Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The ACLU of Florida has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Christian students who were told they couldn't wear t-shirts to school with the name of their church and a Bible verse on the front and "Islam is of the devil" on the back.
The suit claims the Alachua County School District was inconsistent in handling the situations at each school, with some students being allowed to wear them with the back covered up while in other cases the shirts were banned altogether.
The legal issues are pretty interesting:
Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said while the ACLU does not support the message on the T-shirts, the organization wants to protect freedom of speech in this case."I understand that the school district is trying to balance their legal obligations to both sides, but I think they did so incorrectly in this case," Simon said.
Attorneys for the ACLU said at issue is whether school officials may lawfully permit what they consider to be "positive" messages about religion, faith or other matters while prohibiting what they consider to be "negative" messages about those same matters.
The messages printed on the front of the shirts - "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No on goes to the Father except through me,'" and "I stand in truth with Dove World Outreach Center" - was allowed by the school district.
If you think the ACLU is wrong on this, ask yourself how you would feel if the t-shirts instead said "Atheism is great. I stand in reason with the American Humanist Association" on the front and "Religion is stupid" or "Christianity is nonsense" on the back.
Politics
Comments
Would this be similar to the recent atheist signs controversy?
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | November 25, 2009 9:34 AM
All I can think to add is it almost looks like attributing "I stand in truth with Dove World Outreach Center" to Jesus, thats quite an endorsement there.
Posted by: Matty | November 25, 2009 9:39 AM
I think the message is obnoxious, but still protected speech.
Posted by: CHV | November 25, 2009 9:42 AM
@1 None of the atheist billboards had negative depictions of religion.
As a teacher, I don't think the school board is being unreasonable. Our number 1 concern is student safety, not the student's right to free expression. These shirts are needless provocation in an environment where hormones rule reason. The last thing we want is some sort of religious war on school property. If you think the ACLU is a problem, add the lawyers for both religious sects and the police when overzealous kids start stabbing each other because they feel like the school won't defend their right to their faith without harassment.
In short, you can champion your point of view without denigrating someone else's.
Posted by: Etcetera | November 25, 2009 9:45 AM
Etcetera,
Fair enough, teachers have a difficult enough job without getting involved with peoples imaginary friend issues
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | November 25, 2009 9:47 AM
I wonder if the legal tone would change if instead of saying "Islam is of the devil," the shirt had said "Muslims are of the devil." Even as it is, it seems the ACLU's position runs up against the "creation of a hostile environment" standard which IIRC tends to be one of the measures used by schools to determine "appropriateness" of attire.
Posted by: TBRP | November 25, 2009 9:48 AM
IMO, it's a close call, but I think a school should have the right to prohibit such "negative" messages posted on walking billboards. Not because students don't have the right to make them, but that a *general* school setting is not the right forum. The example (and your hypotheticals) are a short step away the more openly offensive (to the target) "Muslim (or xian, or religious) *people* are stupid", and a school has purposes that would be impacted by these more agressive expressions. And it would be reasonable to expect that a Muslim student would read "Islam is the devil" as an implicit statement that Muslim are devil worshipers, and react in a way that is not conducive to learning.
Posted by: Divalent | November 25, 2009 9:49 AM
Either speech is free or it is not. I strongly disagree with any restrictions on speech, no matter who finds it offensive. Do you think it's possible we might teach our students that they can't stab each other over a frigging t-shirt, Etcetera? If students don't like what someone is saying, then they can tell them that. Violence from either party shouldn't be tolerated.
Posted by: Schmeer | November 25, 2009 9:55 AM
Here's a novel suggestion for school administrators: Prohibit ALL message-bearing garments and jewelery. No positive religious messages, no negative religious messages, no sports team endorsements, no political statements. If it has text or a picture on it, take it off, turn it inside out, or cover it up.
Posted by: Martin | November 25, 2009 9:57 AM
Wow, I never thought I'd be on the same side with the religion-haters on ScienceBlogs, but this one seems easy. I've been in a classroom, and there is zero chance of productive learning going on with shirts like this in the room, other than the possibility of discussing the tenets of Islam with half the class screaming, "Evilllll!"
Negative messages about other students are never ok.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 25, 2009 9:59 AM
I have to disagree here. If a student had on a shirt that said "God hates fags", "God hates homosexuals" or "Black People are Satan's Children" there would be no doubt that the school could make the students change. Same with your examples, although I think they're far less disturbing than the message on these shirts. That's the issue with Atheistic critique, you may call someone stupid, but you can't accusing them of being a minion of Satan because atheists don't beleive in Satan. Also, atheists don't find these messages as hurtful as a person of faith would because of our lack of belief, it all just sounds like silly religious nonsense. But tell that to a 13 year old Muslin who is bein told that they follow the devil. Bullying in school crosses a line of free speech, and these shirts are bullying. Schools have an obligation to create a safe environment in which all children can learn, they are not pure public fora where there can be no constraints on speech. Children don't have the option of getting up and leaving if they don't like the message on the shirt of the kid in front of them. While there does need to be consistency in how schools handle these situations, schools are still schools and there are legitimate limits on speech that disrupts the learning environment.
Posted by: Liz | November 25, 2009 10:03 AM
And they may well lose on this one. If they do, so be it.
One of the things I admire about the ACLU is that they're not afraid to lose cases. Even close cases need to be argued, else the terrain is conceded by default.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 25, 2009 10:04 AM
Ed you are "nonsense" and "stupid", and by that I mean the personification of evil and falsehood, using the attempted equivalency in your closing analogy.* -DJ
-----------
* Poor use of analogy as an argument. Could do better. 4/10
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 10:08 AM
There's much to be said for school uniforms, which would avoid a lot of nonsense and (some not-too-hard-to-accommodate religious issues aside) First Amendment issues.
Posted by: CJColucci | November 25, 2009 10:11 AM
I agree with the ACLU on this one. Life is full of offensive people. Rather than shelter students from ever having their feelings hurt, we should teach them how to deal with these situations properly. Avoiding a problem is not the same thing as solving it. Let's give students a little more credit and let them express their views and face the debates that might come with it.
Posted by: catgirl | November 25, 2009 10:17 AM
Ok, I think the ACLU is wrong. Now let me try Ed's thought experiment....I think the pro-atheism message on the front is great and acceptable in school, I think the anti-christian message on the back is great and unacceptable in school (although "religion is stupid" is acceptable if a bit trite). Ok, now what?
Also, I think the "Islam is of the devil" statement is not equivalent to "Religion is stupid" or "Christianity is nonsense" maybe if the back said "Christians will burn in hell" I could see the point of your analogy.
Posted by: Lorax | November 25, 2009 10:19 AM
I think the students are going to lose this one. I would expect "Islam is of the devil" and "Christianity caused the holocaust" (a comparably offensive statement, in my opinion) to both disrupt classroom activities. School officials are allowed to prohibit disruptive materials and items. I realize that there is some gray area there, but I think this is clearly disruptive.
