|
|
Post by jenrik2714 on Apr 18, 2007 13:18:28 GMT -6
I am glad these kids are taking up causes and not accepting things as is, like our predecessors did.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 18, 2007 13:26:59 GMT -6
Judge rules against teen’s derogatory T-shirt slogan
By Rob Olmstead
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Heidi Zamecnik will have to settle for “be straight,” not “not gay.”
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Neuqua Valley High School senior cannot wear a T-shirt Thursday that reads “Be Happy, Not Gay,” because it violates Unit District 204’s policy of teaching tolerance and because the message is derogatory to gays.
But she can wear a shirt that advocates heterosexuality, such as “Be Happy. Be Straight,” the judge said.
Zamecnik’s lawyer vowed to appeal, although he acknowledged that the appeal will not be heard before Thursday, the day Zamecnik had planned to wear her shirt.
“We do disagree with the district court’s analysis and we do believe that our client’s rights have been violated,” said Jonathan Scruggs, Zamecnik’s attorney and a representative of the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona group that took Zamecnik’s case and advocates “religious freedom, right of life and defending traditional families.”
He did not know what Zamecnik and another student, Freshman Alexander Nuxoll, would wear to school Thursday.
“We’re still kind of in discussions with them regarding what they’re going to wear,” Scruggs said. “Our clients feel very passionately about the issue.”
District administrators praised the ruling.
“Judge (William T.) Hart respected the judgment of Neuqua Valley High School administrators to restrict messages that are negative toward a group of students because they can be disruptive and counterproductive to the school's efforts to promote a positive school climate,” District Superintendent Howard Crouse said in a prepared statement.
Zamecnik wanted to wear the shirt Thursday as part of a national “Day of Truth,” a counter day to today’s national “Day of Silence” in which some students wear T-shirts advocating for tolerance of gay and lesbian students.
Last year, Zamecnik wore a shirt with the “Be Happy, Not Gay” message and was forced by administrators to blacken out the “Not Gay” portion of the message.
She sued, and asked for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the school district from censoring her again this year.
Hart’s ruling noted that courts have ruled differently on very similar issues.
In Tinker v. Des Moines of 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or free expression at the schoolhouse gate” after two students were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.
But courts have also ruled that the right of free speech in schools gives way when it could cause a disturbance or interfere with the educational mission.
That has led to different interpretations, with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, headquartered in San Francisco, ruling in Harper v. Poway that a student could not wear a shirt that read “Be Ashamed. Our school embraced what God has condemned” and “ Homosexuality is shameful.”
But a federal circuit court judge in Ohio ruled in Nixon v. Northern that a district could not forbid a student from wearing a shirt that read “Homosexuality is a sin! Islam is a lie! Abortion is murder!”
Hart, a Reagan appointee to the federal bench and the son of a newspaper editor, cited Tinker, noting that other students in school have a right “to be secure and to be let alone,” and noted that Harper said “Being secure involves not only freedom from physical assaults but from psychological attacks.”
“Although ‘Be Happy, Not Gay’ does not contain invectives as strong as those in Harper and Nixon, it is still a negative statement disparaging of gays,” Hart wrote. “It is an uncontested fact that derogatory statements about being gay have a tendency to harm gay youth. Therefore, there is a significant likelihood of public harm if the court errs in favor of granting a preliminary injunction” for Zamecnik.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO she can still get her point accross using different wording, such as what was suggested by the judge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 18, 2007 13:43:29 GMT -6
I'm waiting for the Westboro Baptist Church to show up and hand out 'talking points' material.
