Look, you can say that all you want. You can say we should all hold hands and sing "Joy to the World" and live in peace forever and ever. Its not going to happen. That's why we have government in the first place. If we could all agree and be peaceful, there would be no problems in the world. So, what practical solution would you apply to this situation?

See this is where the problem lies, you are not seeing my point. It is not up to ONE person to set out the rules for society, it has to be collective, everybody has a different take on what is acceptable. SOME people need to suck it up and stop being total bitches towards things that are really irrelevent to the whole picture. Also, some people have a hard time looking at things from other perspectives, the get so caught up in what they think is right or wrong that they forget that someone else might view it completely differently. Oh and finally there are some people who are extremely stubborn and no matter what you say, no matter how you present your case it is impossible for them to accept it, for some reason these people have a sense of self importance, that they're better than everybody else and so discredit or refuse to acknowledge what other people have to say.

Okay, Trisscar, again I ask you what you would allow and what you wouldn't, both in the school setting and outside. Lay out some standards. How will people know what is allowed?

Kat, Those statements are directly against individual or groups of people, and therefore are wrong. Like I said there has to be some balance to the situation, I don't not agree with law and order, there has to be some standard, one standard being hate-related comments or slurs toward specific groups isn't right. The point I was trying to make is in general people take censorship too far. You are misinterpretating what I am trying to say.

So, Trisscar, once again, what do you suggest?
Would you let someone wear a shirt that says "Islam = Terrorism?" What about "Black People Should Die?" What about not wearing any clothes at all?

quote:

Freedom of speach is legal, and this has nothing to do with freedom of speach. You were wearing a tshirt, theat isn't speach.

In the case Tinker v. Des Moines, wearing black arm bands to protest the war was allowed because it was ruled "symbolic speech."

Symbolic speech is technically protected by the Constitution (amendment one), but these cases are heard at a lower level of scrutiny (based on the three tier approach). This means, that the burden is put more on the person contending that their rights are being violated to prove their case. (When the case deals with the spoken word, it moves up to the upper tier, where the burden is on the plaintiff to prove why this person's speech should be silenced.)

quote:

Originally posted by katalinacmnacha89:
Trisscar, so you don't like the law. What do you suggest as an alternative?

It is not that I don't agree with law, I just disagree with the extent of it. I understand that it is essential to mantain some order, but that in general it is taken too far by people who are trying to form society to fit the "norms" they see as right.

Trisscar, so you don't like the law. What do you suggest as an alternative?

quote:

if i were to wear a Nazi Swastika Armband around school would i be in the wrong?

No, you'd be dangerous. That represents a whole different thing, and doesn't just stir up hate in people, but fear, too. Schools need to be safe. You can have your freedom of speech as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

why do people feel the need to take the whole "freedom of speech" to new levels. if i were to wear a Nazi Swastika Armband around school would i be in the wrong? or how about a shirt that said "being black/mexican/white (take your pick of race) is wrong" tee, would you complain about me? now your abortion tee is of a lesser scale but its bound to offend a majority of people. thats what the schools are trying to get at. if you are disruptive to the education process, they can do whats necessary to alleviate the problem.

quote:

You're free to diagree all you want. I wasn't stating my opinion at all, I was just clarifiying what the law was. The Tinker case that Khary brought up is the law on this issue. "Pure," "passive," and "political" are all words used in this case, and they do have firm definitions. If we are looking at this from a practical standpoint, which obviously you are not, the school did nothing wrong.

But what I was saying is that it isn't right for the law to decided what is pure and passive, its the same with government stating what sexual orientation is right, or whether women should be allowed the right to choose an abortion. Once the government starts telling you what you can and can not do with your life, or what you're allowed to beleive there is a problem. I know that it is the school that gets to choose what is "pure".. ect. but this also opens up problems in soceity, as the government and other authority start to control what we are allowed to say, this starts censorship and controlling us as a people.

.

quote:

Kat, I believe what everybody is trying to say is that we disagree with the school's ability to choose what or whatnot we are allowed to state. I disagree that something that someone is stating must be "pure" or "passive" or "political" concidering that everybody has a different interpretation on what these things are. Different cultures beleive in different things, different up bringings bring different morals and standards to the table, it is impossible to give a blanket statement on what is right or truth

You're free to diagree all you want. I wasn't stating my opinion at all, I was just clarifiying what the law was. The Tinker case that Khary brought up is the law on this issue. "Pure," "passive," and "political" are all words used in this case, and they do have firm definitions. If we are looking at this from a practical standpoint, which obviously you are not, the school did nothing wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by VeganCath:
Kharybdis.