Posted by: FishyFred | November 25, 2009 10:25 AM
This brought to mind a somewhat similar case last year. Though that one was about an anti-gay, rather than anti-Muslim, t-shirt. From Ed's post on last year's case:
The link to the full ruling has gone dead. So here's an current link for anyone interested. The case is Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. #204.
So, which side of the line does "Islam is of the devil" fall on, go to Hell or not gay? I’m inclined to think the former. But I must say this one is right on the line for me, both in terms of what I think is acceptable verses unacceptable and legal verses illegal. So whichever way it goes I’m sure I’ll be uncomfortable with the outcome.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 25, 2009 10:31 AM
Wow, Ed! As soon as I read the text printed on the shirts I thought this very thing. You have trained me well.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 25, 2009 10:35 AM
You are in for a lifetime of frustration, then, for there are already plenty of legally-protected restrictions on free speech in the US.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 25, 2009 10:39 AM
Etcetera wrote:
In this situation, it may well be that the best solution would be to forbid all T-shirts of this sort. Unless I have misunderstood the post, the ACLU's argument is that the school acepted some T-shirts and rejected others that were similar, thus engaging in content-based discrimination. They could choose to reject them all equally, and thus not be discriminating based on content.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 25, 2009 10:41 AM
It looks to me like the ACLU's argument is really that the school district handled matters differently in different schools, which is an argument I am sympathetic to.
I am also sympathetic to the argument that the message on the back of the shirts is sufficiently disruptive that it should be banned in the school, but I don't see any valid argument banning the message on the front of the shirts without banning all text on shirts.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | November 25, 2009 10:46 AM
One wonders how the lawyers for the ACLU would feel if they ever had to spend a day teaching in a public school. We have enough things to deal with without throwing religious wars into the mix thank you very much.
Posted by: Patrick G | November 25, 2009 10:53 AM
I think that one could apply the "reasonable person" test.
If a reasonable person would find the message to be controversial, then it shouldn't be allowed. Note that the reasonable person would not have to agree or disagree with the message, but just to acknowledge that the message is controversial. Thus the test is, as is should be, i.e. Will the text be disruptive?
Posted by: Chilidog | November 25, 2009 10:53 AM
That goddammed American Christian Liberties Union! When are they going to stop trying to destroy Christianit...uh, oh oh, cognitive dissonance! .... Must....stop.....thinking..... Oh, look Sarah Palin's legs on Newsweeek!
Posted by: James Hanley | November 25, 2009 10:54 AM
Can anyone find a link to the actual complaint?
Posted by: Chilidog | November 25, 2009 10:59 AM
Chilidog, here's the complaint.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 25, 2009 11:10 AM
The more I think about it, the less of a difference I see between 'My belief is great" and "Your belief is evil" in this sort of environment. While the former might be less logically antagonistic, reaction is always going to be individual and some people take an opposing belief as an attack on their own. More than that, if 80% of the school population is wearing "Yay Jesus!" shirts, it's still going to suck being the 20% of kids wearing the "Yay, not Jesus" shirts.
Also, if schools are encouraging kids to be politically active, regardless of cause, there's always going to be a competing ideology they'll clash heads with eventually. Criticism of specific religions or belief systems is going to be inevitable.
So the only fair way to deal with this is universal freedom, or universal restriction; free speech or uniforms. I see arguments for and against each, but I think either extreme is probably more defensible than partial bans.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | November 25, 2009 11:12 AM
If Islam is so wrong, then how come Jesus never mentioned it, hmmm?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 25, 2009 11:13 AM
Oh, and I'm against the shirt. School is cliqueish enough without cock-swinging about whose infinite Slim Shady is the real Slim Shady. Instead of picking on people who've chosen the wrong religion, they really should be joining together to take on the real enemy; Lincoln High! They think their football team is so great, but it isn't. Our team is the best, and we have the school spirit to take them to state!
...
Sorry. I got carried away there.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 25, 2009 11:20 AM
D.C. Sessions: Even close cases need to be argued, else the terrain is conceded by default.
Thats a great point. Regardless of whether the restriction is or it isn't constitutional, it is a very good thing to force the school district to clarify its policies and examine their constitutionality. Shedding light on administrative policy is (IMO) itself a service to the community, because lets face it these types of policies are typically vague and opaque to begin with.
Posted by: eric | November 25, 2009 11:20 AM
Etcetera @#4, Naughtius Maximus could also have been referring to the Washington state Capitol Building's atheist sign in the holiday display that caused some controversy last year:
I argued on that thread that I thought the sentiment was as negative as those church signs that say "You can't have 'Good' without 'God'." I do agree with you that it's better to "champion your POV without denigrating someone else's" - because of how much more productive it is to engage another person in debate rather than attack them, which just shuts down communication.
Well, it doesn't have to be; it sounds like a perfect teachable moment - but take control of the situation, don't let the inmates run the asylum. Maybe have a "debate day" where students can wear t-shirts with their beliefs (within rules set up beforehand, parent permission, etc.) and then guide them through the process of argumentation. It'd be nice if the #1 priority was teaching them how to think rationally. But, sigh, it's hard to do when so much pressure is merely about getting them to pass FCATs. My parents were really lucky they taught overseas, they had a much easier time of it (and got way better pay for it).Posted by: marnk | November 25, 2009 11:22 AM
Left_wing_fox: More than that, if 80% of the school population is wearing "Yay Jesus!" shirts, it's still going to suck being the 20% of kids wearing the "Yay, not Jesus" shirts.
Oh, I don't know. Like a promise ring, the shirt tells you who not to date. :)
Posted by: eric | November 25, 2009 11:23 AM
Your "reasonable person" test (actually a "controversial message" test) fails Ed's analogy-comparison: because of the religious privilege in American society, "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No on goes to the Father except through me'" is not controversial, while "Atheism is great. I stand in reason with the American Humanist Association" is.
Federal case law is fairly clear that school administrators can limit student speech to a considerable degree. Nonetheless, they can't muzzle a minority viewpoint and happily condone the majority one, which is the inevitable outcome of the "controversy" test you suggest.
None of which is to say that the federal courts have come up with a solution that's substantially better than yours.
Posted by: Rieux | November 25, 2009 11:23 AM
I'm a pretty hardcore advocate of free speech rights, and in my ideal world, these students can wear whatever slogans they want, with the only repercussions being others' recognition of what jackanapes they are. And my strongest sympathies lie with catgirl's argument @15. Too many students live in a protected bubble, and part of high school education should be teaching them that there is a real world outside their bubble that they need to learn to deal with, without resorting to violence.
But adolescent's brains are not fully developed, particularly the parts affecting judgment and impulse control. How much adult responsibility should we give them if they are in fact not yet adults cognitively?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 25, 2009 11:24 AM
Well, in the balance between keeping order in the school and the right to free speech, where do we draw the line? I'm not saying that to pass judgment in this case, it's a serious question. There is no doubt that the message may be so offensive to Muslims that it could cause fights in the school or even encourage religious persecution against them. On the other hand, no one has the right not to be offended and situations like this could actually turn into real world learning experiences. Maybe it's an opportunity to teach everyone at the school that you don't counter speech with violence or censorship, but with more speech.
