.

The BSA is allowed to keep out people that it doesn't feel meet its moral standards for the same reason that B'nai Brith is allowed to keep out David Duke and the American Communist Party is allowed to keep out FBI agents. It is freedom of association, guaranteed by the first amendment.

This is true, i never said their discrimination was illegal (though it is immoral, IMHO). However, the BSA does require particular religions-- Christians and Jews are the only two faiths that meet it's requirements. If you professed faith in a Wiccan god, or Ala, you could easily be turned down. It all depends on the circumstances and the person administerring the oath. Quizzically they have tried, on some level, to include atheists by declaring Nature a "higher power", but i think the atheists in that case would still not declare it.

I've stopped supporting the BSA and any organization that does, because I think it's tremendously detrimental to enforce homophobia as a core belief onto young men. No more popcorn fundraisers for me, which actually makes me sad-- the BSA is otherwise a great organization that kids can learn skills in, and use to social advantage. Hopefully they stop their silly sexual-orientation discrimination so they can get proper funds again. My donations don't mean much, but Spielburg's do

paul

 

[MongoTheGeek]

This is true, i never said their discrimination was illegal (though it is immoral, IMHO). However, the BSA does require particular religions-- Christians and Jews are the only two faiths that meet it's requirements. If you professed faith in a Wiccan god, or Ala, you could easily be turned down. It all depends on the circumstances and the person administerring the oath. Quizzically they have tried, on some level, to include atheists by declaring Nature a "higher power", but i think the atheists in that case would still not declare it.

Troop 155 in west chester PA is sponsored by "The Islamic Society" (IIRC preferred transliteration is Allah.) National demands a belief in a higher power, various differing Chartering Organizations have different requirements for their leaders. But the boys just must believe in a higher power. One of the things the LDS got in trouble for.

I've stopped supporting the BSA and any organization that does, because I think it's tremendously detrimental to enforce homophobia as a core belief onto young men. No more popcorn fundraisers for me, which actually makes me sad-- the BSA is otherwise a great organization that kids can learn skills in, and use to social advantage. Hopefully they stop their silly sexual-orientation discrimination so they can get proper funds again. My donations don't mean much, but Spielburg's do

It may seem silly but there are a lot of people who disagree. There are also a lot of people who attribute the very low number of instances of abuse of the scouts on the policy.

BTW, I respect your will power in not buying all that tasty popcorn because of a cause you believe in

 

[rainman::|:|]

Troop 155 in west chester PA is sponsored by "The Islamic Society" (IIRC preferred transliteration is Allah.) National demands a belief in a higher power, various differing Chartering Organizations have different requirements for their leaders. But the boys just must believe in a higher power. One of the things the LDS got in trouble for.

It may seem silly but there are a lot of people who disagree. There are also a lot of people who attribute the very low number of instances of abuse of the scouts on the policy.

BTW, I respect your will power in not buying all that tasty popcorn because of a cause you believe in

Don't know why I spelled it Ala, god i'm having a weird day. It's good to hear of the Islamic sponsorship, religious diversity is important in an organization like this.

Remember tho, the catholic church has what's really the same policy, and obviously they've not had that luck with abuse records. I think what it comes down to is the willingness of the organization to abet pedophiles, the church spent decades harboring them whereas the BSA has tackled it's problems publicly before it became an epedemic.

What bothers me most about the BSA ban isn't the face value: While there are certainly gay people that would like to be scoutleaders (and some that were, before it became a big issue), they are few and far between. Doesn't mean they're not important, just not important to me. What bothers me is the fact that the BSA is making the direct analogy between homosexuals and pedophiles, which is as insulting as it is incorrect. Pedophiles occur in homosexual people with the same frequency as heterosexuals, according to studies done, and there's no reason to perpetuate this idea that all gays are child molestors. Now I'm not going to get into the "morally straight" argument, because obviously I don't think there's anything morally wrong with being honest about your sexuality, but clearly this policy was put into effect to "protect" the children from a group of people that they need no protection from, which does stigmatize the child in terms of dealing with gay people. At some point their inaccuracy becomes downright annoying, like when you hear an old woman say to her grandson, "Don't swim for an hour after you eat, you'll cramp and drown". You just want to go tell the kid "It's as much BS as it sounds, don't worry about it"...

paul