|
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Apr 18, 2007 13:55:12 GMT -6
They can't leave it out of school. They teach sex ed. Kids are more knowledgeable than ever about this. Sex is part of our culture. You see it on tv shows, it is all over. The innocent world of the 1950's is gone. I would rather have my kids have knowledge about this from school plus whatever we say as parents, than to have no sex ed and kids are having unprotected sex, getting pregnant, etc. You are missing the point. The schools don't allow mash sessions to take place in the halls, they don't allow sexually provocative clothing, they don't allow sexually explicit t-shirts to be worn. Why would they allow an event to take place that pertains to one's sexual preference? If they allow this then they should allow the boys to wear tshirts that say "I like blonds with big kahoonas". I don't buy your argument that because sex is "everywhere", it should be in our schools. And I am not talking about sex education which is taught in a classroom and has a curriculum. There is a time and place for everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 18, 2007 14:00:28 GMT -6
I hope they have to pay the district's court costs as part of losing.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Apr 18, 2007 14:02:14 GMT -6
They can't leave it out of school. They teach sex ed. Kids are more knowledgeable than ever about this. Sex is part of our culture. You see it on tv shows, it is all over. The innocent world of the 1950's is gone. I would rather have my kids have knowledge about this from school plus whatever we say as parents, than to have no sex ed and kids are having unprotected sex, getting pregnant, etc. You are missing the point. The schools don't allow mash sessions to take place in the halls, they don't allow sexually provocative clothing, they don't allow sexually explicit t-shirts to be worn. Why would they allow an event to take place that pertains to one's sexual preference? If they allow this then they should allow the boys to wear tshirts that say "I like blonds with big kahoonas". I don't buy your argument that because sex is "everywhere", it should be in our schools. And I am not talking about sex education which is taught in a classroom and has a curriculum. There is a time and place for everything. Just talked to my son. The day of silence is not promoting any lifestyle. It is a statement to end the silence over discrimination and harassment that gay people endure in our society. The students wore rainbow ribbons and carried a little card stating they were silent for the day. This day promotes respect for all people. He did say that there were a few t-shirts that stated "I'm straight but not narrow." |
|
|
|
Post by jenrik2714 on Apr 18, 2007 14:10:22 GMT -6
They can't leave it out of school. They teach sex ed. Kids are more knowledgeable than ever about this. Sex is part of our culture. You see it on tv shows, it is all over. The innocent world of the 1950's is gone. I would rather have my kids have knowledge about this from school plus whatever we say as parents, than to have no sex ed and kids are having unprotected sex, getting pregnant, etc. You are missing the point. The schools don't allow mash sessions to take place in the halls, they don't allow sexually provocative clothing, they don't allow sexually explicit t-shirts to be worn. Why would they allow an event to take place that pertains to one's sexual preference? If they allow this then they should allow the boys to wear tshirts that say "I like blonds with big kahoonas". I don't buy your argument that because sex is "everywhere", it should be in our schools. And I am not talking about sex education which is taught in a classroom and has a curriculum. There is a time and place for everything. I do not think it is alright for kids to make out in the hallways, but I do believe that people have the right to live their lives without being in fear of being beat up or possibly killed. The day of silence is just protesting the innocent lives taken because of their sexual orientation. Remember Matthew Sheperd? Did he have a right to die? |
|
|
|
Post by jenrik2714 on Apr 18, 2007 14:15:21 GMT -6
Sex is everywhere, on tv and throughout our culture. No matter how much you want to protect our children, they will see it in some form
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 18, 2007 14:21:54 GMT -6
Put in other terms, the 2 'sides' to this boil down to:
SideA: Please don't pick on people.
SideB: I can pick on whomever I want to.
This is why B is inappropriate in the school setting.
Should someone wear a shirt that says: Be Neuro-typical, not Neuro-Atypical
??
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluemoonoden on Apr 18, 2007 14:36:20 GMT -6
Our schools should be a safe haven for all students regardless of who or what they are. My oldest son was bullied at Scuellen and we transfered him to Still. Regardless if a student is Gay or Anti Gay or whatever, everyone deserves respect and the right not to fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Apr 25, 2007 8:14:48 GMT -6
I believe this is the original Day of Silence/"Day of Truth" lawsuit. This school is in suburban San Diego, CA. The court here ruled in favor of the school district.
Court says Poway schools can enforce dress code against anti-gay T-shirt
By Paul Elias
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:04 p.m. April 20, 2006
DON KOHLBAUER / Union-Tribune
Chase Harper, seen in this September 2004 file photo, was taken out of Poway High School for a day for wearing a T-shirt saying "Homosexuality is shameful."
SAN FRANCISCO – A suburban San Diego teenager who was barred from wearing a T-shirt with anti-gay rhetoric to class lost a bid to have his high school's dress code suspended Thursday after a federal appeals court ruled the school could restrict what students wear to prevent disruptions.
The ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed only the narrow issue of whether the dress code should be unenforced pending the outcome of the student's lawsuit.
A majority of judges said, however, that Tyler Chase Harper was unlikely to prevail on claims that the Poway Unified School District violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion for keeping him out of class when he wore a shirt with the message “homosexuality is shameful.”
Tyler Chase Harper sued the Poway Unified School District in San Diego federal court after the principal at Poway High School refused to let the student attend class wearing a T-shirt scrawled with the message “homosexuality is shameful.”
Harper was a sophomore at Poway High in 2004 when he wore the T-shirt the day after a group called the Gay-Straight Alliance held a “Day of Silence” to protest intolerance of gays and lesbians. The year before, the campus was disrupted by protests and conflicts between students over the Day of Silence.
After Harper refused to take off the T-shirt, Poway High School's principal kept Harper out of class and assigned him to do homework in a conference room for the rest of the day. He was not suspended from school.
On Thursday, the three-judge appeals court panel said “the school is permitted to prohibit Harper's conduct...if it can demonstrate that the restriction was necessary to prevent either the violation of the rights of other students or substantial disruption of school activities.”
The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Sydney Thomas for a 2-1 ruling, didn't decide the merits of the student's lawsuit, which will be heard in federal court in San Diego.
Judge Alex Kozinski wrote a blistering dissent, arguing that the high school had in effect authorized a heated debate over sexual orientation when it allowed the “Day of Silence.”
“Harper's T-shirt was not an out-of-the-blue affront to fellow students who were minding their own business,” Kozinski wrote. “Rather, Harper wore his T-shirt in response to the Day of Silence, a political activity that was sponsored or at the very least tolerated by school authorities.”
Jack Sleeth, a school district attorney, said that the 9th Circuit ruling supports the district's prohibition against T-shirts with messages that are offensive to some.
“When it violates the rights of other, then it can be prohibited,” Sleeth said. “It is that simple of an issue.”
Robert Tyler, an attorney for Harper, said he may wait until the main case is decided before determining if further appeals are necessary.
“Mr. Harper's speech was censored,” Tyler said. “There wasn't any disruption, but there was concern that it was politically incorrect.”
The case is Harper v. Poway Unified School District, 04-57037.
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on May 1, 2007 10:05:54 GMT -6
The photo accompanying this article was of the t-shirt in question.
'But it says in the Bible ...'
(http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/364574,6_1_NA01_FORUM_S1.article)
May 1, 2007
By BRITT CARSON Staff writer
Several of the area's religious leaders are gathering with one goal in mind: to get people talking about the controversial topic of gay rights and religion.
The three-person panel will discuss different religious perspectives on homosexuality at 7 p.m. May 20 at First Congregational United Church of Christ, 25 E. Benton Ave.
"This is an issue that people are really interested in," said Anna Gomberg, spokesperson for the event. "It strengthens the community when we come together to talk about these issues."
"Image of God: Religious Perspectives on Homosexuality, Politics," will include Elizabeth Bowes and Duane Mevis of Naperville's Wesley United Methodist Church, as well as Rabbi Moti Rieber of Congregation Beth Shalom in Naperville. The Rev. Greg Skiba will moderate the discussion.
"So many discussions about homosexuality begin with, 'But it says in the Bible ...,' and yet we never discuss what's really there," Bowes said. "That needs to change."
Gomberg says many vocal groups are hostile to those who lead alternative lifestyles and it is time to bring a fresh counterpoint to interpretations of scripture.
At the event, Rieber will discuss the Torah's teaching on homosexuality, as well as the interpretative Jewish tradition of ancient texts. Bowes will comment on Jesus' teachings and the New Testament, speaking specifically about Paul's writing on sin. And Mevis will discuss his personal experience maintaining his pastoral integrity while embracing his daughter's sexual orientation.
Gomberg said the goal is to promote discussion.
"We are hoping to spark community dialogue," Gomberg said. "We want the door to be open to talking about it."
Contact Britt Carson at bcarson@scn1.com or 630-416-5269.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on May 1, 2007 10:19:57 GMT -6
It says in the Bible... Love one another, as I have loved you.
...and Judge not...
|
|