In a tie, I would think the one should ere on the side of freedom and allow the shirts. But, it still doesn't answer the question. If this message is acceptable, where is the line? Is it only profanity? Or, could there be a message so offensive that it could be banned, perhaps racism or actual calls for violence.
To be clear, outside of school, there's no question that any person has the right to where a shirt with any message they like. But, when students are required by law to come to a place where students express hostile messages to your minority group, it gets trickier.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | November 25, 2009 11:24 AM
Also, apropos of a handful of comments above regarding "positive" and "negative" messages on these T-shirts, anyone who regards "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me'" as an unequivocally "positive" message isn't paying much attention.
Posted by: Rieux | November 25, 2009 11:26 AM
... these shirts are bullying.
.
Yes. 'Nuff said. But I will say a little more anyway:
The message is clearly in earnest, and hateful; it is intended to provoke, marginalize, harrass, and disenfranchise minority community members. The entire purpose of the message is to atack and vilify certain "undesirables" in the school community.
Such attacks on other students cannot be condoned or ignored by the administrators charged with maintaining a healthy and safe study environment for ALL students, even the Muslim ones.
Wearing such a shirt to the mall may be protected free speech, if a bit unwise; but Muslim students have a right to attend school without being subjected to an openly hostile assault by other students.
Posted by: threetorches | November 25, 2009 11:50 AM
Ed, my high school has a pretty loose policy on clothing (and this covers the whole spectrum from types of clothing, statements, and quantity of said clothing). That is, its allowed as long as it is not disruptive to class.
Do you think that such a policy, while reasonable, could hold up in court?
Posted by: Jim | November 25, 2009 11:50 AM
Rieux - "Loveliest Country Club in the Whole Universe. Come in and play golf, tennis, enjoy a delious never-ending buffet, take a dip in our delightful pool or any one of the wondeful services that we offer.
NO BLACKS, JEWS, IRISH or DOGS NEED APPLY."
Yep, sure is an unequivocally "positive" message, just given that extra positive spin with:
"Oh and by the way ALL THOSE NOT ALLOWED IN ARE PURE, UNADULTERATED EVIL."
Christian love and charity, as usual, on display - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 11:54 AM
James Hanley's right - we do not give children/adolescents the same rights as adults because physiologically and socially they are not fully grown. But we have this weird magical number system whereby *poof* they gain rights at pre-specified times (birth to live, 16 to drive, 18 to vote, 21 to drink, 25 to rent a car, 35 to run for president). What is all this based on? It seems rather arbitrary. What happens if we treat them with more respect and teach them responsibly? What if, while understanding their limitations, challenge them to grow? After all, remember the conclusions from the old study, Pygmalion in the classroom: teacher expectation can raise (or sadly, lower) student achievement.
Posted by: marnk | November 25, 2009 11:58 AM
Very different from when I was at school. Mind you, I'm also the other side of the Atlantic, so that may also be a factor. When I was at school, you had a school uniform. You weren't in uniform, you got sent home to change.
As for the wider issue, the best way to answer the question is to do a thought experiment which removes religion. Imagine the shirt said, 'all gingers are losers'. Would that be acceptable in a school setting? I would say, 'no', simply because it does nothing except provoke people form a particular group. Therefore, the message about Islam being of the devil on this shirt is not acceptable for much the same reason.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 25, 2009 12:01 PM
marnk - at around 25 the human brain reaches maturity. At this point the brain has fully developed and reaches it peak function (all down hill from there, worse luck). - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 12:02 PM
Reading the complaint, the lawyers appear to be making the claim that because there were no disruptions or disturbances at the school as a result of the T-shirts, that the messages on the shirts were not disruptive. I think that this is a particularly poor argument. Just because there were no active disruptions does not mean that the messages did not have a negative affect on the environment at school. It could very well be that there were no outright disruptions because those who might have objected to the t-shirts were intimidated against speaking out by the shirts and the apparent, tacit approval by the schools.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 25, 2009 12:03 PM
Much though I may disagree with it, school districts have a lot of leeway to restrict student speech post-Hazelwood. Particularly if the student body includes Muslims, the district could argue pretty plausibly that the shirts might lead to a disruption of the educational environment (certainly more plausibly than in the case of shirts with an Absolut bottle on it or something, which districts tend to get their pants in a wad over). This is definitely not a slam dunk in the plaintiffs' favor, but as others have said, the ACLU isn't afraid to lose cases--precisely because their raison d'etre is to push for as broad an interpretation of bill of rights freedoms as possible.
To be clear, I'm not a fan of recent precedent on school speech cases and what it means for broadening the authority of school administrators looking for outlets for their Napoleonic complexes, but it is what it is.
Posted by: Solly Hofman | November 25, 2009 12:05 PM
To piggyback on post 44:
I'm not sure where the balance lies between *anticipated* disruption and *empirical* disruption in terms of whether school districts can censor speech, but I'm certain they'll get some leeway to justify their actions based on anticipated disruption--to avert conflicts between students before they arise.
In addition to expanding the authority of school administrators, this sort of amounts to a "heckler's veto," which I'm also not fond of (outside the school setting, the argument that "you can't say this because others might react violently" is going to be a loser in most cases).
Posted by: Solly Hofman | November 25, 2009 12:10 PM
This isn't about what rights kids have-- it's about what rights they have in school. You can't grab a kid walking down the street and demand that he turn his t-shirt inside out because it's offensive. And yet school administrators routinely do such in a school context. So long as public schools exist, this is probably going to be an ongoing area of contention.
So how far does it go? If Azim is the only Muslim in school, are students allowed to show up wearing t-shirts that say "Azim is of the Devil"? How about "Cheryl is a slut"? I am at once convinced that they should be allowed to do so, and horrified at the thought.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 25, 2009 12:13 PM
As a follow up to my post (#44), if you read the actual complaint
http://www.aclufl.org/IIOTDComplaint.pdf
At the very end, the letter from the defendants council makes it clear that several students were upset and negatively impacted by the shirts.
Posted by: chilidog | November 25, 2009 12:14 PM
Wearing such a shirt to the mall may be protected free speech,
Actually, the mall, unlike the school, is private property.
Posted by: jay | November 25, 2009 12:14 PM
I have a few 'different' reactions to the shirts. First, as only one of you mentioned, I think the mention of a specific church changes things a bit, and I could see the banning as justified on those grounds alone, without reaching the content of the message. (And yes, Ed, I would have felt the same about an atheist shirt if it promoted a specific atheist organization.)
My second thought was that, were I a teacher in one of those schools -- especially if it were organized the way my own (Jesuit) high school was, where the 'homeroom' for the most part stayed together and the teachers came to us -- I would have asked the class to spend fifteen minutes designing their own shirts, defining their own beliefs, and then using the next few classes discussing them, and the basis of them.
