Weekend Diversion: Night Of The Ponies
Pedway, First Store Open At Block 37
Around Town
Around Town
Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Last month we told you about Heidi Zamecnik, the Naperville high-schooler who donned the "Be Happy, Not Gay" t-shirt at school in protest of homosexuality.
Well, today is the 11th annual Day of Silence, and Zamecnik (along with fellow student Alexander Nuxoll) were planning to wear the same shirts again tomorrow. That is, they were until a judge ruled yesterday in favor of the school, forbidding them to do so.
Zamecnik is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian group that believes that the school is violating her freedom of speech by not allowing the shirt in school. Jack Canna, an attorney for the school district, states that banning the shirt is in line with the school's policy to "preserve the notion that kids shouldn't make negative or derogatory comments about other students."
Once again, it's a slippery slope. Besides your cases of libel, slander and yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room, is it ever appropriate to curb someone's freedom of expression? If you don't agree with someone else, can you forbid them to express their opinion? Of course not, that's what the first amendment is all about.
While on the one hand we're screaming, "Yeah! Freedom of speech! Say what you want!," on the other, we're thinking, "hmm, that's a really shitty thing to say." Whether we agree with Zamecnik or not, she does have a right to express her opinion, however derogatory it may be. Come to think of it, maybe the t-shirt isn't so bad. At the very least, it lets the rest of us know where she stands; that way we can choose to stand in a different room.
Image via josephp.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
i think gays will live through this
when i was in high school, we weren't allowed to wear shirts that had alcoholic beverages or any offensive swear words. we couldn't wear tank tops or show "bra straps" or skirts that came "above the knee." i can't believe that something like this shirt could even be considered under the guise of "free speech." when you're in school, there's a dress code. save your conservative BS for someone who will listen, like Ann Coulter fan chat rooms.
there is a difference between freedom of expression and blatant homophobia. put any other minority in the place of the word "gay" and it would never ever be tolerated.
I am def one for freedom of speech but I feel we all know the difference between being opinionated and strictly being an ass! Would anyone bother bringing up the First Amendment if her shirt said something racist or anti-American?
My opinion is that she has brought back the human race a few steps back. What kind of teacher promotes intolerance? And are any parents outraged by this? I wouldn't want this c*** teaching my child!
The school can curtail free speech in certain instances, especially where it may incite violence or lead to the harm of someone within the school. Keep an eye on the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case as well.
Students surrender some of their rights when they enter the halls of a public school. For instance, a student's locker may be inspected without the need of a search warrant.
There are laws against hate speech, laws I tend to believe are worthwhile. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy, and it's pretty clear that a lot of people are extremely irresponsible. Honestly, though, I'd prefer that this teen's speech were more protected, and the shock jocks who until recently have been getting away with murder were less. Media has been perhaps irreparably harmed by the wide-open hate fests allowed in the name of free speech. Guys like Imus should have been arrested or cited for obscenity hundreds of times.
This isn't really a free speech issue. I mean if she's away from school fine with me but everyone has to abide by dress codes. To turn the tables there are plenty of offensive things gays could wear to school that I'm sure would make these Christians raise holy hell. Besides this dirtbag chooses her religion and her beliefs. I don't believe being gay is a choice.
Interesting . . . the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian group, is defending freedom of speech now. I live in the NW Burbs where last year there was a huge bruhaha over a high school district school board member who wanted to ban books that she (and her conservative Christian cronnies) believed were too awful and offensive for high school students to read and discuss (even though said board member admitted to having never read the books herself and was just taking the word of the Christian organizations). The whole debate made national news. And just yesterday, we had an election for this same school board that had two equally conservative Christian men running for it. They received endorsements from the likes of Jim Oberweis and Phyllis Schaffley (neither of whom lives anywhere near the district nor have either had children attend school in the district). Luckily (in my opinion) these two candidates lost and our kids are free to read books that will expand their minds.
