Student in trouble for using the word "gay"

[Meg 368]

What is wrong with being expected to show some basic manners?    Randomly insulting other people is just plain rude.

[david1314 44]

Ok, first off, black and gay are both adjectives, so linguisticly, they're the same. Black and gay are both adopted by minorities and when properly used confere no ill-will. BOTH ARE USED IN A DERROGATORY FASHION in descriptions of things that are neither black (abscent of light) or gay (happy).

For example:

Black Heart, Blacklist, Blackmail.....black Africa (which has nothing to do with race)....

Black mark, black out....

That's gay, you're gay, gay-ass...

I'm not sure these words could be any more similar in a linguistic sence...obviously gay-africa has a slightly different connotation, so they certainly are different, but not by much.

Second, on the subject of 'African-American', 'anything-american'...is retarded. 10 years ago cjah would have been 'of hungarian descent'...it's no less stupid than a German-French community in france. "African American" is uniquely the only race that has to be qualified when identifying themselves as Americans. I'm sure we can all remember 5 1/2 years back all those horrifically annoying commercials after 9/11 "I am America...I am American, Ih Ahm Ahn Ah-mher-ihc-han...." with every race represented...yet 'they' are African American. My usage of 'African-American' above was just to show the PC dicotomy.

And the idea that any specific group of people (students, air travelers, etc.) would need a bill of rights in addition to the first 10 ammendments is stupid too. You only need those first 10, that's what they'er there for!

The actual meaning of the word had nothing to do with it. She obviously did not in fact mean that mormonism was homosexual, nor that teasing about mormonism is homosexual. It's quite obvious, there was no reference to sexuality at all. Now, the most awful hate speech, like the largest gun, can do nothing if it's not loaded with something that means business.

And finally, I'm not sure where this idea got started, but having a certain trait does not give you the right to make categorical judgements on the usage of a word. (i.e. "I'm gay so I can use the word", is not valid). I'm not sure where this started, but I've got no pretense of representing all americans, or all whites, or all men based on the fact that I am one. Usage of a word should be blind; the disposition of an individual shouldn't influence their access to the first amendment.

[Gnargenox 6]

Can anyone think of any other human social behavior that has their own advocacy groups other than dope smokers and homosexuals? Why is it that people who practice taboo behavior are now considered to have "rights" different than normal people? Why are we so afraid that telling someone the way they act is not acceptable? The answer might be that we have no real issues to discuss. We are not worried about a Fascist government attempting widespread genocide. We are complacent and overly civilized. What ever happened to taking someone out behind the barn and giving them a "stern" talking to? Oh well, all I see in the future is that any and all social behavior must be accepted or face the consequences. When did it become a crime to insult someone? Was she using what is called "fighting words"?

 

The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky.

Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.

It was not until 50 years later In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Court considered the constitutionality of a St. Paul, Minn., ordinance that prohibited fighting words on the "basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The defendant was one of several teenagers to be charged with violating the ordinance after burning a cross on an African-American family's lawn. The Supreme Court determined that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it prohibited speech on the basis of its content. The majority reasoned that even if the ordinance reached only unprotected fighting words, the city still could not constitutionally regulate only certain types of fighting words on the basis of their content. By prohibiting not all fighting words but only those of a particularly offensive nature, the statute ran afoul of the Constitution.

Explaining that fighting words do not express any particular idea but are merely a mode of communicating other ideas, the Court warned that if government regulates the content of ideas, rather than the mode of delivery, the Court will strike down the regulation, even if only "unprotected" speech is affected.

In other words they are trying to control what the girl thinks, not what she says. That means the girl will probably win her case against the school for punisihing her for speaking her mind.

[spa 970]

Originally posted by: Gnargenox

Can anyone think of any other human social behavior that has their own advocacy groups other than dope smokers and homosexuals? Why is it that people who practice taboo behavior are now considered to have "rights" different than normal people? Why are we so afraid that telling someone the way they act is not acceptable? The answer might be that we have no real issues to discuss. We are not worried about a Fascist government attempting widespread genocide. We are complacent and overly civilized. What ever happened to taking someone out behind the barn and giving them a "stern" talking to? Oh well, all I see in the future is that any and all social behavior must be accepted or face the consequences. When did it become a crime to insult someone? Was she using what is called "fighting words"?

 

quote>

 

Another human social behaviour that has its own advocacy group? umm too many to count. Religions all have their own advocacy arms and the evangelicals have put them to effective use in the last American elections. As for taboo behaviour and rights different from normal people... well that's in the eye of the beholder. I hardly think that homosexuality is taboo. It doesn't harm anyone. I don't know why people care about things that don't effect them. As for extra rights, I wasn't aware that homosexuals had such an easy time of it. Must be nice to have the right not to be beaten up for who you are, be commonly discriminated against, called names because of who you are, think twice about how you behave in social situations and have to fight in court for the rights that straight people take for granted. Yep homosexuals sure have lots of special rights. I don't know why we aren't all gay. It's such a great deal.

