Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 04/18/2005 10:12:48 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
SOUTH WINDSOR, Conn. -- Four South Windsor high school students were sent home Friday after T-shirts they wore bearing anti-gay slogans caused disturbances, students and school officials said.
The boys, who wore white T-shirts with the statement, "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve," say their constitutional right to free speech was violated.
"We were just voicing our opinions," said Steven Vendetta, who made the T-shirts with his friends, Kyle Shinfield, David Grimaldi and another student who was not identified by the Journal Inquirer of Manchester. "We didn't tell other people to think what we're thinking. We just told them what we think."
Other students say they felt threatened by the shirts, which also quoted Bible verses pertaining to homosexuality.
...
Vendetta said the idea for the T-shirts was in response to an annual Day of Silence earlier this week. The project was organized by the national Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.
... Vendetta and his friends, who oppose civil unions, wanted to make their feelings known. The state House of Representatives passed a civil unions bill on Wednesday.
"We felt if they could voice their opinions for it, we could voice our opinion against it," he said. "There is another side to this debate, and we're representing it."
(Excerpt) Read more at stamfordadvocate.com ...
I lived in South Windsor for a while - nice little town with a great soft-serve miniature golf course.
I think it would be fine for a school to prohibit all messages on clothes, but if blacks can wear Malcom X shirts, or "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" and girls can wear shirts that say "Boys lie", well, then ....
Does that make you a Log Cabin Republican from SF?
Inquiring minds and all that.
You boys just don't understand, 1st amendment rights only pertain to the other side of the argument. THe last thing the perverts and their enablers on the left want or need is for us to exercise our free speech. That is the reason for the advent of terms such as "hate speech". It is also the reason for the "politically correct" way of thinking and speaking.
Once again, they get free speech rights, you do not. Never forget that.
=======
As time goes by, the vile anti-social behavior of Queers steadily gets worse and worse . . . as this current FReeper article demonstrates !!! Therefore, allow me to repeat my own personal rant one more time:
Oak Hay, so I'm very disturbed and continually puzzled about how a small bunch of contrary to nature freaks can destroy our entire civilization . . . BUT DAMMIT, THEY'RE DOING IT !!!
These unsavory and unclean sub-human creatures delight in ramming their urine exhaust pipes into the rectal relief tubes of young boys (and of each other) !!! They brag and crow loudly about their filthy behavior !!! They demand access to our young and innocent children ... so they can commit sodomy and oral sex acts upon them !!! Then they scream and holler...
... when we seek to save our children from their filthy and immoral activities !!!
WHY IS THIS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN THIS ONCE-FREE REPUBLIC ???
DO WE NOT HAVE THE RIGHT AND MORAL DUTY TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM SLIME LIKE THIS ???
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Reading these kind of stories everyday is so surreal.
They can wear the shirts (just not on school grounds). Their constitutional right to free speech was not violated.
_____________________________________________________
Maybe but their equal protection rights were almost certainly violated as the GOVERNMENT school allowed people of one point of view to wear their opinions but sanctioned people of an opposing point of view. These are the victims of the government thought police in this case not the lawyers. They hire lawyers because they do not know the nuances of the law.
Yes, it was. Look over in the religion forum from 4/14 and there's another story dealing with another such incident. It cite the court decision and how to set the school straight (no pun intended). If it's a public school, unless it can be shown that the shirts were obscene or otherwise created a REAL distraction, they can't stop them. A private school would be another matter.
Smells like a double standard. Those students should take the school to court. Oh, never mind. The men in black robes would side with the ACLU and Gay Rights once again.
Was it arbitrary? Not if school policy says the administration can dismiss any student who, in the opinion of the administration, is disrupting the learning process. Even the dumbest knuckle dragging Liberaltarian knows it's entirely possible those shirts were disruptive. And, by golly, looky here (from the article)!
Principal John DiIorio said Friday that students' freedom of speech is protected if it does not disrupt education.
He said he told the boys they could continue to wear the shirts if it was not a distraction to others. But heated arguments and altercations ensued almost immediately, with some students becoming "very emotional," said one student, Sam Etter.
If wearing pro-homo shirts would be tolerated, it might be because doing so wouldn't be disruptive. That's a different problem.
What happened to the three "R"s at school?
Should a student be allowed to wear a shirt to school that said "The Principal Is A Slut" if he knew that the principal had slept with numerous men?
<< The boys ... say their constitutional right to free speech was violated.
They can wear the shirts. [Just not on school grounds]
Their constitutional right to free speech was not violated. >>
Of course it was.
To paraphrase the Amendment: The government owns the school and may pass no law proscribing the free speech of any FRee Man. [American] Including the most unpopular speech -- which Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve shirts most decidedly are not!
[Unless, of course, the user of the speech in question is the employee of and thus IS the government -- "professor" churchill, say -- in which case it is the government's duty to fire his lying arse!]
Hmm...
saying the practice of perversion is good...NOT DISRUPTIVE.
saying the practice of perversion is wrong...YES DISRUPTIVE.
Did you bump your head before you wrote that? Do you even know what the word "arbitrary" means?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.