Should Anti Gay Stickers be Allowed in School?[W:937]

[Centrehalf]

there's no reason they had to react that way to gay pride stickers. It's unreasonable to empower the bullies, rewarding their needless harassment by banning the speech of the victims. You deal with the culprits only

The schools I went to never dealt with the culprits only, sometimes they never dealt with the culprits at all. We're talking about a sticker with a line through it, that's child's play compared to what bullies did when I was a kid but if the stickers are disruptive then they should go, all of them.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: Should Anti Gay Stickers be Allowed in School?

So I wonder if those that support the anti-gay stickers would also support this form of expression?

View attachment 67198956

That message is protected by the 1st amendment.

 

[NotreDame]

The schools I went to never dealt with the culprits only, sometimes they never dealt with the culprits at all. We're talking about a sticker with a line through it, that's child's play compared to what bullies did when I was a kid but if the stickers are disruptive then they should go, all of them.

Just a heads up, his disposition is to resort to extreme examples, hyperbole, exaggeration, and mischaracterization of the facts.

 

[winston53660]

Re: Should Anti Gay Stickers be Allowed in School?

That message is protected by the 1st amendment.

In the schools?

 

[NotreDame]

ooooh internet tough guy getting mad hahahaha Then post more clearly and without all the strawmen and you can be taken seriously. Your exact words were "As a result, the school merely asserting these stickers caused a substantial disruption is not enough to lawfully prohibit the stickers." yet they did. No extra steps were met to make sure the tinker standard was met the school did it on their own decision. The school did in fact assert it caused a sustainable disruption and banned them. Now go punch a wall or something all your future posts will not be read. Holy cow some people get worked up fast hahahaha

My posts are lucid. My response addresses your argument. There was not any Strawman argument I made. Whether you take my posts seriously is of no concern to me. I couldn't care less whether you take my posts seriously.

Now, the school did not "merely assert the stickers causes a substantial disruption." Rather, the school allowed the stickers until specific facts developed meeting the Tinker standard.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when "extra steps." I did not say anything about "extra steps.

And please do me a favor of not reading my future posts and sparing me your non-sense. There is enough non-sense from other posters in this thread so if you see going to do me the favor of not reading my posts, then God bless you for it, and God bless me for not reading anymore of your vacuous retorts.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: Should Anti Gay Stickers be Allowed in School?

In the schools?

Yes, in the public schools.

 

[matchlight]

Re: Should Anti Gay Stickers be Allowed in School?

it's aimed at the kids with the "pro gay stickers." He's angry he can no longer harass and assault them in school without them fighting back

Your personal tone is just what I've come to expect from posters whose game is weak. The freedom of speech does not apply only to people whose views you agree with.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: Should Anti Gay Stickers be Allowed in School?

Your personal tone is just what I've come to expect from posters whose game is weak. The freedom of speech does not apply only to people whose views you agree with.

His modus operandi is to label as hate speech, harassment, and intimidation, any speech he finds repugnant or unpalatable. So, at this very instance, your posts expressing a contrary view are hate speech, intimidation, and harassment.

 

[Bodi]

What is "idiotic" is your response. First, your assumption the stickers are anti-gay is erroneous. The stickers do not necessarily express an anti-gay message, a point I've made repeatedly in many posts in this thread. I made it very clear the stickers are expressing a political response and/or expressing a contrary point of view on important societal issue and the view is not an anti-gay message but more specific.

Second, what is also idiotic is your assertion a parallel example of an "anti-black" sticker is illegal. Therefore, these anti-gays stickers are illegal. This idiotic analysis does not adhere to the legal standard announced in Tinker. Anti-black stickers are permitted and to prohibit those stickers requires a showing those stickers did or reasonably foreseeably would have caused a substantial disruption or material interference. Indeed, court of appeals decisions have upheld banning racist speech when the school met the Tinker standard.

Hence, even if these stickers are anti-gay, they are permitted unless the Tinker standard is satisfied.

Indecent speech and other forms of speech can be prohibited at schools, as subsequent cases shown... so Tinker is not the end all that you want it to be.

Thanks for your vacuous post, go play fake lawyer somewhere else.

Was just making a point... if anybody is playing at "fake lawyer" cough cough... that would be you. :lol:

Ideally perhaps, but lawfully and here in the States, students in public schools have free speech rights to engage in political speech.

There is nothing political about homophobia... what a silly assertion.

 

[Bodi]

You are probably right that we made a mistake in how we tried to protect minorities by suppressing free speech. But the size of the problem back then made it seem the right thing to do. Now things have changed and we know more.
We should repeal that legislation now.

Students are forced to go to school... this is not a public forum where students are free to leave. All allowing speech like that in schools is to disrupt learning.

 

[NotreDame]

Indecent speech and other forms of speech can be prohibited at schools, as subsequent cases shown... so Tinker is not the end all that you want it to be.