But my point is that it seems to me that these conservative Christian organizations are only screaming about free speech when it agrees with their limited point of view. But when something doesn't fit with their small view of things, they attempt to ban it rather than having intelligent discussion about it.
First off, Trish, was that conservative BS/Ann Coulter comment directed at me (the author)? I sure hope not.
Secondly, I agree wholeheartedly that what this girl put on her shirt is heinous and completely distasteful. Honestly, it makes me sick. And, I also agree that if you put a race in place of the word "gay" all hell would break loose (looking at you Jesse and Al).
I'm making the point that, even though things like this are horrible, it's her ridiculous and hurtful opinion, and she has a right to that opinion. You don't have to agree with her, you can think she's inappropriate, but you can't tell her to not have and/or express that opinion.
And, I think it's right on for the school to not allow her to wear it.
I am a gay man...but I am embarrased by people who refer to opponents of gay rights as "homophobes," C***s" or "dirtbags." This is no better than opponents referring to gay rights advocates as "faggots" or other derogatory names. It cheapens your argument.
I think she's an idiot, but let her wear the shirt. The kids she goes to school with have a right to know when an intolerant jerk is in their midst.
I agree with Mandy. The message her shirt sends does bother me, but not as much as the threat to freedom of speech. Once you allow that, you open the door for all kinds of censorship, and this administration has already shown how little it cares for the Bill of Rights...
Hey Ferdy? Who decides what is obscene? Oh wait wait wait, lemme guess? YOU!
Guess what? There aren't LAWS that protect hate speech. It is something called the constitution that makes it so that no law can ever be passed to RESTRICT speech.
And children don't count, especially not if they are in a school. Legally, they are different from adults.
amanda-the ann coulter comment was directed towards the Alliance Defense Fund, not to you. sorry for the confusion.
All I can say is that I remember being in elementary school and kids wearing 1) Bart Simpson t-shirts that said "don't have a cow, man!" and 2) one of those "co-ed naked" sports shirts, and both types of shirts were subsequently banned for being "inappropriate in a school environment." If I can't tell you not to have a cow, I don't think you can tell someone not to be gay. humph.
What if someone wore a t-shirt in the classrrom that was offensive to a different group, say Jews or Blacks? What would people say then?
If a teenager wants to wear that shirt in public, it bothers me, but I can deal with it. (For example, the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" was worn outside of school) But if the public school wants to enforce a dress code, they should be allowed.
Bong Hits 4 Jesus WASN'T a tshirt. What is the matter with you? Get it right or pay the price.
@sparky
Couldn't agree more. If you want to wear a shirt about how gays are wrong, go nuts. If you want to wear a sandwich board explaining to me that Hitler was right, your funeral. Standing in the middle of Michigan Ave. with a sign saying "FBI stop raping my wife". Whatever.
I'm an adult, I wear big boy pants, and freedom of speech doesn't mean I have a freedom from being offended.
But if you're a minor, I think the authorities have the right to determine if this kind of speech is disruptive to education.
I wore a shirt, tie, and slacks everyday to high school and to be honest, I really did think it was more conducive to learning.
Again I have to say that a lot of law has been made since the Constitution went into force. The Constitution was written broadly to allow for changes with the times.
Hate speech is not a crime in this country, but it is in others. Freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. Hate speech is not a victimless "crime." People really do get hurt. There are many, many schools that have anti-bullying rules and programs. Taunting of other students is not permitted because it is emotionally abusive. I guess it's ok for parents to emotionally abuse their kids, though, because that's freedom of speech. Oh wait, children are different from adults. They need our protection.
Why is it that adults don't need some protection, too, from the seriously deranged people who add nothing but hate to the body politic? Is it really ok to call for the assassination of a head of state or bandy racial slurs all over the airwaves, without more than a slap on the wrist from the radio station that secretly loves the publicity? That's freedom WITHOUT responsibility. These people are not acting like adults; they're acting like children. They should be punished, like children.