Finally, this discussion may have finally 'ctystallized' a problem I have been wrestling with since the time of the Vietnam protests, and the question as to whether protestors had the 'right' to shout down proponents of the war when they rarely had a chance to have equivalent, publicly supported forums for their dissent.
There is little risk in expressing a 'popular' message. even in extreme terms. The students who wore those shirts might, at worst, have lost a few friends, but risked little else.
A Muslim student who wore a t-shirt -- in response or independently -- that read "Allahu Akbar" on the front, and on the back listed those 'prophets' who -- according to Islam -- all taught the same message, including both Moses and Jesus, and ended the list with a statement such as "Nine prophets, one message -- slavery to God; which equals Islam." Those students would have been in serious danger of physical harm from the extreme Christians in the school.
We sometimes forget, in our -- totally correct -- insistence on an over-arching principle of free speech, that not all speech is equal in the real-world risks it entails.
The problem is, for me, crystallized, but even so, the solution is as difficult as ever.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 25, 2009 12:17 PM
Rieux @ 34, I dissagree. A reasonable person would understand that there are minority viewpoints that may be in conflict with the majority view. A reasonable person would also understand that it would be possible to find that a comment that might be perfectly acceptable to the majority would be objectionable to the minority.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 25, 2009 12:18 PM
If it wasn't for the cost of school uniforms I would wish that they would be adopted by more public schools. I think that a lot of times clothing detracts from the schools primary purpose: education. How many needless court cases has their been over t-shirt slogans? I'm all for free speech but debating over whether minors can sport t-shirt slogans depicting drug use, sexual themes, curse words, racism, and religious speech in the hours that they are legally required to be learning seems unnecessarily problematic.
Posted by: deep | November 25, 2009 12:25 PM
51:
I see your point, and I agree with it--generally. There's a good argument to be made, though, that speech that specifically targets a student's race/religion/etc. is uniquely problematic *in a public school setting*, insofar as allowing it could be seen (by a not-fully-intellectually/emotionally developed elementary/secondary school student, if not by the proverbial "reasonable person") as tacit approval of such speech, which has implications for whether a hostile learning environment exists for the targeted students.
The more I think about this, the less bothered I am by the school district's actions IN THIS CASE. I think districts get way too much rope to censor whatever annoys them by playing the kneejerk "disruptive to the educational environment" card, but I think there are circumstances where their argument has merit.
Posted by: Solly Hofman | November 25, 2009 12:26 PM
I'm with Etcetera - schools shouldn't allow disruptive messages. The best thing is to not allow messages of any type on shirts, so as to avoid arguments about what is and is not disruptive.
Posted by: Texas Reader | November 25, 2009 12:40 PM
Heavenly Father, let us pray. As we wear our nifty, "Jesus Saves--but only the GOOD CHRISTIAN PEOPLE" t-shirts to school today, give us strength to withstand the taunts, jibes and physical attacks of the 1% or so of atheists and muslims in our midst. And, Lord, give us the courage to show our color, your color, red--the color of the blood of the lamb, GOD'S only son, offered up to save--but, again, on the GOOD CHRISTIAN people. And, GOD, could you, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh, I'm on fire, I'm buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurning!! The shirt is sticking to my charring flesh!!!!!! Ah, it's a 50/50 cotton/polyester blend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: democommie | November 25, 2009 12:42 PM
I think it's a fine line, but "God hates homosexuals" and "God hates homosexuality" would be different - I would definitely not hold the first to be protected speech, but I would want to protect the second (no matter how strongly I disagree with the message).
Similarly, "God hates Islam" is different from "God hates Muslims". It's repugnant, but protected speech is protected for a reason.
Posted by: MRL | November 25, 2009 12:48 PM
I'd be interested to hear people's take on the Federal statutes that prohibit hostile environment (typically resulting from harassment) in schools based on race, sex or disability. Reconciling them with the First Amendment is always a tough balance, in that they absolutely require school districts to restrict certain forms of speech in certain instances.
Posted by: Solly Hofman | November 25, 2009 12:50 PM
Messages which disparage others, especially minorities shouldn't be allowed. My grandmother taught be to be polite and if you can't say something nice, don't say anything. This was decades before "political correctness" came into use. My have times changed.
Rhea County schools don't allow any writing on apparel (except small logos that are on them when bought). But then, they don't allow T-shirts either. Shirts and blouses must have sleeves and collars and will be tucked in at all times.
This leads to a more congenial atmosphere conducive to learning as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Bill Ware | November 25, 2009 1:05 PM
MRL:
I see your point.
So, "Chritianity is for fucking idiots" would be okay v "Christians are fucking idiots"?
Posted by: democommie | November 25, 2009 1:05 PM
I must say I can’t seem to make any progress in my thinking about this case. Allowing the shirts leads to an unacceptable level of hostility and disruption. Banning them leads to an unacceptable level of infringement of free speech. Is this really a lose/lose situation?
I’m just throwing this out there to see where it leads. The company I work for has a policy against that kind of speech. I would be fired for communicating that message on a shirt, in an email, or even voicing it. Now as a private company they have the right to set their own policies. However, if my company allowed such speech they could be sued for creating a hostile work environment. So in effect the government is censoring my speech by pressuring employers to do it for them. It’s the same all over. If I want to work anywhere in the US I have to watch what I say on the job or open my employer (and myself) to a damaging lawsuit.
What justifies the government censoring me at work but not these kids at school? (And yes, I realize even asking that question reveals how muddled my thinking on this has become. Perhaps, as is so often the case, the answer lies in a fresh cup of coffee.)
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 25, 2009 1:22 PM
Chilidog @ #34:
But you're mis-applying the standard you described. What you said was at issue is whether a "reasonable person" would find the particular message on a shirt controversial. That person's viewpoint on the entirely meta issue of how disparate groups ought to be treated has nothing to do with applying a particular standard to a particular shirt message.Legal standards, "reasonable person" or otherwise, are applied by real life human beings--whether judges or school administrators. When the test for acceptability is the one you've posited--controversy--then messages from despised minorities will always suffer, because despised minorities' expression is just about controversial by definition: society's fundamental expectation of us is that we shut up and stay on the margins, so any failure on our part to do so is a violation of major social mores. In contrast, powerful majorities' analogous expression is broadly normalized and accepted, even when it slimes minorities.
Again, Ed's analogy comparison shows how your test fails to achieve just results. Case A: a shirt reads "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No on goes to the Father except through me.'" The school administrator applies your "reasonable person" test: "If a reasonable person would find the message to be controversial, then it shouldn't be allowed." John 14:6 is not the slightest bit controversial in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in the United States, so the message will effectively always pass your suggested test and be allowed.
Case B: a shirt reads "Atheism is great. I stand in reason with the Freedom From Religion Foundation." The school administrator applies your "reasonable person" test: "If a reasonable person would find the message to be controversial, then it shouldn't be allowed." Explicit atheism, explicit opposition to religion, and the concept of "freedom from religion" are all extremely controversial in nearly every corner of the United States, so the message will effectively always fail your suggested test and be banned.