Was just making a point... if anybody is playing at "fake lawyer" cough cough... that would be you. :lol:



There is nothing political about homophobia... what a silly assertion.

This speech does not come with the speech at issue in Bethel v Fraser, Morse v Frederick. So, invoking those other cases is erroneous. I've yet to read any federal opinion where racist speech, or speech such as the message in these stickers, was analyzed under those other speech cases but all of them were scrutinized under Tinker.

And a message of being opposed to gay rights, which this sticker certainly does express, constitutes as speech on a political issue. Or, speech on an important societal issue.

The rest of your post, constituting as vacuous, deserves the terse response of there is nothing substantive to address.

 

[Bodi]

This speech does not come with the speech at issue in Bethel v Fraser, Morse v Frederick. So, invoking those other cases is erroneous. I've yet to read any federal opinion where racist speech, or speech such as the message in these stickers, was analyzed under those other speech cases but all of them were scrutinized under Tinker.

Just as with the Plessy Decision this one is wrong... I will wait until this case is challenged, overturned and modified...

This is clearly hate speech and within the confines of a school were students are forced to attend it borders on illegality and should be illegal.

 

[NotreDame]

Just as with the Plessy Decision this one is wrong... I will wait until this case is challenged, overturned and modified...

This is clearly hate speech and within the confines of a school were students are forced to attend it borders on illegality and should be illegal.

We aren't discussing state sanctioned segregation of people. Plessy was wrong for reasons completely unrelated to speech. Plessy is no barometer of whether Tinker was wrongly decided. So, to compare this free speech case to Plessy is mistaken.

Hate speech is protected. Hence, several federal appellate courts, in reviewing a school's prohibition of the message, have applied the Tinker analysis.

Although, the message of this sticker is not necessarily hate speech. Applying a pejorative label to the message isn't a convincing argument. Otherwise, speech is easily muted on the basis of anyone, disgusted with the message, need only characterize the message as hate speech.

The rainbow badges worn by some students is hate speech. Therefore, the message should be censored. Such an argument is unpersuasive as applied to the rainbow badge and is equally unpersuasive as applied to these stickers.

The stickers are protected speech and Tinker must be met to censor the message.

You, like so many others, have struggled to espouse a lucid and rational argument justifying censorship of the message.

 

[Bodi]

The stickers are protected speech and Tinker must be met to censor the message.

You, like so many others, have struggled to espouse a lucid and rational argument justifying censorship of the message.

The Tinker Test applied as: “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school?" is flawed... that is the point. My response was lucid and rational... you simply don't like or understand it. Plessy is a perfect barometer in that it was a flawed Decision. Tinker is flawed as well. Not in its entirety like Plessy but at its application. Step into a classroom and listen to the everyday ongoing violations of the Tinker Test. It has to be done in order to run a successfull learning environment. There is a reason that Tinker had 2 dissenting views and was not a 9-0 decision but you would have to accept Appeal to the Majority to honestly debate that and using the Tinker Test, as you have done, is nothing more than an Appeal to Authority... both logical fallacies. SCOTUS is not correct because they are SCOTUS nor for having a majority Decision that creates standards as they do... they are fallible and that is why Plessy is a perfect analogy. Go ahead, act arrogant again...

 

[joG]

Students are forced to go to school... this is not a public forum where students are free to leave. All allowing speech like that in schools is to disrupt learning.

Students are not forced to go to that school. And they should learn to tolerate other persons' opinions.

 

[Bodi]

Students are not forced to go to that school. And they should learn to tolerate other persons' opinions.

Sure they are "forced to go to school" and failure to acknowledge that, or try to play a "they are not forced to go to THAT school" indicates such a failure in logic that I am kinda amazed that one would even try... even if in jest.

 

[joG]

Sure they are "forced to go to school" and failure to acknowledge that, or try to play a "they are not forced to go to THAT school" indicates such a failure in logic that I am kinda amazed that one would even try... even if in jest.

My parents chose the school i attended and all my friends seem capable of choosing schools for their kids. Of course, organized as it is, schooling is less free than it should be for the poor. Much more should be private sector.

 

[Bodi]

My parents chose the school i attended and all my friends seem capable of choosing schools for their kids. Of course, organized as it is, schooling is less free than it should be for the poor. Much more should be private sector.

I notice that you did not say that any of the kids could choose to not go to school... end of debate.

 

[NotreDame]

The Tinker Test applied as: “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school?" is flawed... that is the point. My response was lucid and rational... you simply don't like or understand it. Plessy is a perfect barometer in that it was a flawed Decision. Tinker is flawed as well. Not in its entirety like Plessy but at its application. Step into a classroom and listen to the everyday ongoing violations of the Tinker Test. It has to be done in order to run a successfull learning environment. There is a reason that Tinker had 2 dissenting views and was not a 9-0 decision but you would have to accept Appeal to the Majority to honestly debate that and using the Tinker Test, as you have done, is nothing more than an Appeal to Authority... both logical fallacies. SCOTUS is not correct because they are SCOTUS nor for having a majority Decision that creates standards as they do... they are fallible and that is why Plessy is a perfect analogy. Go ahead, act arrogant again...