[sc4portugal 10]

I dunno what's so bad about saying "gay"

[JanYpe 17]

I hardly think that homosexuality is taboo.quote>

That's great, but you alone don't decide what's taboo and what's not. A taboo is the result of social custom. Society as a whole decides what is considered taboo, and this can change over time. Homosexuality is not as taboo now as it was 50 years ago, but for a lot of people it still is taboo.

As for extra rights, I wasn't aware that homosexuals had such an easy time of it.quote>

That's not what he said is it? He was asking why gay people would have the right not to be insulted when others don't necessarily have that right. Others have already mentioned the problems of political correctness and pussyfooting around certain issues. People are afraid of being labeled biased or racist.

In other words they are trying to control what the girl thinks, not what she says. That means the girl will probably win her case against the school for punishing her for speaking her mind.quote>

You had an interesting post, but I disagree here. The school limits their students speech to what they believe to be acceptable in the small social group they bear responsibility for. They are trying to maintain a neutral atmosphere. This is not an issue of protected speech because this student is bound by the school rules, just like you don't have a right to free speech on this forum, because you are bound by and have agreed to the site rules.

[Gnargenox 6]

Many people would use the same argument for drug use. It's doesn't harm anyone. Future generations will legalize personal use. etc...

I wish I had a special law that said it was illegal to pick on me back in high school because of the length of my hair. I would feel so much better if the courts made people tolerate me. I wish I could get a job anywhere regardless of what the boss thought of my hair length. I think I need to form a Happy Hairy Hippie PAC.

Anyway, this is about free speech and thought control, not about the rights afforded based on sexual orientation. I have the right to wear long hair. You have the right to tease me. But no one has the right to harm someone. I don't think people can make the distinction between "who you are" and behavior or between fighting words and free speech. That's why this is such an issue.

 Hmmm JanYpe, yes, I think that because it is in a "controlled environment", it will play apart in her case, but should it really? How far will it go? Screamingman12 said it best

(oh yeah, you automatically relinquish your constitutional rights when you go to school) quote>

That is what is wrong and at stake here. Not the right to be gay.

[Camaron 1]

Well I am not a fan of people using the word "gay" as an insult either, though there are very few attempts to stamp it out around here, even the head boy uses it at my school! IMO the school had the right to do what they did, even if it was a little over zealous. If I was in the girls or her parents position I would take a lesson from it and move on, not take legal action.

[david1314 44]

People, publicly funded schools do not have any authority over an individual. Period.

This is the US, any entity receiving federal funding (i.e. education) is subject to the constitutional oversight thereof.

It doesn't matter if she was in school, in a movie theater, or screaming in time square. Regardless of the context of the word, there was nothing wrong with her saying it, and there was wrong done for diciplining her.

"That's gay" is a rather acceptable dismissive comment. It allows her to sidestep the touchy subject of her religion without having to offer a combative response. It wasn't only not wrong, it was probably a good way to handle the situation. Supposing she had said something like "you ass-holes! F-you for insulting my religion"...then they'd of beaten her for being mormon, and we really would have a hate-crime situation on our hands...

But in light of the fact there was little she could have said that would have handled the situation better than an inert dismissal, I see she's done nothing wrong. Therefore, having done nothing wrong, the school (fed. funded) was wrong to punish her, and is now rightly being overseen by the courts.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: david1314 

People, publicly funded schools do not have any authority over an individual. Period.

quote>

Hmm . . . if that were true, the schools would be complete and total chaos.  Schools can, and should, take measures to deal with rowdy and disruptive people.  Not calling his girl rowdy and disruptive; just pointing out that schools do have the authority to maintain some degree of order or no one would learn anything.

This is the US, any entity receiving federal funding (i.e. education) is subject to the constitutional oversight thereof. quote>

Well, yes, but not in the way you seem to be implying.  The military, for example, receives federal funding but the average soldier has fewer "rights" than the rest of us.   Just ask anyone in basic training what his drill sergeant thinks of "free speech".  

There are many examples of people being paid with government funds who don't have "free speech" about what they do.  Ask any government employee who doesn't have the authority to speak on behalf of their agency.  This is needed to get the job done.  Do you really want the accountants working for the CIA talking about who is traveling where?  or am I not understanding your point?

It doesn't matter if she was in school, in a movie theater, or screaming in time square. Regardless of the context of the word, there was nothing wrong with her saying it, and there was wrong done for diciplining her.quote>

Actually, it has been ruled that the right to free speech does not extend to the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.  So, yes, the context and speech do matter.

"That's gay" is a rather acceptable dismissive comment. quote>

Acceptable to whom?  I don't know any adult who talks like that.  and half the kids I know think it's a stupid thing to say.   

Back when I was in school the phrase "That's white of you" was popular.  For obvious reasons, it is no longer in use.  (at least I haven't heard it for a few decades now.)  and the difference here is what exactly?

It allows her to sidestep the touchy subject of her religion without having to offer a combative response. It wasn't only not wrong, it was probably a good way to handle the situation. quote>

Obviously there are those who consider it to be a combative response or things wouldn't be where they are.

