freedom of speech vs hate speech

Mar 25, 2007 at 9:31 PM
6 comments

I was surprised to hear about the students suing their school to prove their right to wear anti-gay shirts in that school. I must not be as aware of what is going on as I should be.

To me, it seems simple. Students that wear pro-equal-rights or pro-gay ads/campaigns/clothing in their school are carrying out their freedom of expression and speech in a public government-controlled space, and it is not harming others, though it may offend the beliefs of some. However, on the opposite side, students that wear anti-gay slogans are participating in hate speech and directly attacking gay individuals, not their beliefs. They could even be inciting more hate.

The difference between the two seems obvious, to me. Why the confusion?

I hope the Daily Show covers this topic this week!

6 comments

Tags:

Comments

Wow, very interesting (in the, this shouldn't even be an issue sort of way). and absurd. But it seems lately the line between freedom of speech and hate speech has been blurry and no one seems to know when they're crossing it anymore. These days I can't decide if we've all lost our common courtesy an politeness or if we're all too sensitive and politically correct.

It's a high school, not a street-corner -- there's no "freedom of speech" in a public school, other than what the school rules allow (which are generally determined by the school board, parent-teacher association, and so forth). If the students, or their parents, don't like the rules, they can work with the school board to get them changed, or they can stick their kids in a private school where the parents' wishes are generally obeyed since they're the ones paying the tab directly, rather than the taxpayers in general.

I'm also pretty sure that the overall reasonableness of the students has something to do with what they're allowed to wear. My 14-year-old probably gets away with wearing clothes with "iffy" messages (such as a t-shirt that says "Question Monogamy," or another one that says, "Admit it, you'd go to jail for this") to school without comment a lot more than some kids would, because my kid isn't a discipline problem.

I suspect there might be another psychology going on here which may not be related to hate. Such school "events" are really propaganda events using a mixture of authority and group pressure. No matter how good the message students still feel the thought control of authority coming down on them and they resent it. When that happens here (about once a year) the public school usually sends around a permission slip that the parents have to sign in order for the kids to attend. Still I always give my kids the option of staying home but my daughter does not want to be "different".

Since I am anti-authoriarian by nature my first instinct would be to wear an opposing T-Shirt also. Strange but I don't remember having to decide about these things as a teenager ... you know in the olden days ... before video players :).

But like CosmicBabe said schools have broad authority to impose rules as long as they are related to keeping order so this suit would seem to have a high probability of being dismissed before any trial.

[this is good]

I can understand that schools are places of learning and are permitted to make rules to facilitate that (by keeping the peace and stifling debate, or by encouraging discussion and maturity... I prefer the second). But I don't see that the right of schools to do that should include the ability to break the law.

And that gets back to the idea of hate speech.

My NSLP mentioned in comment to this post in my LJ:

"But, wearing pro-choice stuff *could also* be looked at as promoting more violence and hate toward abortion workers. It's all relative. That is why I am not behind the concept of a "hate crime"- it seems discriminating to assign motive to one particular set of behaviors and not to others."

So, should anti-gay speech be allowed? I view it as hate speech. And I think *that* is what the fundies are trying to get the Supreme Court to rule on... either that hate speech is impossible in a land of free speech, or to otherwise redefine the definition of what it means to be 'hate speech'.

What do you think?

Hmm, this is going to make my head hurt ;). I view hate crimes as simply another form of pre-meditation as in premeditated murder. There is something particularly evil and sinister when some one plans to harm some one out of hate. Such a criminal is obviously a greater threat to society than a similar crime done by accident or in a moment of anger.

As for speech, anti-gay speech should be allowed within limits just as anti-fundie speech is allowed. Suppression of any speech simply forces those having those thoughts into going underground until they surface with acts of violence. Only when anti-gay speech becomes threatening (as in overt statements of intended killings) is when the state needs to step in.

Evolutionary change due to free speech may seem slow but it is preferable to revolutionary change with all the violence and destruction that implies. Changing hearts and minds takes time.

When I was young I remember a wise old newsman (Eric Severied) saying that when he was young he thought societies were like construction structures in that they could be easily changed. Now he thought they were more like fabrics, easily ripped and destroyed if change came too fast.

:) Thanks for putting up with a hurtful head and banging this one out!

Incidentally, last night on the latest law & order svu a lawyer claimed that insinuating to a christian that they were going to hell was more torturous and threatening than actual real torture. Bizarro!

freedom of speech vs hate speech

Comments

Post a comment

About Me

Must reads,

My Groups

Tags

My Goodreads