Massachusetts school can in fact ban 'there are only two genders' T-shirt, federal appeals court rules
Massachusetts school can in fact ban 'there are only two genders' T-shirt, federal appeals court rules
Protecting LGBTQ+ students from discrimination overrides free speech considerations, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
You're viewing a single thread.
I admit, I'm a bit conflicted by this. On the one hand, it's kind of a dumb thing to put on a t-shirt, and seems to be a message that is only meant to trigger queer people. On the other hand, though, doesn't he have a right to express himself? Is simply viewing a dumb slogan enough to cause enough distress that the slogan needs to be banned, on its own, without any other provocative action on the part of the student? (I admit that a student who thinks a shirt like this is OK might do other provocative things, but the article doesn't mention any).
Let's think about things that might merit a ban at school. A shirt with a swastika on it would qualify, even though the symbol has been around for centuries before the Nazis appropriated it, because the Nazis were so abhorrent that they ruined that symbol, like everything else they touched.
But, what about an athiest edgelord who decided to wear a "God is a lie" shirt? Or even a hockey-themed "Jesus Saves, Satan scores on the rebound!" Both of those shirts relate beliefs that are objectionable to certain Christians, and may cause them distress. Should the school ban those as well?
(And does it make a difference if the hockey shirt has a picture of Miroslav Šatan scoring that goal?)
If you wore a shirt that says “there is no god” you would likely be sent home. It’s antagonistic, regardless of how you feel on the issue.
I know if I was a 7th grader and this stupid little shit and his dickhead friends wore this into class, I would feel it was equally antagonistic, except far worse because it seeks to upset a minority that is already going through the wringer.
It runs contrary to the purpose of a school, which is to educate. Your other examples are more of a case-by-case thing, but if a Christian student said they were offended by that shirt, then the student might be asked to not wear it in the future.
Excellent illustrative points:-).
It is not enough to do the right thing - it also must be done in the right way, or it becomes the wrong thing.
He does have a right to express himself... up to a point. That point is when it crosses over to affect someone else, in a harmful way - e.g. yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a well-known exception to the Freedom of Speech.
If we are authoritarians, then we ask what the content was that caused the response - if we agree i.e. it was directed at the "other side" then we allow it, if we disagree then suddenly it is labelled "wrong". Similarly, look to the King to see if a joke was "funny" or not, etc. Hypocrisy is baked right into the system, by design.
But if we are liberals, then we ask whether the content harmed someone, period, regardless of the directionality, and label it permissible or not based solely on that. "Fair" is not just a word used to attempt to get our way here, but meant genuinely as in a goal worth enormous amounts of effort to strive for.
It gets slightly complicated b/c some that work forces burn crosses (claim to be authoritarian but are actually subversively opposing of the Will of The People) while some that march likewise merely claim to be liberal but actually uphold authoritarian principles, and anyway we all are guilty of something, somewhere, on a bad day, but the above is the theory as best as I understand it at least.
I think where points of view tend to diverge is in the definition of "harm." There's also some team sports at play, for sure, but I do think a big part of it is "harm."
See, a devout Christian might say that an atheist T-shirt encourages children to turn away from God, endangering their immortal souls. If you truly believe in Christianity, can there be any greater harm?
At the same time, people who are more conservative tend to not view psychological effects as valid. If you do something that causes a person mental anguish, as opposed to damaging their body, property, or potentially their immortal soul, then it's imaginary harm. To be totally honest, though, that's one area I tend to be almost conservative. Psychological harm IS real harm, but I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting people from it because as long as people have differing views there's simply no way to protect people equally.
I don't know if I agree, and I don't know that I don't, but either way I'm upvoting bc I am glad to be offered this to mull over - social media done right!:-)
Yelling fire in almost any circumstances isn't illegal. The current basis of determining if speech is illegal is incitement, or the probability to incite imminent lawless action.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
I think it has to do with the fact that this particular slogan has been used to persecute a group of people.
Like atheists not believing in god is just their personal belief about a metaphysical question. The only reason one would be offended by it is if they didn't consider it to be up to what one believes, but if they believe it should "be the truth for everyone".
But "there are only two genders" is a sentence that was made specifically to persecute non-binary people. This is no longer about a person deciding there are only two genders for themselves, but rather denying what other people decide about their gender.
I'm pretty bad at explaining things, so if there is a part that I didn't explain properly, please let me know :)