School sued for religion policy

[Achán hiNidráne]

I'm sure that they wouldn't defend this "freedom of speech/religion" if an atheist group opened up at the school that taught the dangers of christianity.

I suspect they wouldn't. However, that doesn't stop me from standing up for their free speech rights.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree that their free speech should be at a publicly funded place, unless they rent that place out for the same price as anyone else.

 

[brodski]

To paraphrase Dr. Dave Berkman, my openly socialist journalist professor: The second you add a "but" after "I believe in free speech..." what you're really telling us that you don't really believe in free speech. If speech has "limits" it is no longer free.

like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or making threats against someones life, or publicly broadcasting the USA's nuclear launch codes.
Or showing hard core porn to pre-school children? I don't believe that there is anyone who seriously believes that there should be no limits on speech.

 

[brodski]

I suspect they wouldn't. However, that doesn't stop me from standing up for their free speech rights.

butt the government isn't saying that they can't hold an opinion, or express that opinion, what they can't do is use public funds to advertise that opinion.

 

[epepke]

I think it's time to stop putting up with hate speech from all people. l don't give a crap if they are Christians or not. I believe in free speech, but it has limits. You are not allowed to threaten to murder someone, for example. I think hate speech should be a crime.

It's time to stop putting up with violence and bigotry from Christians just because it's part of their religion. They have to obey the law like everyone else. Using persecution because of their religion is just an excuse to get in the news and to make it sound like their bigotry is OK.

OK. Here's the problem with this. You're a monkey, just like everybody else. You're not a particularly powerful monkey. If you were, you would simply define by fiat what kinds of speech were allowed. You wouldn't be in the position of talking about hate speech.

And if you were a powerful monkey, you would restrict speech on the basis of what you thought was hateful. It wouldn't be any better than any other monkey's decisions, and all of the other monkeys would do exactly the same thing, differing in detail but agreeing completely in nature. You would decide that certain things were innocuous, and certain other things were heinous, and it would have more to do with your personal ox than anything else.

And you would have to face the fact that all schools are in favor of bullying. I'm not just talking about implicit approval. They're in favor of bullying. Read any English school story. They're all about bullying. What is a school administrator, other than someone who is skilled at bullying teachers and parents? Nothing. Some are skilled in selective bullying and can use it to the advantage of the school. The principal of my intermediate school fired all of the teachers at Christmas, so she didn't have to give them any tenure. It worked, and it was a pretty good school. But all of them like to bully, and that's what they do. Being bullies, there is a natural tendency to see eye-to-eye with other bullies.

So, it isn't too hard to realize that once you institute a restriction on free speech, it only takes the bullies about fifteen milliseconds to figure out that they can use it to their advantage. This always happens. Bullies, almost by definition, are people who like to give themselves advantages that they deny to others and also are attracted to positions of power where they can do that. So about 230 years ago a bunch of people, bullies themselves but troubled by other bullies, came up with an idea: Free speech should be for everyone, not just people you like. It may not have worked out as people would have liked, especially because 'most everyone is a wannabe bully and wants to control who gets free speech, but it's the best thing that anyone has come up with so far.

Now, of course, free speech is going to get limited, just as no matter how well you build a basement, some water is going to seep in if the water table is high enough. And some of it may seem good in some contexts. But that's not a reason to encourage it. If you care about global warming, it's not appropriate to burn down all the forests and dance around singing "The Ice Caps are Melting" (which is a real song, BTW, covered by Tiny Tim), even if you look forward to having beachfront property. The idea is that if you insist upon universal free speech, the restrictors will have to fight for it, and the hope is that this will encourage a reasonable comprimise. But if you conclude from this that you should allow restrictions on free speech, then you're going to get chumped, especially if you're a low-status monkey, and it will be your own damned fault when it happens.

I don't like homophobes. I don't even like most Christians, much. But you have to respect their rights to free speech, if for no other reason than that if you don't, it will establish a precedent that the homophobes and the racists and the whatevers will always find a way to turn it in their favor. I've seen that happen scores of times, and the only excuses for not seeing it are being young, or stupid, or smoking too much dope, or some combination of the three.