Supposing she had said something like "you ass-holes! F-you for insulting my religion"...then they'd of beaten her for being mormon, and we really would have a hate-crime situation on our hands...quote>

Yes, that would have been bad.

But in light of the fact there was little she could have said that would have handled the situation better than an inert dismissal, I see she's done nothing wrong. quote>

 

Actually, there is a variety of things she could have said.  I don't know whether this girl's parents are polygamists or not.  Odds are good they are not since the mainstream Mormon church abandoned the practice when Utah became a state over 100 years ago.  

But there are still many non-mainstream families who engage in the practice.  Some say they will be the next group to come "out of the closet", so to speak.  But I digress . . .

Therefore, having done nothing wrong, the school (fed. funded) was wrong to punish her, and is now rightly being overseen by the courts.quote>

 

She violated the school's policy.  I agree it's a bit of a double standard that the people razzing her weren't also disciplined so I can see how she could feel it was unfair.  But I don't see why it's a big deal that she has a note in her file for making a disparging comment.

[ExiL3 10]

david1314:

Ok, first off, black and gay are both adjectives, so linguisticly, they're the same. Black and gay are both adopted by minorities and when properly used confere no ill-will. BOTH ARE USED IN A DERROGATORY FASHION in descriptions of things that are neither black (abscent of light) or gay (happy).

For example:

Black Heart, Blacklist, Blackmail.....black Africa (which has nothing to do with race)....

Black mark, black out....

That's gay, you're gay, gay-ass...

I'm not sure these words could be any more similar in a linguistic sence...obviously gay-africa has a slightly different connotation, so they certainly are different, but not by much.

Second, on the subject of 'African-American', 'anything-american'...is retarded. 10 years ago cjah would have been 'of hungarian descent'...it's no less stupid than a German-French community in france. "African American" is uniquely the only race that has to be qualified when identifying themselves as Americans. I'm sure we can all remember 5 1/2 years back all those horrifically annoying commercials after 9/11 "I am America...I am American, Ih Ahm Ahn Ah-mher-ihc-han...." with every race represented...yet 'they' are African American. My usage of 'African-American' above was just to show the PC dicotomy.

And the idea that any specific group of people (students, air travelers, etc.) would need a bill of rights in addition to the first 10 ammendments is stupid too. You only need those first 10, that's what they'er there for!

The actual meaning of the word had nothing to do with it. She obviously did not in fact mean that mormonism was homosexual, nor that teasing about mormonism is homosexual. It's quite obvious, there was no reference to sexuality at all. Now, the most awful hate speech, like the largest gun, can do nothing if it's not loaded with something that means business.

And finally, I'm not sure where this idea got started, but having a certain trait does not give you the right to make categorical judgements on the usage of a word. (i.e. "I'm gay so I can use the word", is not valid). I'm not sure where this started, but I've got no pretense of representing all americans, or all whites, or all men based on the fact that I am one. Usage of a word should be blind; the disposition of an individual shouldn't influence their access to the first amendment.

quote>

I think I love you dude... (not in a homosexual way, but I was just about to say the same thing and found out you explained it perfectly).

I want to ask though, in fear of starting something a tad off topic, but why do black Americans call them selves afro-American. I have never heard a black Norwegian call him(or her) self afro-Norwegian!? So white people in the US, do they call themselves Caucasian-American? I certainly don't call my self Caucasian- Norwegian, neither do I call my black friend Afro-Norwegian. He is black, I am white (or dark skinned, and white as a soccer pole). I just find it so hypocritical...

Also I have seen forms in the US where you must write down your "race". I always find that amusing, have anyone tried writing down, Human...?

Even dogs don't differ in race just because they have a bit different color.

take care,

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: david1314 

People, publicly funded schools do not have any authority over an individual. Period.

quote>

Hmm . . . if that were true, the schools would be complete and total chaos.  Schools can, and should, take measures to deal with rowdy and disruptive people.  Not calling his girl rowdy and disruptive; just pointing out that schools do have the authority to maintain some degree of order or no one would learn anything.quote>

In a legal sense...no they have none.  The students and parents very very rarely are legally required to submit to school authority.  Any thought of school supremacy of authority brings up notions of Dred Scot and the like. *shutters*

Well, yes, but not in the way you seem to be implying.  The military, for example, receives federal funding but the average soldier has fewer "rights" than the rest of us.   Just ask anyone in basic training what his drill sergeant thinks of "free speech".  

There are many examples of people being paid with government funds who don't have "free speech" about what they do.  Ask any government employee who doesn't have the authority to speak on behalf of their agency.  This is needed to get the job done.  Do you really want the accountants working for the CIA talking about who is traveling where?  or am I not understanding your point?quote>

No, you understood my point.  National Secrets and the Military are specifically addressed in the constitution.  Education is not.  As such it has congressional and federal oversight in accordance with the legislative article of the constitution.  So why you've pointed out two very good exceptions, they're of the few that the founding fathers also pointed out as exceptions to the rules.

