Posted on 04/18/2005 10:12:48 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
"Vendetta said the idea for the T-shirts was in response to an annual Day of Silence earlier this week."
http://www.dayofsilence.org/
Sounds like goverment sanctioned support of the gay agenda to me. A whole day of no one speaking, and thus wasting a day not learning, is not disruptive? What happened to student who refused to go along with the program? You just know there had to be some consequences.
When I was younger and a bit more radical, I had a t-shirt that had an image of the Trix rabbit on it that said "Silly faggots, d*cks are for chicks."
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
The US Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d. 731 (1969), that students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate" and that the First Amendment protects public school students' rights to express political and social views.
If the School had a day of silence ON SCHOOL GROUNDS then these boys have a Constitutional right to wear their T shirts on school grounds. What good for the Fruit is good for the Straight.
Are you really so incapable of imagining how, in today's P.C. world -- especially on either coast -- it's entirely possible that one viewpoint would cause disruption while the other would not?
Do you even know what the word "arbitrary" means?
IF the pro-homo expression is NOT disruptive and the anti-homo expression IS disruptive, there's NOTHING ARBITRARY about the application of the policy.
Now, go bump your head on that for a while before you spout off again.
Instead of just scrolling past them all, please take a moment to click the applicable state on the Topics screen when posting news of local interest.
A federal appeals court said that is not treasonous or threatening to the President, so why would homosexuals feel "threatened"? No one said "I'm going to..."
Free Speech -- only for the libs and only if it is politically correct.
Free Speech -- it's not for conservatives anymore.
Welcome to the Soviet States of Amerika.
True. But that case is different. There was no disruption. The Court was plain in its ruling that the public schools are an appropriate place to exercise "symbolic speech" as long as normal school functions are not "unreasonably" disrupted.
Problem is NOt with the four students -nor the T-shirts they wore. The problem resides in a public education system that worries more about setting up homosexuals as a "protected class" -encouraging homosexual behavior in ANY
student suspected of being troubled by that unnatural liferstyle.And the problem is a public education system that has REJECTEd the traditional American moral ethic -and
any desire to support the family-and the community -but now thinks it can change society by forcing students to Embrace the unnatural behavior that brought about the utter destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.That dementia common among
educators today will destroy the public education system
or the nation if enough idiots blindly accept it as gospel.
Therefore I suppose the way to shut up anyone that a particular group doesn't agree with is to become disruptive and place the blame on the other students.
Oh you are so right- any student loses all their rights the
moment they walk on to school property. Their parents have NO rights on school property. And the public school system
today militates against Christianity and the moral ethic that guided this nation from 1760- 1960. some puke faced public defender insisted in a Court of law that his client
was innocent of vandalism of my car--because everyone knew
the school had determined my son should try the homosexual
lifestyle -and "maybe it[the vandalism] was done by someone who knew my son was gay." To his credit the Judge had it stricken . I am so happpy I was out of the Courtroom
when this incident occurred -or I would have disrupted the
proceedings by beating some sense into the faggot attorney.
True enough. But if you read the opinion, you will find that every time they refer to "disruption", they are always talking about it originating from the students wishing to express themselves. They make a very strong point about how "passive", "unaggressive", "pure speech" is to be protected.
Here's one telling passage:
"The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students."
It seems to me that it could be interpreted that as long as the students wearing the shirts were respectful and quiet, and not holding demonstrations or otherwise inciting the other students, that this type of speech would be protected. It would seem to me that if someone is offended by the speech and throws a fit over it, that's their problem. Otherwise, it'd be real easy to squelch free speech: See someone wearing something you disagree with? Then throw a fit & get them sent packing. Right? Do you really think that's what the court is trying to say?
as long as normal school functions are not "unreasonably" disrupted.
It was stronger than "unreasonably", as read from this passsage in the ruling:
"Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained."
Exactly right. newgeezer is smoking wacky weed on this issue.
What ........is this?
This is a Day of silence in which students refuse to speak (even when spoken to) all day in order to show "solidarity" with the poor suffering gays, lesbian, transgendered etc. who feel "silenced and shamed" by the "straight" culture. If this hasn't appeared yet in your school district, it will be coming soon. It's already in thousands of schools across the country and growing. Many teachers are also participating.
My advice? Get your kids out of the government schools today.
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve is just a statement of fact that says I don't think homosexuality is OK.
Gays suck (like the "Mean people suck" bumper stickers) would be anti-gay IMHO.
Shalom.
You got that right. While Libertarians express concern about the "religious right" imposing our beliefs on the country, it's the left that makes it illegal to think things.
Shalom.
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.