Look. Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon persuaded Canada to institute new censhorship laws. The first thing they were used for, almost, was to prevent the importation of Dworkin's books. Now, I cannot imagine a greater waste of skin than Dworkin, and I'm happy that she croaked. But this is what happens. And I'm not quite stupid enough to decide that my personal dislike for Dworkin was a good reason for censorship.

 

[Roboramma]

If they want to hold their little club on school grounds. Then let them rent the room with money out of their own pockets. Otherwise, find somewhere else.

You have the right to free speech, you DON'T have the right to an free forum or a free audience.

I'll do along with that so long as all other groups have to pay for the room as well. Otherwise, how do we decide which opinions the government should support (with free use of school facilities) and which it should not?

 

[Beerina]

so if they were to stand in front of the school with signs that read "Jews are going to Hell", then this also would be protected?

Would we tolerate it? would the parents of these students be proud?

From the religious point of view of almost every Christian, Jews and other non-Christians are going to Hell.

We have religious freedom in this country.

We have freedom of speech in this country.

The purpose of speech is to affect other people.

Feeling uncomfortable is one of the desired effects on other people, since "uncomfortable" is an emotional state that evolved to prompt action in the person feeling uncomfortable.

Religion + speech -> Uncomfortableness in others -> Action by those others in the direction the speaker is prompting (or so the speaker hopes)


Sounds like it's working as intended. What's the problem again?

Oh, we want to silence people with whom we feel uncomfortable when they open their mouths.

Well, do you want free speech or not? It's stunning how many people pay lip service to free speech, but then mentally twist their minds in a knot trying to figure out a way to silence speech with which they disagree (which, of course, is the important function of the right to speech. The freedom to agree with those in power, which is to say, those with armies and police with weapons, has never been an issue in the most totalitarian of societies.)

Do not fantasize to ease your own twisted knot mind that this is about stopping "disturbing the peace" or "stirring up a mob" or whatnot. People, foolish as they are, reserve the right to call every single thing that every single other person who ever lived did "a horrible, sickening, disgusting, Hell-bound thing."

The only thing worse than that (look it up historically) is the power to silence it. Piles of bodies literally, not figuratively, remember that, literally higher than the World Trade Center was tall, even double-stacked, are built on the notion it's OK to silence opinions with which you disagree.

Freedoms were forged in the crucible of taking power away from those who would limit freedom to maintain their own power. Now realize that silencing religious opinions as "hate speech" is playing exactly that game, in the wrong direction. Politicians seeking to maintain power are leading masses on "anti-hate speech" campaigns -- for the purpose of maintaining their own power.

Meh, I wash my hand of this flarkin' planet. I want my money back.

 

[Beerina]

This is why religious groups should not be allowed to hold meetings in publicly-funded areas. Why can't they just go to their church if they want to do religious crap?

Amreican society has been through this before. Part of the "Reagan Revolution" was a revulsion of the general populace to Supreme Court rulings that, say, schools must let Nazis rent rooms, but cannot let churches rent rooms for Sunday school because even renting the rooms at the same price as they do to any other organization was not sufficient "separation of church and state."

Well.

The populace begs to differ.

 

[Beerina]

They have all the right in the world to spew their filth, I just wouldn't want them to do it with my share of money the government confiscates from me.

Of course, the correct solution is to not let the government confiscate money from you in the first place. In this manner, they cannot use it for things you do not like, for the purpose of gaining and maintaining their own power to, among other things, take still more money from you.

 

[pgwenthold]

Amreican society has been through this before. Part of the "Reagan Revolution" was a revulsion of the general populace to Supreme Court rulings that, say, schools must let Nazis rent rooms, but cannot let churches rent rooms for Sunday school because even renting the rooms at the same price as they do to any other organization was not sufficient "separation of church and state."

Well.

The populace begs to differ.

You call it the "Reagan Revolution." I call it the "Reagan Strawman."

Or maybe even the fabrication.

I tend to question the validity of these so-called outrageous acts. Almost invariably, if you look at the full story, there is much more to it than offered.

It's the old Bill OReilly "the school has outlawed Santa Claus" nonsense.