It doesn't matter if she was in school, in a movie theater, or screaming in time square. Regardless of the context of the word, there was nothing wrong with her saying it, and there was wrong done for diciplining her.quote>

Actually, it has been ruled that the right to free speech does not extend to the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.  So, yes, the context and speech do matter.quote>

Are you implying that her statements caused a public danger tantamount to screaming fire in a movie theater?  Of course your not, and my statements were only insofar as it applies to the matter at hand.   So abuses of free speech seem a bit moot in this discussion, dont they?

"That's gay" is a rather acceptable dismissive comment.quote>

Acceptable to whom?  I don't know any adult who talks like that.  and half the kids I know think it's a stupid thing to say.  

Back when I was in school the phrase "That's white of you" was popular.  For obvious reasons, it is no longer in use.  (at least I haven't heard it for a few decades now.)  and the difference here is what exactly?quote>

We're talking about a 14 year old girl with (presumably) less than fully developped social skills...I know we're taught to say "I'd rather smoke you on the B-Ball court" a year earlier in 8th grade health class, but I think a legal expectation of a student to be able to deal with a potentially deep touchy issue in a 'mature' fashion is a bit outrageous...don't you?

And in light of this, two words, be they 'f-that', 'that's stupid', 'that's retarded', etc. to avoid a confrontation is totally reasonable.  Ensuring future students are allowed to be dismissive in a similar fashion is good reason to take legal action.  The school acted wholy in the wrong.

Obviously there are those who consider it to be a combative response or things wouldn't be where they are.quote>

No...I've never heard of anyone ever getting beaten up by someone saying 'That's gay'...but it does sound like a good plot-line for a national-inquirer story, or a Family Guy allusion.

I don't think at a gay pride rally someone would even take the time of day to correct you if you called something gay in the manner this girl did.

Do you realize how absurde it sounds that those words are combative?

Actually, there is a variety of things she could have said.  I don't know whether this girl's parents are polygamists or not.  Odds are good they are not since the mainstream Mormon church abandoned the practice when Utah became a state over 100 years ago.  quote>

Yup, and they would all return the same result as 'That's gay'....you might even say 'That's gay' is one of those items in the 'variety of things' she could have said.

She violated the school's policy.  I agree it's a bit of a double standard that the people razzing her weren't also disciplined so I can see how she could feel it was unfair.  But I don't see why it's a big deal that she has a note in her file for making a disparging comment.quote>

see my above comment about being dismissive to people....

And think of the can of worms opened if it's all of a sudden ok to dicipline a child every time they make reference to a potential insinuation to a category of people....THAT'S white.

Edit:  @ ExiL3:  The afro-american is just a different way of saying it.  like Eurocentric or Anglo-saxon...it's just easier than saying European centric or Anglican Saxon.  As such its been adopted as a linguistic rule, making it just a matter of preference.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: ExiL3 

I want to ask though, in fear of starting something a tad off topic, but why do black Americans call them selves afro-American. I have never heard a black Norwegian call him(or her) self afro-Norwegian!? So white people in the US, do they call themselves Caucasian-American?

 quote>

 

Some might use the term "Italian-American" or whatever the case may be but most of us are mongrels like zelgadis and don't bother.

Originally posted by: david1314 

In a legal sense...no they have none.  The students and parents very very rarely are legally required to submit to school authority.  Any thought of school supremacy of authority brings up notions of Dred Scot and the like. *shutters* quote>

I imagine it varies by state, exactly what authority school officials have.  For instance, there was a time when, in certain states, school principals legally had the authority to paddle students.

Are you implying that her statements caused a public danger tantamount to screaming fire in a movie theater?  Of course your not, and my statements were only insofar as it applies to the matter at hand.   So abuses of free speech seem a bit moot in this discussion, dont they? quote>

 

Actually, I thought this discussion was about abuses of free speech.   Or is it another first amendment right that her parents are refering to? 

We're talking about a 14 year old girl with (presumably) less than fully developped social skills...I know we're taught to say "I'd rather smoke you on the B-Ball court" a year earlier in 8th grade health class, but I think a legal expectation of a student to be able to deal with a potentially deep touchy issue in a 'mature' fashion is a bit outrageous...don't you? quote>

Outrageous that 14 year olds might be expected to speak in a semi-polite manner?  I agree that this whole thing is a bit overblown but everyone, including children, have been expected to mind their manners for centuries, except for the last 40 years or so.

Do you realize how absurde it sounds that those words are combative? quote>

Perhaps "offensive" would be a better word than "combative".

see my above comment about being dismissive to people.... quote>

I don't think anyone is trying to restrict a student's ability to be dismissive to a silly comment; just to restrict insults.

And think of the can of worms opened if it's all of a sudden ok to dicipline a child every time they make reference to a potential insinuation to a category of people quote>

It isn't "all of a sudden ok".  Back when I was in school, we would get in trouble for making disparaging remarks about a group of people.  It's still happening today; what's the big deal?

[Goldfish4209 9]

If gay is suddenly illeagal, why not go to court over all the other words they could say? So a girl says gay. IMO the 2 girls across the hall calling each other whores is alot more emotionally damaging.