Should it be law? I really don't know. In my wildest dreams, I never thought I'd advocate any kind of censorship, because I believed that sending hateful messages underground makes them more dangerous. But I look around me and don't know how things could get much worse. Jihads of every kind going on everywhere. Civil discourse almost dead. Is even a mild form of censorship going to do more harm than what the extremists with access to power and millions of ears have done? I don't know...
On any ordinary day, I would say that her shirt would be considered inappropriate, though I agree with her sentiment, and I do not agree that a gay person is a "minority" any more than a smoker is. However, since the school decided to make homosexuality an issue on this day, by calling for silence, which cannot but disrupt classes, then I think she is entitled to express her disagreement with the "day of silence" by wearing her shirt. If the school hadn't dragged the homosexuality issue into the picture, she probably wouldn't be fighting to wear the shirt.
@Rachael: Excuse me, the "bong hits 4 jesus" was a banner, not a T-shirt. Will you find it in your heart to forgive my mistake, or are you going to make me pay the price?
@Monika: Schools have Black History Month, or Holocaust Remeberence Day. If a student has an objection to these awareness periods, does he/she have a right to wear a T-shirt saying, for example, "Be White not Black" expressing their disagreement with that?
Ever wonder why the leading cause of dead for gay teenagers is suicide?
What would you think if you were a gay teenager and saw that shirt?
How on earth can this girl and her parents and the organization representing her claim to be Christian?
And here comes Ferdy, on the verge of advocating "mild" censorship to protect the delicate feelings of the sensitive.
Tell me, Ferdy, who makes the decision about what's censored? What proof do you have that censorhip will do more harm than good? Where has censorship, mild or otherwise, improved civic discourse?
How about this: If you don't like what's being said, counter it with your own speech and/or campaigns. Or is that too much work?
@ thundercougarfalconbird: dead on!
@ hmm: all the points i've been thinking reading through these comments!
the shirt is disruptive to the learning environment. in this situation you are dealing with people that are still learning to develop their own opinions and express themselves. think about where you were back in high school in comparison to where you are today... i bet you "reacted" more than you "acted". while some students are smart enough to thoroughly develop/express their opinions others like to jump on bandwagons before really processing anything. this situation is more likely to result in violence toward both parties (the girl in the shirt for her ignorant views and the anyone coming into and understanding their own sexuality)
here's the deal. schools get to set different standards for 'free speech.' they do. it often creeps me out -- they get to censor school newspapers for far less than this shirt, for instance -- but they do. i get that. so, i concede to the fact that she's in a school.
but let's get down to the real issue here. some of you are saying that you think hate speech should be arrestable? wow. okay. i think people who think and say these things are vile. but i am and always will be a STAUNCH first amendment supporter. i really believe it's first for a reason. it's sancrosanct to me.
i think it's absolutely fucking disgusting when people go to funerals of gay servicemen and say they're christians and hold up signs that say 'god kills fags dead.' i want to punch them in the face. repeatedly. but, it's their right to do that. as much as i want to throw up. do they have the right to block the entry way? no. do they have the right to be overly disruptive? no. but if they're just silently standing there, far enough away from the property -- they get to be as big of disgusting fucking assholes as they want.
also, i would rather have the racist, sexist, bigot that i know rather than the one i don't know. she's making it perfectly clear what her beliefs are. as far as gay teenagers committing suicide -- do you think it's stuff like that shirt that lead to suicide, or do you think it's the people who corner them in the dark hallways and tell them they're faggots? who threaten to beat them up when no one is around? who walk past them day after day after day and say digusting things under their breath so no one else can hear? who try and convert them by slipping them bible verses and witness tracts? i'm thinking that stuff is more likely to push someone over the edge than a ridiculous, asinine shirt.
and imus and his ilk -- again, if the outlets he works for want to fire him, so be it. i would have gotten fired for saying that shit at any job because jobs have employment policies and the like. you can't harass people at work, there should be a safe working environment, etc. but consider two things -- 1. ann coulter says some of the most hateful, evil, sometimes threatening stuff (joking about people being killed/dead) and NOTHING happens to her. why? and 2. people can be DISGUSTING toward women day and night, night and day and *no one* does a thing. why? why isn't everyone equal? why shouldn't we all be held up to the same standards of treating everyone at the same standards of civility, respect, and decency? i'm baffled.