Voila: in the real world, your test silences despised minorities but allows powerful majorities free rein to blast their enemies.
(And I repeat: the actual standards applied by federal courts are not a whole lot better--nor, indeed, vastly different--than the test you suggest. Majorities do steamroll minorities all over First Amendment jurisprudence.)
Lines like "A reasonable person would understand that there are minority viewpoints that may be in conflict with the majority view" are utopian and (more to the point) irrelevant. That's not a question that ever comes up in the test you've posited.
Posted by: Rieux | November 25, 2009 1:26 PM
Abby Normal
To a far greater degree than most of these school speech issues, it does appear to be one without a fully satisfactory conclusion available.Posted by: James Hanley | November 25, 2009 1:41 PM
To get off the free speech issues for a minute, and just try to make sense of why this stuff is going on in schools in the first place.
IMHO two things - backlash against excessive political correctness, and the advent of the internet - have created a "culture of the offensive" in which people try to express their views in the most offensive way possible, or simply say something offensive just for the sake of being offensive.
Post-modern art: Weird for the sake of being weird.
Post-PC discourse: Offensive for the sake of being offensive.
Posted by: Jim | November 25, 2009 1:44 PM
more absolutism that doesn't always apply in the real world.
Posted by: littlepeople | November 25, 2009 1:48 PM
Since a school is a non-public forum doesn't that clearly mean that topics can be banned but not specific viewpoints? The school can ban shirts with religious messages but not some messages and not others. I thought this was pretty well established law.
Posted by: ChrisZ | November 25, 2009 2:36 PM
Well, not meaning to be a sourpuss, but what the hell are kids doing wearing t-shirts of ANY kind in school anyway?
Posted by: We Are The 801 | November 25, 2009 2:42 PM
Umm, being school kids? I wore t-shirts and jeans to school about 95% of the time during my entire duration there.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 25, 2009 2:44 PM
One point that keeps getting missed in all these threads is that these lawsuits are not being brought by the children. In this particular case, It is pretty clear that the parents are behind the shirts and the kids wearing of the shirts.
So the question really should be: Do the parents have first amendment rights by proxy through their children? I can not see how the answer to that question can ever be "yes."
Posted by: Chilidog | November 25, 2009 2:57 PM
I think such messages should not be allowed in schools. Schools should encourage civilized debate, not exchanges of insults. "Islam is of the devil" is not a reasonable argument of any sort, even in a theological debate. It's just an attempt to insult other people.
Posted by: Roman | November 25, 2009 2:57 PM
Message shirts are popular now. My son has one that reads: "Your mom pays me to go easy on you."
Posted by: Chilidog | November 25, 2009 3:00 PM
@Gretchen - Yeah, same here. And providing 801 is arguing in good faith, it sounds like he's saying that all school children should be allowed to be naked. Either that or he wants all kids to be dressed to the nines. It's really hard to tell, but I'm thinking it's the former.
Posted by: Imrryr | November 25, 2009 3:02 PM
BTW, has anyone else loted the irony of the group behind this?
Dove World Outreach
Sheesh
Posted by: Chilidog | November 25, 2009 3:10 PM
imrryr, I prefer this version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH2nQHPs4aA
Posted by: Chilidog | November 25, 2009 3:12 PM
@Chilidog - Bravo! :)
Posted by: Imrryr | November 25, 2009 3:21 PM
I have to say, my view of the resonable person test is always to apply it as "what would the whiny xian majority do if the message and intent were reversed?"
As such, this should be deemed as disruptive speech (the back only). The front of the shirt should pass muster, IMO.
I wish I had kids. I'd love to send them to school with similar shirts. Only, I'd want to really confuse (or confront..) the issue by changing the religions each day. =)
Posted by: FastLane | November 25, 2009 4:05 PM
It is only defensible while people accept the lie that those words are not meant to incite violence. Can you imagine what would happen to a bunch of muslim students who wore a similar T-shirt poo-pooing christians? You know, Hitler was really a nice guy - just a little misunderstood.
So where do we draw the line between free speech and simply being bigoted assholes fostering division within society?
Posted by: MadScientist | November 25, 2009 4:23 PM
If people have the right to free speech, and clothing can be a means to speech, are all dress codes illegal? And if not legal in schools, why in work places?
Posted by: Pen | November 25, 2009 4:34 PM
I have to disagree with the ACLU on this one. The positive message on the front, any positive message is fine, but the negative, confrontational message on the back, in my mind, creates a hostile environment. The same could be said for an atheist message that promotes reason versus a reverse message that said something disparaging of religion.
In the context of a captive audience with mandatory attendance, you are free to promote your point of view, but not at the expense of others, and not in a manner that creates a hostile or confrontational atmosphere.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 25, 2009 5:12 PM
Pen @77:
A dress code in a private business is different. You don't have a (legal, constituational) right to free speech in a mall or an arcade or a restraunt. If I walk in to Domino's wearing a shirt that says "The Pope is a monster", they can ask me to leave. What they can't do is call the police on me (or if they do, the police can't do anything, assuming I was just wearing the shirt peacefully).
Posted by: Kyorosuke | November 25, 2009 5:36 PM
Islam is not a religion it is a cult that is illegal in Christian society. For one thing it is for instance a pedophilia ring (amongst other forbidden activities), why is it not shut down, with it's members charged and arrested?
Seems strange that all hell breaks out when the truth is mentioned about this horror cult
paedophilia (Oxford English)
pedophilia (American English)
Moslems call it "Thighing" (Mufa'khathat) we call it
paedophilia/pedophilia to both boys and girls (from babies up). Like polygamy. incest, etc, are supposed to be illegal in Christian society?
Posted by: Harry | November 25, 2009 5:59 PM
Harry: You're doing it wrong. You use the pedo-meme when you want to fan the flames of intolerance and fear against homosexuals*. When you want to pump up the hate against Muslims, you're supposed to use the terrorist meme. Are you even reading the talking points from the nutty-quadrant of the Right anymore? Sheesh. If you want to keep people ignorant, angry and scared you at least have to put some work in to it.
*...which is false, but your in-group isn't concerned with facts
Posted by: Modusoperandi00 | November 25, 2009 6:27 PM
I disgree with the ACLU, and I wouldn't expect to be allowed to wear a "christianity is dumb" t-shirt. "Atheism is great", yes. Maybe even "Religion is dumb". But not a slogan that singles out some particular group of people and libels them - whether by relgion, race, sex, or by any other method.
Posted by: Paul Murray | November 25, 2009 7:24 PM
We teach children not to stab each other on the very first day they walk into Kindergarten.