[david1314 44]

I imagine it varies by state, exactly what authority school officials have. For instance, there was a time when, in certain states, school principals legally had the authority to paddle students.quote>

My bold above

Yes, there was. Times have changed. Welcome to liberalism

Outrageous that 14 year olds might be expected to speak in a semi-polite manner? I agree that this whole thing is a bit overblown but everyone, including children, have been expected to mind their manners for centuries, except for the last 40 years or so.quote>

Expectations and diciplinary action are not the same thing. When considering this in a school admin or legal perspective, expecting a 14 year old to speak in any specific manner is short sighted. When dicipline comes into the question...

And again, yeah, it was the expectation until about 40 years ago...unfortunatly, last I checked, we're inside of that 40 years...so obselete notions of dicipline (or 'classical conditioning', if you will) aren't particularly relevant.

Perhaps "offensive" would be a better word than "combative".quote>

Who's offended. I'd be hard pressed to think of a more acceptable term than 'gay' for refering to homosexuals (except homosexuals, but that flows about as well in conversation as it would refering to people as homosapians).

Back when I was in school the phrase "That's white of you" was popular.quote>

It isn't "all of a sudden ok". Back when I was in school, we would get in trouble for making disparaging remarks about a group of people.quote>

Clearly.

It's still happening today; what's the big deal?quote>

That it is still happening and the world hasn't ended. It's obviously hurting no one. If a school in the face of legal action still wants to stand by their decision, they better have some pretty good contemporary precident to stand on...Again, I come back to the point, all facts aside, the school was in the wrong to dicipline the child and not remove the mark after what were reasonable requests by the parents. It's not like suzy came home from school and said she got in trouble and the next day an attack lawyer was filing suit with the Supreme court. Before a judge would even grant standing in this case, he would have examined the question of whether the reasonable process to get this removed in a non-legal environment had been followed. So, it's not just a big stink the parents are raising. Some dumb-ass school admin stood by their decision when they should have backed down, and now they're incapable of placing their own feet in their mouths (courtisey of pride) so the parents are having a court place their feet their for them. Why it's a big deal isn't important...the fact a thread is on page two on day one is a pretty good indicator it is in fact a big deal regardless of any de jure argument to the contrary.

[BlackStar 0]

Using 'gay' as a casual adjective has become commonplace in a lot of young people's conversation.

I really don't care to be honest. I don't find it offensive, but then I stand from a British suburbanite point of view. From where I stand, it seems political correctness in the US seems in a might higher priority than here. I know that it is incredibly easy to be thrown way up the legal ladder over pretty much nothing in the US... but I can't help but feel sorry for a lot of people as this does come at a time where society needs a scapegoat.

Maybe a lot of people are being excessively hard on this kid because equality is such a big thing right now. A more pessimistic person would call it the 'Media Hot Ticket'

I find a lot of parallels between this and the recent spotlight on the n-word in NYC. I get called stuff like, ----ng queen!, how are you, ya big gay? by gay mates and it really doesn't bother me.. but if it was a straight person using such terms I would find it offensive and a quick slap might be in order... it's really all just contextual.

I couldn't navigate far back enough to read full details, so therefore I don't know the context in which the supposed slander was used.. but these are just viewpoints I would like to throw in

John

[jt_144_2004 0]

OK what I dont understand, correct me if im wrong, Gay was an adopted word which was used with an every day meaning of happy or something nice but just because some1 decides to attach it to a something else using that same word for something bad is in no way offensive. In my opinion if a person wants to adapt a word to mean something else they can decide to do so but because one person wants to use gay in a different context as another person is in no way offensive. Some people need to lighten up and *shock* get a life. 

[BlackStar 0]

I suppose that was what I was stipulating, but you have just said it haha.

But that is the whole atmosphere of society at the moment...people sue, people take you to court, people go on about pretty much nothing. I got drug raped a while ago but the police weren't interested. But on the other hand, for 2 years I've been dragged through the courts for accidently denting someone's bumper without realising.

Eventually times will change and I accept that

As long as I stay clear from people who take political correctness too seriously, or people who spend too much on legal aid, I'm fine.

I think it's a laid back attitude a lot more people need to adopt.

EDIT: A lot of the English language these days is derivative, or changed by default. A perfect example would be the image of the Swastika.. it was a religious symbol, to the Christian church (I think), but is now accepted as the global de facto of hate.

[Voar Tok 4]

Should everyone be taught some basic manners and at least respect the fact that other people have differing opinions?  Yes.  Should the girl have said what she said?  No.  Is the school going overboard on this?  Yes.

IMHO, the political correctness era of America actually works to this girl's favor because while she was being directed targeted, her comment was intended for no one specific person.  The way that the First Amendment works with free speech would dictate that if anyone was the victim of hate speech, it would be the girl as she was targeted.

School officials say they took a strict stand against the put-down after two boys were paid to beat up a gay student the year before. "The district has a statutory duty to protect gay students from harassment," the district's lawyers argued in a legal brief.quote>

OK, that's perfectly acceptable, but what about everyone else?  I am a twin, and people rather regularly ask me if I am "the evil one."  Do you have a  statutory duty to protect me from that?