How exactly is the Tinker test flawed? You assert, with no evidence, Tinker violations are necessary to have a successful learning environment. This mere assertion by you, with nothing more, does not demonstrate how Tinker is flawed.

Instead, Tinker does facilitate the necessary leaning environment by permitting schools to censor the message when a substantial or material interference occurs. The Tinker decision is approximately 50 years old and I've yet to read any significant number of educators assert the learning environment in schools has been eroded because of Tinker of that for the last 50 years they've had to violate Tinker to have a successful learning environment. Tinker has the right balance for both to coexist and they have done so since the decision.

Furthermore, I've yet to make the argument the decision was correct because the Court made the decision. Nice Strawman.

Neither have I said the decision was correct because of a 7-2 outcome. Strawman.

Furthermore, every decision by Scotus is potentially flawed, not because of any "standard" but rather because the decisions are made by fallible people. Hence, every decision by the Court is a perfect analogy by virtue they are all potentially flawed. Plessy is no better an analogy than any of the other decisions on this basis and neither is Plessy a barometer of whether Tinker is incorrect. So again, invoking Plessy as some example prognosticating Tinker's demise is erroneous.

 

[Bodi]

How exactly is the Tinker test flawed? You assert, with no evidence, Tinker violations are necessary to have a successful learning environment. This mere assertion by you, with nothing more, does not demonstrate how Tinker is flawed.

You are using Tinker as your evidence and that is an Appeal to Authority... THAT is a logical fallacy.

Instead, Tinker does facilitate the necessary leaning environment by permitting schools to censor the message when a substantial or material interference occurs. The Tinker decision is approximately 50 years old and I've yet to read any significant number of educators assert the learning environment in schools has been eroded because of Tinker of that for the last 50 years they've had to violate Tinker to have a successful learning environment. Tinker has the right balance for both to coexist and they have done so since the decision.

Furthermore, I've yet to make the argument the decision was correct because the Court made the decision. Nice Strawman.

Neither have I said the decision was correct because of a 7-2 outcome. Strawman.

Furthermore, every decision by Scotus is potentially flawed, not because of any "standard" but rather because the decisions are made by fallible people. Hence, every decision by the Court is a perfect analogy by virtue they are all potentially flawed. Plessy is no better an analogy than any of the other decisions on this basis and neither is Plessy a barometer of whether Tinker is incorrect. So again, invoking Plessy as some example prognosticating Tinker's demise is erroneous.

It is not a straw man if it is what you are doing... decision can and have been over turned.

 

[NotreDame]

You are using Tinker as your evidence and that is an Appeal to Authority... THAT is a logical fallacy.



It is not a straw man if it is what you are doing... decision can and have been over turned.

No, my argument has been more than a reliance on Tinker and I've not stated Tinker is right because 7 people, 7 justices, said so.

Furthermore, I have invoked Tinker to state what the law says, which is the rational approach when discussing the law. To invoke the law to advise and explain the law is not an appeal to authority.

So, again, thanks for your Strawman argument.

 

[Bodi]

No, my argument has been more than a reliance on Tinker and I've not stated Tinker is right because 7 people, 7 justices, said so.

Furthermore, I have invoked Tinker to state what the law says, which is the rational approach when discussing the law. To invoke the law to advise and explain the law is not an appeal to authority.

So, again, thanks for your Strawman argument.

Since the argument of what causes a disruption is subjective the entire premise of Tinker is irrelevant. I can find things everyday that are substantial disruptions to learning...

Anti-gay stickers constitute quite a disruption... if they did not they would not be making national news and debated on an international debating forum.

Take you dismissive attitude and go fly a kite. Nice try.

 

[NotreDame]

Since the argument of what causes a disruption is subjective the entire premise of Tinker is irrelevant. I can find things everyday that are substantial disruptions to learning...

Anti-gay stickers constitute quite a disruption... if they did not they would not be making national news and debated on an international debating forum.

Take you dismissive attitude and go fly a kite. Nice try.

Non-sense, the fact the message is making national news and debated on an international forum does not constitute as evidence of a substantial disruption to the school. Rather, the content of the message drew national attention, as opposed to the fact the message caused a substantial disruption to the school.

Indeed, when the story was first reported it was on the basis of the message, and the fact the students had a first amendment right to express the message. At this point in time, the principal/superintendent did not have any evidence of any substantial disruption and indeed, at this time none was reported in the news.

So, you can fly your "fact less kite" and take your non-sense elsewhere. And, I do not have a dismissive attitude but if you perceive otherwise, maybe it's because your position is illogical and baseless, worthy of being dismissed.

 

[Bodi]

worthy of being dismissed.

You argument is...