Yeah, I'm sure there have been schools that have gone too far, but until I see the details behind the story, I am not going to trust the rantings of the religious claiming persecution.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater...

Just because you shout "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't mean that everyone around you is going to believe you. Even if something unfortunete did happen, well.... too bad so sad. It's never worth government squashing free speech of individuals.

...or making threats against someones life...

Again, threats do no harm. It's the ACTION that does. Punish the action, not the speech.

...or publicly broadcasting the USA's nuclear launch codes...

Paranoid, aren't we? If the US government is too inept to kept it's launch codes secret, then we deserve to get nuked.

Or showing hard core porn to pre-school children?

I'm sorry you're such an anti-sex prude, but I would prefer kids watch porn than what passes for children's entertainment these days. They're going to have to learn sex sometime, so they might as well get over with earlyand be taught by those who know how to f--k.

I don't believe that there is anyone who seriously believes that there should be no limits on speech.

I used to believe that there was anyone condescending and arrogant enough to believe that government needs to treat all adults like mentally retarded children and protect them from words.

Then I read brodski's post.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Just because you shout "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't mean that everyone around you is going to believe you. Even if something unfortunete did happen, well.... too bad so sad. It's never worth government squashing free speech of individuals.

In this case, why not?

What dire consequences follow if people are not allowed to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater?

 

[brodski]

Just because you shout "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't mean that everyone around you is going to believe you. Even if something unfortunete did happen, well.... too bad so sad. It's never worth government squashing free speech of individuals.

yes it is, that particular speech does direct harm for no perceivable benefit. Should we also do away with all advertising standards, hey because if people are stupid enough to believe the claims, well that's there fault?

Again, threats do no harm. It's the ACTION that does. Punish the action, not the speech.

Would you be fine if there was leaflet campaign in your neighborhood proclaiming that you where a violent pedophile? Complete with name, home address photographs and the name of your employer?
Would you defend my right to absolute free speech there.
words can do harm, or which is why there are laws on libel and slander (amongst other things). Making credible threats (which are just WORDS can cause direct harm)

Paranoid, aren't we? If the US government is too inept to kept it's launch codes secret, then we deserve to get nuked.

so if a government employee decides to sell nuclear secretes, thats OK? Its only words after all.

I'm sorry you're such an anti-sex prude, but I would prefer kids watch porn than what passes for children's entertainment these days. They're going to have to learn sex sometime, so they might as well get over with earlyand be taught by those who know how to f--k.

This has to win the post for the most stupid post of the day. Thanks for the new .sig.

I used to believe that there was anyone condescending and arrogant enough to believe that government needs to treat all adults like mentally retarded children and protect them from words.

Then I read brodski's post.

If this is the first time you have heard these arguments, you really don't get out much do you?

 

[I'll_buy_that]

It's funny, Christians get so po'd when the ACLU swoops in to defend the bill of rights, but a group like The Alliance Defense Fund can go around saying that they are spreading "Truth" blah blah blah.

Getting back to my original post, i'm pissed that my tax dollars are going to be spent defending against this group that has no other reason to be here. I think a school has every right to make the environment non threatening for its students. They should be challenged, yes, but this isn't a threat against Christians, they just don't want the hate speach in the school.

If these kids want to open a chapter of the god hates fags club, then go ahead, just not on my tax dollars.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's my opinion that public schools should only be used for academic reasons. Academic clubs should be allowed, non-academic clubs should not.

 

[Nex]

It's my opinion that public schools should only be used for academic reasons. Academic clubs should be allowed, non-academic clubs should not.

So an Intelligent Design Club would be academic... or not?

 

[drkitten]

It's my opinion that public schools should only be used for academic reasons. Academic clubs should be allowed, non-academic clubs should not.

This seems to introduce more problems than it solves.

As I read this, this would allow a Theology Club or even a Biblical Study Club, while excluding the football team.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The football team is part of the school, it's an actual school function. Theology club or Bible study club would be ok, as long as they allow people of all religions to participate and they don't preach the religions but study their histories and such. In otherwords, a public school should not be a place for people to preach religion or hate.