"In furtherance of this goal, prohibition of the phrase 'That's so gay' ... was a reasonable regulation."quote>

All that does is prove to me that we still live in a society where everything is patch-fixed.  It's OK until someone complains about it, and then, it's the end of the world.  If you want to actually protect the students from this kind of harassment, sit down and come up with encompassing guidelines that apply to all the students.

Again, should the girl have said what she said.  Absolutely not, as even if she may not have known the origin or meaning of the phrase, she's still responsible for her words.  On the other hand though, the school is acting kind of dumb too.

[spa 970]

Originally posted by: Gnargenox

Many people would use the same argument for drug use. It's doesn't harm anyone. Future generations will legalize personal use. etc...

I wish I had a special law that said it was illegal to pick on me back in high school because of the length of my hair. I would feel so much better if the courts made people tolerate me. I wish I could get a job anywhere regardless of what the boss thought of my hair length. I think I need to form a Happy Hairy Hippie PAC.

Anyway, this is about free speech and thought control, not about the rights afforded based on sexual orientation. I have the right to wear long hair. You have the right to tease me. But no one has the right to harm someone. I don't think people can make the distinction between "who you are" and behavior or between fighting words and free speech. That's why this is such an issue.

 Hmmm JanYpe, yes, I think that because it is in a "controlled environment", it will play apart in her case, but should it really? How far will it go? Screamingman12 said it best

(oh yeah, you automatically relinquish your constitutional rights when you go to school) quote>

That is what is wrong and at stake here. Not the right to be gay. quote>

 

Umm serious drug use, i.e. hard drugs, can't possibly be compared to two men having relations with one and other.... although I guess for some of the "I want to control what my neighbour does" crowd on the Christian right it may seem it. The difference is that drugs create all sorts of negative social effects that spread well beyond the realm of an individuals bedroom. Two people having a relationship can't possibly equate. Furthermore, drug use is a choice, being gay isn't. The proof is simple, why would so many people opt to be gay given all the negative social stigmas that come with it?

Gays don't want special rights and neither do most minorities. They just don't want to be stomped on all the time. Affirmative action may give minorities a leg up some of the time, but it's still a white males world. Recently researchers at a university in Ottawa (can't remember if it was U of O or Carleton) did an experiment with resumes. They took the same resume and changed the name at the top. One copy had a European males name the other a name of Middle Eastern descent. Identical resume but employers called the European version more than twice as often as the Middle Eastern version. Society still has a long way to go and dismissing minorities as whiners wanting special treatment won't solve anything.

In the fight to create a more equitable world, institutions like schools are key in setting the tone. The school is right not to tolerate the use of the word gay, or any other similar phrase, in a derogatory way. As others have pointed out, free speech isn't absolute. It comes with qualifiers.

EDIT: See the thing that is missing in the one sides examples is that gays are a historically disadvantaged group that have faced systematic discrimination. People with long hair and twins, on the other hand, not so much. When it's a group that has been and is still being oppressed it's a very different situation. As I said earlier, you wouldn't say that's so black or that's so white to mean bad now would you so why is it okay to use language to gay bash then?

[Filasimo 1]

since were on this subject i also want to point out what they want to pass in florida and this is getting to the point where any negative thing we say well get in trouble for it......thats gay u get in huge trouble. i can easily see it being offensive as mentioned in the above comments if it used in a derogatory term on a person but in light of things it was used as a slang as in that movie was gay that show was gay etc not referring to any human person. now if its used toward as a statement gays are bad bc they like guys then yes that is a derogatory statement and discipline should be done with. but what happened to her went to far and she should have had just got her parents called and other proper procedures such as that. i also want people's opinion on what they are doing in florida article here: http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/02/banning_the_term_illegal_alien.php     

IMO this is just as outright outrageous as the topic presented in this thread... it comes to a point if someone say thats retarded are they gonna take that as a punishable term bc they think ur referring to people with mental disabilities? or even if u say thats sick are they gonna think ur bantering down sick people? yes what the girl sed was rude but its not her fault perhaps she picked it up from her friends saying about some show that was gay so she thought it was ok to say it....it goes to that term monkey see monkey do.....

another thing also does it have to come to a point that we have to question geico's famous line "its so easy a caveman can do it."?

[DanWalker8 3]

my neighbor up the hall is as gay as they come, he doesn't take the least offence. Infact, he calls us gay and describes things as gay!

[Gnargenox 6]

drugs create all sorts of negative social effects that spread well beyond the realm of an individuals bedroom. quote>

Some people see recreational drug use or the drinking of alcohol as being non-harmful. I'm not saying that it is or is not harmful but some people see it that way and would use the argument as such. Otherwise prohibition would still be here today. Do you recall Mexico was very close to legalizing personal amounts of many different types of drugs? Some US states have already done so.