As evidenced by the amount of fights kids get into, that lesson is not always very well learned. Add to that parents who encourage violence and feel justified doing so because they believe that the school isn't protecting their children from harassment. I would love it if freedom of speech were universally applicable. Reality in schools is far messier than the ideal. Keep in mind that we're teaching children and teens to appreciate the responsibility of citizenship. They don't always appreciate the consequences of their speech, free or otherwise. Teachers are charged with acting as parents in proxy and I can guarantee that the moment anything happened to the kid wearing this shirt, the first question asked would be "where was the teacher?"
Posted by: Etcetera | November 25, 2009 7:44 PM
"And providing 801 is arguing in good faith, it sounds like he's saying that all school children should be allowed to be naked."
Uh, no... I was thinking more along the lines of uniforms. Kids should be at school to learn, right?
Posted by: We Are The 801 | November 25, 2009 8:24 PM
@801 - T-shirts and jeans keep kids from learning? Strange, I don't recall ever being distracted from a lecture by the t-shirt of the the kid sitting in front of me (I'd probably have been bored to death no matter what the kid was wearing, to be honest). A shirt might provide a topic of discussion at lunch, or between classes, but once classes start I don't see it how it's an issue at all. Now, if you wanted to ban cell phones or something I could at least understand that. But t-shirts and jeans? I don't get it, dude.
Posted by: Imrryr | November 25, 2009 9:05 PM
Imrryr: Most school systems have dress codes that are very irregularly enforced. Some have formal uniforms, others informal ones (khakis and predominantly white dress or polo shirts is common). Sometimes there is a fad, like banning black clothing after Columbine. The current fad is banning gang colors.
If you actually read student manuals, the majority of schools probably ban t-shirts and jeans: It's just never enforced unless there is something else going on. Similarly, most schools officially ban cell phones. I always enforced that when I was in the classroom. I didn't mind the kids having them, but they weren't going to be using them while I was teaching. Don't bring your Ipod to class, either.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 25, 2009 9:22 PM
@kehrsam - You could have fooled me, but then I doubt I ever paid much attention to student manuals as a kid. I knew that certain slogans or designs (like drug references, for example) were banned, but as far as I ever knew t-shirts themselves were fine. But yeah, daring to use anything with headphones during school hours (even recess) was likely to end in your stuff getting confiscated.
I definitely understand the banning of cell phones though. A roommate informs me that there are numbers you can text questions to that will provide answers for a small fee. And he could see several people obviously using their cell phones to cheat during tests in his astronomy class, and that poor sap of a teacher never noticed. The amount of cheating that goes on at his college is pretty distressing, actually.
Posted by: Imrryr | November 25, 2009 10:22 PM
Paul Murray @ #82:
Er, Paul, you do realize that "Christianity" is a belief system, not a "group of people," don't you?You're falling for/perpetuating the oldest religious-privilege trick in the book: pretend that a criticism of/challenge to/attack on an idea is actually a personal attack on the people who hold that idea. It's bullshit, and it does nothing but prop up majoritarian power.
Posted by: Rieux | November 26, 2009 12:31 AM
I hope the Sapps and the Boeckens lose this suit. I believe they will. Their complaint alleges that the messages “IIOTD” and “Islam is of the Devil” were non-vulgar and non-obscene. The ACLU specifically used that language (non-vulgar and non-obscene) in order to avoid being subject to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 vs. Fraser. I think the majority ruling in that case is still good law and if so, the Alachua County School Board has a decent shot at prevailing.
Posted by: Junaid M. Afeef | November 26, 2009 2:20 AM
@Rieux
This is irrelevant. Ideas can be attacked in a civil way, and in an offensive way. "Christianity/Islam/Atheism is dumb" slogan put on a T-shirt is not civil.
Posted by: Roman | November 26, 2009 4:16 AM
Chilidog -
One point that keeps getting missed in all these threads is that these lawsuits are not being brought by the children. In this particular case, It is pretty clear that the parents are behind the shirts and the kids wearing of the shirts.
I really don't see that as being particularly clear at all. When I was in school and at the height of my fundamentalism, I was all about wearing religious tee-shirts. I was very keen on using every opportunity I had to proselytize and tee-shirts with religious messages, coupled with treating my peers with compassion was an excellent tool for it. My dad, being an atheist would have been happy if I wasn't a fundy, never mind the tee's. My mother, OTOH, was happy that I wanted to wear them, but made it clear the first time, that I might not want to because other kids might pick on me for it.
I am not so sure about the tee shirts being mentioned here - it is a rather tough question. But I have absolutely no reason to believe that the parents had any but peripheral involvement in their children's decisions to wear these shirts. Contrary to what you seem to believe, kids - even religious kids, are perfectly capable of choosing to wear controversial shirts to school and elsewhere.
Again, I get that you don't like these religious folks and their messages. That's fine, I find it all rather repulsive myself. But lets not pretend there's some conspiracy going on that is bent on disruption and pushed by the parents. These kids are no different than other kids who want to be controversial. Nor is the support of their parents likely any different than the support other parents offer their children who are trying to be controversial.
While I might be disinclined to allow my children to be quite so obnoxious with their desire to be controversial, you can bet your ass that I will back them all the way - as long as they are within the rules and in the right. I am all about pushing the limits and forcing either equity or changes of the rules. I am not the least bit interested in pushing my kids to do that sort of thing - what they want to wear, how they want to engage with their peers in school - that is entirely up to them (as long as they are within the rules). But they will absolutely have my support and encouragement, should they choose to engage against the limits.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 26, 2009 6:58 AM
I believe an old Justice once said, "Your free speech ends where my fist begins." If some jackass, no matter his religious conviction, has to learn the value of civility by pissing someone off and getting clocked, so be it; his rudeness is still protected speech. Having said that, whalloping the obnoxious is not exactly the most legally secure way to express one's distaste these days.
Posted by: Julian | November 26, 2009 7:52 AM
DuWayne:
I agree with you that kids, in general, do not need to be told which buttons to push to get someone's attention. However...
The content of the text on the front of the shirts is "annoying" to me. The content on the back of the shirts is blatantly offensive to anyone who IS a muslim, and probably to many other people as well.
I guess that finding out whether this was a purely student led initiative or one that was proposed, planned and funded by a church or church affiliated group is probably not going to happen. That being said, unless the students are familiar with the legal landscape and have the contacts/means to secure legal representation for this... I know it's the ACLU that's doing the work, but that doesn't mean that some fundy group hasn't realized that they can use the Great Satan of the ACLU for their own hands, save some of their precious money to buy more BuyBulls while, at the same stroke, depleting the ACLU's coffers.
Just my 2cents.
BTW, I read a piece in the New Yorker by Ian Frazier ("Shouts & Murmurs" column, 9-14-09) called "Easy Cocktails From The Cursing Mommy"--I think you'd love it, I laughed my ass off.
Posted by: democommie | November 26, 2009 8:33 AM
I'm a member of the ACLU, and received an email from the executive director of the Florida chapter, Howard Simon, about this lawsuit. As he put it:
I concur. Personally, I think both the front and the back are obnoxious, but censoring only one message and not another is de facto endorsement of religion by the school.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 26, 2009 9:02 AM
He's contradicting himself. If the message is "offensive, inappropriate or distracting", then it it distrupts the classroom, or at least it may be deemed a potential distruption by a reasonable person.
