|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 4, 2011 9:56:40 GMT -5
Kids have free speech rights in public schools (Tinker v. Des Moines 393 U.S. 503) but in a limited capacity. In essence, you have the right to a safe, nurturing environment conducive to education first, free speech second. Schools can punish speech if it "materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school" but cannot censor speech merely because it contains "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend" (Tinker v. Des Moines quoting Burnside v. Byars).
A high school could not, for example, punish a student for wearing a black armband to protest the Iraq War; but could punish speech that can reasonably shown to cause substantive disruption (such as making hateful and racist remarks to other students).
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 4, 2011 12:02:57 GMT -5
While I know exactly where this is going, I have to say it. The exception provided allows those with religious views to express them, with the snippet given nothing more. If they persist it becomes harassment. If anything physical occurs it's not covered. And frankly it's not like any other group out there is safe from religious views. Get the right evangelical and they'll tell you that anyone other than themselves is going to hell, get the wrong one and they'll never shut up about it. It does not excuse open harassment, or bullying. And it's a pretty hard to go from statement of religious beliefs to anything that constitutes bullying without crossing some other barrier that lets you boot the idiots anyway. Or are we saying that religious people can't even state what they believe anymore, you know, just like the freepers accuse us of. I have to agree with your assessment for the most part. This law from what I can see in the snippet is basically only allowing religious people to openly shout from the rooftops that gays are going to hell. As long as it goes no further, it would be ok. The big problem I have with it is this gives idiots the right to instigate. Think how many times religious nuts go off about some group and it really gets them pissed. Imagine this with kids who are less apt to hold back their anger.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 4, 2011 15:06:21 GMT -5
Seems to me, whatever the intentions of the “exception,” it will be used to excuse sneaky, passive-agressive, verbal bullying.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Nov 4, 2011 16:33:44 GMT -5
Where exactly did the first kid get in trouble? I've caught everything from that, women should stay in the kitchen, to things about atheists which made me slightly sick. None of them got in trouble unless they started being assholes about it. Here, have an example of kids getting in trouble for racist statements. gothamist.com/2011/03/03/stuyvesant_students_suspended_for_r.phpWorks better when you have a concept of harassment:
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 4, 2011 17:27:02 GMT -5
My problem is that this is such a bullshit distinction. If I actually SAID my example way back on Page 1, I'd probably be suspended. But a school employee can say, "Gays are evil" & probably "Therefore you're evil"? No. That's fucking bullshit. If the kid can't be a douche right back, then it's discrimination & special rights for religion. And it doesn't even have to be as extreme as my example, "You're an asshole" isn't a religious statement, so it's not protected by this bill.
I also think that the line between "offensive" & "harrassing" is too blurry & easily taken advantage of. Hell, from what I can tell, that video wasn't even filmed on school property.
|
|