Jocelyn For President.
Word, Jocelyn. That's all I'm saying. If people can get fined for saying "fuck" on the air, which is kind of a nice thing to tell people to do, why is it ok to say the hateful things the shock jocks say? They should be fined as well. They can keep saying it all they want, but if the community sets standards for the level of discourse (and Chicagoist and other blogs do censor posts with abusive language), they at least will hurt a bit, too.
Vise - calling someone thin-skinned or sensitive is applying your standards to other people and finding them lacking and needing to do things your way. That doesn't sound particularly democratic to me. In fact, it comes pretty close to blaming the victims of hate speech.
Ferdy: Nice words, but too bad you didn't address the implications of your proposal.
Listen, we all have to learn to deal with crappy things said by assholes in life. But what you seem to be advocating is getting close to having some sort of thought police. Not trying to be melodramatic, but I don't know how to put it.
I have no problem with schools and workplaces setting rules for discourse, though I am scared with school papers are being censored. That said, I don't trust people like you, on the left or right, who think the answer to problems is to shut people up.
So, maybe you will address how mild censorship would work? Or will you just cop out?
yeah, the school paper thing is the thing that really makes me mad/freaked out. cause like i said, they censor those for really lame reasons and not for derogatory speech. for things that might make kids think. grrrrr. freaky.
can i offer you a word of advice, though, vise? i nearly always agree with your points here on the ol' chicagoist comment boards. the corrupt chicago ridiculousness, your thoughts on urban planning, your take on most sociological matters.
but sometimes, your point is lost under your sharp tongue and knack for cynical sarcasm. what could be a viable debate or civil discussion point turns a thread into a shouting match because people react to your tone, rather than your ideas. the "will you just cop out?" addendum to your comment here is a fine example of this.
i'm a generally a vise fan, but you lose credibility when you purposefully go for the jab. : /
Vise - Well, "people like you" who like to categorize "people like me" really bug me because you get these kneejerk reactions to even a breath of constraint on your precious freedoms and decide I'm the enemy without thinking about it.
The compact that we make as a society is to try to address the needs of all constituents in a fair and open manner, with a civil discourse of hopefully fairly informed individuals. That does not mean we need to protect everyone and everything from the thoughtlessness of others. But just how thoughtless can they be before the FCC needs to intervene.
Let's look at free speech and entertainment. I think the line has been pretty blurred between news and entertainment, and we can pretty much say that guys like Imus are entertainers with axes to grind for their disaffected audiences. Entertainers are arrested and cited for indecency, but our prudish Judeo-Christian society still worried more about bodily functions that offend the eyes than hate speech that offends the soul.
We have criminalized hate crimes, and hate speech is a form of hate crime in my book. We've seen people losing jobs because they freely spoke racial slurs (Michael Richards, Don Imus, and way back when, Jimmy the Greek). This is more than tacit admission that hate speech is something many members of our society do not wish to tolerate. As usual for today's society, the all-wise free market has been left to make decisions about decency when it comes to speech.
I propose to add hate speech--primarily racial and ethnic epithets and calls for the killing of individuals--to the list of things the FCC can fine an on-air personality for saying. They can keep saying it, but they'll have to pay for it. The unbridled tolerance of hate has not made this country a better place, in my opinion it's made it considerably worse. The late-in-the-day consciences the networks have suddenly developed tells me that self-policing isn't the most effective strategy. It never is where money is concerned.
I don't think that's so much to ask for airwaves that belong to all of us, even us thin-skinned ninnies.