Posted by: Roman | November 26, 2009 9:16 AM
How many times do we have to have this argument?
It does not matter if it is offensive. It does not matter. Free speech is offensive. Someone will be offended. It does not matter.
Is it disruptive, or does it create a reasonable expectation of disruption? If so, then censorship may be protected under Tinker. It's not obscene, so Bethel does not apply. In the absence of any other legally protected reason to censor, you can't censor (unless you want to make the call, endure the expense and time, and make new law.) YOU CAN'T CENSOR. There is no "reasonable person test"--that's a fictional application of the "kids haven't got brains" argument, which whether true or false is irrelevant.
If people punch the students wearing the shirt, and the shirt is therefore censored, the heckler's veto is in play, and it takes a thoughtful administrator to sort that out. But that didn't happen. There is no mention of a disruption. There is no grounds for censorship, so no censorship should prevail under current law.
The First Amendment is smart. It protects the pure freedom of expression without conditions. We have evolved a few school-specific ones--Bethel's obscentity, Tinker's disruption, Morse's weird drug/jesus hybrid, and several other minor exceptions. None of those have the least bit to do with what people perceive as majority/minority, offensive/benign, annoying or harmonious.
The speech in question is religious and political in nature, therefore it is bedrock protected even in a school, regardless of the situations, local mention of a church, or sympathy from passersby. In my view inequal protection is also irrelevant, but it provides a legal edge for the attackers.
The Court has approved various inroads into freedom of speech for high school students, and those are of debatable value to educators or parents or churches or administrators. But what is unmolested is still protected.
Local school speech codes are a variation on this theme. The focus of the shirt on a certain group, or even a certain person, may make the speech vulnerable to censorship on the local level, and a variety of cases of censorship have been upheld in local and appellate courts, but many of those codes are in clear conflict with the essential freedom. The "Be Happy, Not Gay" shirt is a clear example of that; another debate (but in my view, same result if we are consistent.)
Could theoretical Muslim students get away with wearing a theoretical t-shirt with the theoretically parallel statement on the back? Irrelevant. When they do, they will be protected by the same essential freedom; until they do, we will not know.
The first is not nuanced. Tinker and Bethel, that's all you need to know.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | November 26, 2009 6:16 PM
@ice9
Well on legal grounds you may be right, but then my answer is that the First Amendment has gone too far. School is, first and foremost, a place you come to learn. Not to engage in political propaganda battles.
First Amendment does not protect you anyway from the most common form of censorship today, the commercial censorship.
Posted by: Roman | November 27, 2009 4:15 AM
Dear idiot school officials,
If you allow one t-shirt then you are stuck with allowing t-shirts that you don't like.
If you don't want student's to have this freedom then your only recourse is not to allow clothes with messages on them. And I doubt that that would fly unless you are serious that students, faculty, and staff have to dress in a conservative manner.
Posted by: a lurker | November 27, 2009 10:21 AM
Lurker, Roman: You see it backwards, both of you. A common misapprehension of constitutional rights. The first amendment can't go too far; it's already there, at the far end, which is where it should be. What better thing for young Americans to learn? That's the bogus argument for censorship. And I'm a teacher--a person most likely to want censorship to create order (that is, my order.) But I have found in a long time of teaching that the better lesson comes from the disorder, which isn't disorder at all, of real thinking. As for propaganda, one man's A is another man's B--isn't it propaganda that this is the land of the free and the home of the brave?
School officials can't eliminate all messages; they can barely eliminate any messages, and they would have no reasonable or educational reason to do so. School uniforms are stifling and silly, and even a liberal dress code diverts valuable time and energy for enforcement and is invariably flawed; nobody is smarter at exploiting loopholes than high school students. It's far more conducive to liberty and brains to allow students to express themselves in all but the most obviously disruptive or inappropriate ways.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | November 27, 2009 1:00 PM
@ice9
Disclaimer: I am European, so I may not show an appropriate level of respect to the US Constitution, etc. Sorry.
"A common misapprehension of constitutional rights."
I am sure you wanted to say "a common misapprehension of the modern interpretation of constitutional rights". I don't believe the First Amendment would be of any help, if you wanted to wear controversial political slogans in a public school in 1930.
"The first amendment can't go too far; it's already there, at the far end, which is where it should be."
That's your opinion. Many countries have put more limits on speech.
Anyway, I'm not sure if you are right even on the grounds of the modern reading of US Constitution. My questions:
1. In general, only the adult members of the society enjoy the full set of constitutional rights. Here, we are talking about teenagers. AFAIK the US does not let the teenagers enjoy the freedoms given by, say, the Second Amendment? On what basis do you require another amendment to be universally applied regardless of age?
2. Your freedom of speech is limited by my right not to listen. I can choose not reading someone's book, if their views are repulsive to me. I can choose not to engage my classmate in a political conversation, if their views are repulsive to me. The situation is different when they constantly carrying an offensive slogan on their back AND are constantly within my view.
3. If the pupils are to be allowed to wear offensive slogans on their clothing, why not the teachers?
Posted by: Roman | November 28, 2009 2:17 AM
Roman:
Lots of "kids" own guns. Having said that, I don't disagree with the rest of your statement. I'm not a constitutional scholar, and I can't point to ironclad proof to buttress any of your arguments, I just feel that you're correct and, since I don't have to be "right" on this one, I'm content with that feeling.
Posted by: democommie | November 28, 2009 7:03 AM
I think it comes down to what side of the line you stand on in regards to hate crime. As per Wikipedia, the definition of hate crime is as follows: "Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters"
It stands to reason that if we do not tolerate antisemitism, we also cannot tolerate offensive slogans against Islam, period.
If however you're in disagreement with this, I guess we can all start exercising our first ammendment rights, and call one another n-g-r-s, sp-cs, cr-ck-rs, hail H-tler, etc...
Posted by: YvyYvz | November 28, 2009 10:11 AM
@YvyYvz
I think that the First Amendment is getting increasingly irrelevant, because you are much more likely to be censored by a commercial entity (Google, Amazon, Seed Media Group...) than by a government agency.
Posted by: Roman | November 29, 2009 8:41 AM
Roman, it seems that you are a European, with a different apprehension of constitutional rights as we see them in the US. If you don't like my t-shirt, well, too bad. There is a 'fighting words' doctrine but it's pretty far out there. We also have libel and slander, but again they are very tough to prevail on. In the US freedom of speech is freedom, or it's supposed to be. My freedom to express myself is not in the least bit limited by any aspect of your perception unless the result of my speech is damaging (many conditions) or dangerous (clear and present) or a few other arcane extremes.
Mind you, few students are allowed to wear offensive slogans; local rules and traditions tend to prevail but those are (in my view) contrary to the law as we have it now. Plus the definition of offensive is, as always, highly individual.