I dont quite understand how you can throw something out there saying I'm wrong if i'm not trying to be right. For starters, I was trying to say by wearing a tshirt like that you're going to recieve unwanted attention from people who think you're throwing a hissy. Whether or not you can or can't legally use freedom of speach as clothing is irrelevant. I'm not trying to say its not a valid form of expression at all, I'm trying to say if she actually has a point to make then use your mind and your voice, dont hide away your thoughts in a tshirt, that couldn't possibly say everything you wanted to say.
Honestly, i would say exactly the same thing for veganism, it's fine to support the cause via a tshirt, as is with the abortion situation, but if you're complaining that its taking away your freedom of speach rights it's not quite the same, considering you're not even using your voice to express your beliefs, you're using a tshirt someone else has printed.

I don't disagree that an actual dialogue is a more effective means of political discourse than a t-shirt. And yeah, a shirt that just says "ABORTION IS HOMMOSIDE" is a pretty fucking stupid way of expressing your views. It doesn't get into the nuance of the issue at all; it's just a stupid sound bite.

That said, I also believe that though it's not the best vehicle for rhetoric, clothing is in fact, in a manner of speaking, speech. It can be purely symbolic, as the black armbands were, or it can be obnoxiously blatant, like her t-shirt, but both are valid forms of political expression.

Sorry about the veganism thing; it really was a bit of a cheap shot. Heat of the moment and whatnot.

The "You couldn't be more wrong if you tried" was in reference to this, just for the sake of clarity:

quote:

Freedom of speach is legal, and this has nothing to do with freedom of speach. You were wearing a tshirt, theat isn't speach.

I still maintain that you're incorrect there, but hey.

quote:

Originally posted by katalinacmnacha89:
Khary, and everyone else:

Just letting you know, while there most certainly is limited freedom of speech in schools, this doesn't apply to dress codes. The Tinker case refused to touch dress codes, leaving them up to the schools to decide. So xrunawayx, if you had worn a button that said "ABORTION IS HOMICIDE," that would have been well within your rights. A shirt, not so much. Furthermore, in order for speech to be protected, it must be pure, passive, and political.

Kat, I believe what everybody is trying to say is that we disagree with the school's ability to choose what or whatnot we are allowed to state. I agree that one should be tactful in what you are trying to state, but sometimes it is a lot easier to be blunt about something you feel strongly about than to sugar coat it.

I disagree that something that someone is stating must be "pure" or "passive" or "political" concidering that everybody has a different interpretation on what these things are. Different cultures beleive in different things, different up bringings bring different morals and standards to the table, it is impossible to give a blanket statement on what is right or truth.

A tshirt like that is there to express your values when you can't speak yourself. Especially useful in events such as the Day of Silence.

Kharybdis.

I dont quite understand how you can throw something out there saying I'm wrong if i'm not trying to be right. For starters, I was trying to say by wearing a tshirt like that you're going to recieve unwanted attention from people who think you're throwing a hissy. Whether or not you can or can't legally use freedom of speach as clothing is irrelevant. I'm not trying to say its not a valid form of expression at all, I'm trying to say if she actually has a point to make then use your mind and your voice, dont hide away your thoughts in a tshirt, that couldn't possibly say everything you wanted to say.
Honestly, i would say exactly the same thing for veganism, it's fine to support the cause via a tshirt, as is with the abortion situation, but if you're complaining that its taking away your freedom of speach rights it's not quite the same, considering you're not even using your voice to express your beliefs, you're using a tshirt someone else has printed.

I'm not being biased, if thats what your whole reply was trying to get at because i dont believe in abortion either, i just believe we were given a voice for a reason, and if you are passionate about your beliefs and your opinion you should speak about them not keep it on a tshirt and hope people will understand, they usually wont.

Well... You'd have to look at the students' handbook for that information. Like you said, it varies from school to school, but who knows if it's like that for their school or not? I wore an "offensive" shirt in middle school ( also, an abortion shirt ) and was called into the vice principal's office. Someone had complained. I was hindering their rights or something. But he just said if anyone mentioned it, to not pick a fight with them. ( shrugs ) It was a pretty strict school, too.

Khary, and everyone else:

Just letting you know, while there most certainly is limited freedom of speech in schools, this doesn't apply to dress codes. The Tinker case refused to touch dress codes, leaving them up to the schools to decide. So xrunawayx, if you had worn a button that said "ABORTION IS HOMICIDE," that would have been well within your rights. A shirt, not so much. Furthermore, in order for speech to be protected, it must be pure, passive, and political.

The word misspell always looks like it is spelt wrong.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you should misspell just because you can.