However, I understand the problem with using similes to prove a point. I hate it when people compare being in a multiracial relationship to being the same as a homosexual relationship. But there are similar problems that arise because they are both frowned upon. My girlfriend and I face many racist comments, stares, letting doors slam in our face etc... Sometimes she can't handle the way other black people stare at her. We know they don't approve but we both have learned to live with that. We've found black people disapprove more than white people even. Being called an N-lover might make me angry but should I call the cops for that? I don't think so.

Also, I have a friend from Saudi Arabia that learned to be a pilot here in America before 911. After that incident he basically had to leave the country, not forced to leave but simply couldn't find work. As you can imagine. He could have taken them all to court it just as this girl did. Some would say he wisely didn't.

Furthermore, drug use is a choice, being gay isn't. The proof is simple, why would so many people opt to be gay given all the negative social stigmas that come with it? quote>

Why would people opt to be gay in the face of social dis-like? Because personal choice is now valued to be more important than following social morays. Now it is popular to come out of the closet. They feel that how they act makes them a protected minority and that distinction gives them protection from any negativity, so they spread the word about their personal lives. It doesn't make them a protected minority. Until it is proven one way or the other that homosexuality is a choice or the same as eye color, something you can't change, then society will see it as a choice simply because we are rational beings. That sets humans apart from other animals which happen to also have shown homosexual behavior. And if it's genetic, then they will try to find a cure.

"Equitable world"? LOL Nobody said life is fair. There are no laws that say life must be fair. Laws can not control how people feel about other peoples behavior. The girl was simply being rude and crass. She wasn't actually causing harm. Having your feelings hurt is NOT being harmed. Nor is it discrimination. Putting negative marks in your transcripts is permanently damaging though. If schools are here to brainwash our children, private or home schooling will only become more popular.

As I said earlier, you wouldn't say that's so black or that's so white to mean bad now would you so why is it okay to use language to gay bash then? quote>

 

Ever hear of African-Engineering? Or see that movie White men can't jump?

[spa 970]

Originally posted by: Gnargenox

 And if it's genetic, then they will try to find a cure.

quote>

 

And that for me is the end of this internet agrument. Clearly we fundamentally disagree and further discussion is pointless. 

[david1314 44]

Wow.... that was a rather unsettling remark from Gnargenox....

Awfully arrogant to assume it's a disease to be gay under the condition it's genetic.

There is strong evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic mechanism to ensure species survival through seemingly insurmountable odds....the old 'nature will find a way' line from the first jurassic park.

It doesn't make them a protected minority.quote>

So what? It's open-season on they gays? Do you realize how bigotted that sounds? So you're willing to throw away the rights of others based on their inability to prove their innocence. How disgusting! How could anyone be so uneducated and arrogant to say the rights of others are public domain until they can prove their claim to it?

[sarcasm]Perhaps we should follow this logic and just execute the conservatives of the world (it's a choice!) and enjoy the tollerant aftermath. They'll get their rights in heaven.[/sarcasm]

Minorities of any sort aren't fair game just because their protection isn't codified in law. And, I must admit Gnargenox, your discussion went much deeper into homosexuality than anything on this thread, no one really sees the homosexuality (as opposed to context) as central to the issue but you...maybe you're hiding choosing something?

[GMT 389]

think it's quite a ridiculous story.

you know, it's basically the same thing like the discussion round the word n*gger.

among themselves, black people are using the word day in day out, but if a white man uses it, it's like the worst crime in history.

same with gay/lesbian...

among themselves they use the word over and over again, throw gay/lesbian parties, their cars showing off "proud to be gay/lesbian"-stickers, but if a hetro uses the word gay/lesbian, it's again like the worst crime in history.

how the hell could "outsiders" realize that it's a bad habbit to use these words, if the poeple ment by these words use them in their everyday language aswell?

I know many gays and lesbians, even my best friend is a lesbian, and I can tell one thing for sure:

They've NEVER spoken about themselves as homosexual (or whatever they wanna be called), but gay/lesbian all day long...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: ExiL3

I want to ask though, in fear of starting something a tad off topic, but why do black Americans call them selves afro-American. I have never heard a black Norwegian call him(or her) self afro-Norwegian!?quote>

It's part of the whole "America is a melting pot" thing. No other country is anywhere near as ethnically diverse as the US is (except maybe Canada), so anywhere else you're one thing and that describes just about anyone there. But an "American" could be from any historical heritage, so the native land term is used to distinguish.

So white people in the US, do they call themselves Caucasian-American?quote>

Absolutely not. Most people find the "x-american" terminology silly and don't use it. I myself would say I'm "white", as would most other light skinned people here. Trouble is, "white" and "black" are terms historically used during Jim Crow days. As such, they end up with racist undertones to them, which most people readily ignore, but due to political correctness, new terms without those undertones are invented and used on official documents and in politics. Hence the term "Caucasian". What I don't like about that term is that I, like most white people, am not actually from Caucasus... so considering myself Caucasian doesn't make sense. "White" remains the common term because it's a sort of cover-all term for any light skinned people. Because the trouble is there isn't really a single place associated with the heratige of white people. "European" doesn't work since Hispanics are also from Europe, leaving you with having to either classify races of "British", "French", "German", "Italian", "Polish", "Russian", etc. or just say "white" and be done with it.