Hate crimes have nothing to do with speech, except as evidence. Hate crimes are intensifications of actions which are already criminal under various states of mind. The concept is on wobbly legal ground in my view, but I think you mean "hate speech codes" which are feel very unconstitutional to me (and I regret being firmly on the side of conservatives in this matter.) Minorities are protected from crime as anyone else is; they are unprotected from speech as anyone else is. To do so is going too far, and though I hate the phrase 'political correctness' because it's been coopted by fools and bigots, speech codes (typical in colleges) are a prime example.
As for the commercial censorship point, for a variety of reasons such limitations are not censorship at all in my view.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | November 29, 2009 9:36 PM
@ice9
"Roman, it seems that you are a European, with a different apprehension of constitutional rights as we see them in the US. If you don't like my t-shirt, well, too bad."
Yes, I think we Europeans tend to limit the speech more than you guys overseas.
"speech codes (typical in colleges) are a prime example."
But they also serve to protect women from sexual harassment. Is "you have a nice round ass" spoken by the professor to the student covered by freedom of speech as well, in your opinion?
"As for the commercial censorship point, for a variety of reasons such limitations are not censorship at all in my view."
You know... What use is the freedom of publishing things on a website, if nobody's going to find it, because a de-facto monopolist search engine excluded it from its results? As we know, Google is not above doing such things (in China and Germany).
Posted by: Roman | November 30, 2009 3:29 PM
The more I think about it, the less of a difference I see between 'My belief is great" and "Your belief is evil" in this sort of environment.
So replace "belief" with "mother". Still think it's the same message? If a t-shirt is likely to cause violence in a public school then it should be banned. The Supreme Court has already ruled that free speech is limited in public schools.
Posted by: Tom | November 30, 2009 4:51 PM
I wrote:
...And Roman responded;No, my point was not "irrelevant" to anything but your meaningless red herring notions about the manner in which you'd like to destroy free speech. My remarks were centrally relevant to the comment I was responding to. Which was not yours.Then, your "civil"/"offensive" distinction is entirely subjective. What is "offensive" to one person is utterly banal to another.
I find it disgusting that you think you should be able to enshrine your idiosyncratic notions about which kinds of criticism are "offensive" and which "civil" in criminal law.
More to the point, surely you cannot be ignorant to the fact that societal mores regarding "offensiveness" are created by, and for the benefit of, powerful majorities. Despised minorities (such as--especially in the U.S.--atheists) are at the mercy of huge religious majority that despises us. Our very existence is "offensive" to these people; the most innocent expression of our ideas imaginable is well nigh unthinkable to them.
You would give these people the power to strangle us entirely. You are wrong, and you badly need to notice the totalitarianism at the heart of your argument.
Says you.And why in the hell should it be unlawful to be "uncivil"?
Indeed. When it comes to the human right of free expression, Europeans (insofar as their laws represent them--and they clearly do you) are cowards and are willfully blind toward the autocracy they condone. Disdaining John Stuart Mill's free marketplace of ideas, European legal cultures have decided that certain speech (especially racist speech) is just too tempting to allow. Apparently you have no confidence that, as Mill recognized, the ethical remedy for bad speech is more speech, not less.The United States is backwards in several ways when compared to Europe, but basic recognition of what "free speech" means (and that allowing a government to silence a neo-Nazi allows that same government to silence you) is not one of them.
You don't know what you're talking about.Speech codes on college campuses have nothing to do with professors propositioning students. Sexual harassment, as you clearly don't understand, is not a crime: it is, in very specifically defined contexts, a form of discrimination. That professor would not be prosecuted by the government; she'd be subject to employment discipline by the college (covered in her contract). The college could potentially be subject to a civil lawsuit filed by the student. Nowhere in the situation is there a government censor deciding what can and cannot be said.
The point of ice9's reference to campus speech codes is to point out that those do frequently involve content-based restrictions on students' and faculty's speech that have nothing to do with discrimination law (or defamation, or incitement). Like you, those colleges want to silence unpopular viewpoints by arrogantly declaring them "uncivil," or worse.
It is perfectly legal for you to wander through (the public areas of) any college in the United States yelling "You have a nice round ass" to every person you meet. That's not sexual harassment as that term is defined in American law, and it's not a crime.
Posted by: Rieux | November 30, 2009 8:43 PM
i read fresh book about anti islam - Comrade-slave (DER KAMERAD SKLAVE)
here are links http://www.scribd.com/mutacia
NOT ALL - TEOLOGY - like ISLAM is CRIME - WE MUST go to POLICE AND STOP VIOLANCE
Im ATHEIST - and ANY muslic must kill ME! ANY christian must discriminate me!!!
ONLY ONE ANSWER - GO TO POLICE and STOP THIS!!!
Posted by: Torn | December 1, 2009 1:11 PM
I think we have all created with the same god
and live in the same planet
so we have to understand each other
and first you have to read about islam and understand it
then say or do what ever you like .
this some thing of it
mohamed said,
- “Allah shows compassion only to those among His slaves who are compassionate.”
- “Do not disdain any good deed, even your meeting with your brother (friend) with a cheerful face.”
- “When a man loves his brother (for Allah sake) he should tell him that loves him.”
- Richness is not in plenty of provisions; the (real) richness is the richness of the soul.”
- “Allah has revealed to me that you should be courteous to one another. One should neither hold himself above another nor transgress against another
- * Do not turn away a poor man...even if all you can give is half a date. If you love the poor and bring them near you...Allah will bring you near Him on the Day of Resurrection
- Do not envy one another; do not hate one another; do not turn away from another; and do not undercut one another, but be you. O servants of Allah, brothers
- The best of you is one who treats best with his wife among you.
I am Muslim and i love all of you
thank you
Posted by: adel | January 10, 2010 3:46 PM
I am a Christian and a pastor. While I believe a person's freedom of speech doesn't stop at the door to the school, I also believe that Christians, of all people, should be sensitive in how they communicate "truth." If messages are allowed on clothing, then the church endorsement and Scripture passage should be allowed. Ed, you asked: "If you think the ACLU is wrong on this, ask yourself how you would feel if the t-shirts instead said 'Atheism is great. I stand in reason with the American Humanist Association' on the front and 'Religion is stupid' or 'Christianity is nonsense' on the back." I wouldn't agree with the statements, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over them, either. The simple truth is that people have different opinions. And in a free country we're allowed to express them, but we should expect others to express theirs, too. But here is where I have the problem: Why would any pastor seeking to share the gospel with high school students or to engage them in open conversation allow "Islam is of the devil" to be put on the back of these t-shirts? Even if you believe that is true, that is hardly the venue for expressing it! I would think they'd want to reach out in love to those who think differently and to stand for the truth that Jesus came to make a way for everyone to come to Him (albeit it is through Him). Or why wouldn't a Christian parent tell his child that this isn't the best way to open dialogue and win someone to your viewpoint? This all just sounds like a tremendous lack of maturity and discretion on someone's part!
Posted by: Patty | January 15, 2010 1:48 PM