I guess "Caucasian" was just an up for grabs term since most (actual) Caucasian people would consider themselves Russian... though the fact that most of Caucasus is no longer actually part of Russia but instead the former soviet republics of Georgia, Azerbijan, and Armenia complicates that....

Also I have seen forms in the US where you must write down your "race". I always find that amusing, have anyone tried writing down, Human...?quote>

Well, "race" is admittedly a somewhat ambiguous word. Scientifically "subspecies" would probably make more sense, but in reality we usually like to think of ourselves as something more than animals (which biologically we aren't), and the word "species" carries the conotation of talking about animals... so most people wouldn't want to consider themselves part of a "subspecies" of humans. Especially since the prefix "sub" implies inferiority, though it's really only inferiority in the size of the group the term refers to.

Even dogs don't differ in race just because they have a bit different color. quote>

Yes, but I don't think a lot of people would like to be considered part of a certain "breed" of humans, either.

----------------------------------------------------------

Now, part of the trouble is that while gay marriage is often compared to desegregation and women's suffrage, there's a key difference in that  nobody doubts that women had no choice about being women and black people had no choice about being black, but  a lot of people today question whether gay people are just that way by nature or whether it's a choice.

Religion is the big contributor here, since most religions frown on homosexuality, and as such for a lot of religious people it's convenient for them to believe it's a choice since if it wasn't, it would weaken their arguments against it. Simple human nature of wanting to bend the truth to your liking. I dare you to find an evangelical that says homosexuality isn't a choice, or a gay rights activist who says it is.

Because since there's no proof either way, people will simply believe whats in the better interest of their already existing opinions.

remember, the easiest lie to tell is the one people want to believe.

[vlad755 0]

although I guess for some of the "I want to control what my neighbour does" crowd on the Christian right it may seem it.

Gays don't want special rights and neither do most minorities. They just don't want to be stomped on all the time. quote>

That is rich- let us examine some facts now, shall we?  "...control what my neighbor does..." that would be: who controls my money by raising my taxes?  -Liberals.  Who controls which college I attend by quotas?  -Liberals.  Who controls what job I have through affirmative action and minority set-asides?  -Liberals.  Who controls where I may buy a house by "smart-growth" (which are neither smart or allow growth) initiatives?  -Liberals.  Who controls what kind of toilets I may purchase to put into the house I wish to buy -why liberals of course with the revolutionary .2 milliliter eco-toilet ordinance -otherwise known as the "double flush" (or for those of us who appreciate cheese, the "triple flush"... but I digress...)  As a side note, one area I give the Canadians props for are that fact they have not outlawed real toilets like they have here in the U.S.

Anyway, to get this back on topic since I veered way off, I find it ironic that she (a Mormon which in Liberals worldview are the hand-maidens of Satan- see the treatment Romney, Cox* et al receive(d) in the "main-stream" press) whereas the little darlings that accused her of having ten mothers receive nary a slap on the wrist.  Just proves yet again that if you do something wrong against the left, there will be hell to pay, but if you say something that is within their worldview, i.e. Mormons-polygamy, that is okay.

And another thing with your second phrase quoted up there: substitute "Gays" and "minorities" with "Evangelicals" and you would also have a proper statement.  I am not an evangelist, but I am Catholic and even I am sick and tired of the Lefts' treatments of Evangelicals.  Only the left would consider desecration of a religious symbols art- elephant dung on the Virgin Mary is considered art in NYC.

*Lt. gubernatorial candidate this past election in Maryland

[hawkpride147 1]

something that the world...especially america...tends to forget. words are constantly changing meaning. we have a living language meaning that things are constantly changing. if things are constantly changing, it is up to you whether you allow something to be offensive or vulgar. i mean if we just dismissed all words currently used in an offensive or vulgar sense as stupid (btw stupid used to refer to mental retardationas did idiot) and pointless, then there would be no more offensive or vulgar words. words are what you make of them. in a cartoon here in the US called recess, a kid invented a word. someone on the cartoon heard him use the word and said it was offensive and banned him and all his friends from using it. they took it to their school board for a hearing and presented their case that words are what you make of them. they obviously won or the episode would have been no good. point is this, people get offended too easily by things that shouldnt offend them. i've said it before on here and i'll say it again. it doesnt matter what you say, someone somewhere will be offended by it.

[kibblewitbit 0]

this whole argument is bull everybody here probably uses the word, if not regularly, it doesnt mean we think gays are inferior or anything like that. here in canada (bc) politically correcty liberal activists have advocated for a special course about the gay community and gay rights etc. to be taught in high school and i believe the plan is going forward.

if you think canada isnt nearly as politically correctly obessed as america think again.

a canadian fire department is now ONLY hiring new recruits that are either visible minorities or women and discriminating against white males to make the force look more diverse and multicultural but thats a whole different story

please excuse any spelling/ grammar mistakes