On T-Shirts and Free Speech

[jackofallgeeks]

If I were able to access my archives here, I'd link back a month or so to
the story of a kid who was punished for wearing a t-shirt depicting a gun
at school. There was a nice bit of discussion in the comments, particularly
from photoholic62 (hopefully I didn't butcher your username,
Dawn).

Today's article is similar, if perhaps a bit more controversial, and with
the completely opposite resolution. Some kid in Chicago sued his school
because they wouldn't let him wear an
anti-gay t-shirt in school. Now in this case I can definitely
understand a bit of outrage, because unlike (I'd argue) the 'patriotic',
pro-military gun t-shirt previously discussed, a shirt saying "Be Happy, Not
Gay" is pretty directly offensive. The school banned the kid from wearing
the shirt, he sued, and he lost the original case -- but that decision has
been over turned by an appeals court, on the basis of free speech.

I'd like to discuss the t-shirt bit in particular (especially thoughts
on the fact that a gun was banned but anti-gay sentiment was not), and
anything else that might come up in the comments, but I'd also like to talk
about free speech. It's kind of an important thing, I think. It's what
separates us from the animals. Well, OK, that might be a bit of a stretch
(I know some rather out-spoken guinea pigs), but the fact remains that it's
important.

There's a quote I'm a big fan of, attributed to Voltaire but apparently never said by him,
that goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." That kind of sums up my opinion here. On the one
hand, there's the argument of the slipper slope, where if we censor ourselves
from expressing anything that might offend someone else, eventually we'll be
unable to express anything at all. I don't think that's a real and present
danger, but it's definite a concern in so much as nearly anything you say
could offense SOMEONE.

If we devote ourselves slavishly to freedom of speech then, yes, lots of
things people say will be things we'd like to not hear. But I think that
(1) sometimes we need to hear what we don't want to hear and, (2) I don't
think forcing people to not-say it helps anything at all; I think it hurts
everything. When someone says something offensive or ignorant, we have an
opportunity to confront them and argue to point in reasonable discourse. If
we allow and encourage people to say exactly what they think, then we're
given the opportunity to educate them and confront them directly. If
they're censored in public, they'll still THINK the same things, but it will
quietly fester inside of them and they will spread it privately, sharing it
insularly with like-minded people and spreading it to those who don't know
any better. If it's never said it's never talked about, it's never
confronted, and it's never changed.

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

I've become more of two minds on free speech recently. There's not a perfectly bright line between speech and action, and context matters a lot.

So, imagine the kid wears his anti-gay T-shirt to the HS I went to - where "gay" was used as a put-down, and openly gay kids might get laughed at, but that was about the worst of it. There, I'm inclined to say that the shirt is odious, but ought not be censored (unless there's a blanket policy of uniforms, or some such).

Then, imagine the kid wears it to a school where gay kids have recently been beaten up pretty severely (still happens). I'm much less inclined to let it pass. Then the shirt becomes part of an atmosphere of intimidation, and normalization of hate, that tends to reinforce dangerous behaviors. Of course, making the kid take his shirt off doesn't change his mind (or, for a kid, probably his parents' minds). It may even make him angrier. But that's not necessarily the point - the point is to interrupt the effects on the gay kids, so that they don't have to live under perceived threat.

It's hard for me to draw the policy line properly. In the moral abstract, I'm inclined to say that speech not intended as a good-faith entry into the public discourse or a matter of deep importance to the utterer (e.g., religious discourse) loses much of its privilege if it's harmful (or even, maybe, distressing) to someone else. Turning that principle into a reasonable law is a different matter. I'm inclined to draw it somewhere in the neighborhood of prohibiting speech that feeds into an extant situation of non-speech violence or threat.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

So I had a very well-though-out reply worked out at work, where I can't access the site, and I've lost it somewhere on 295. I'll try and get the general gist.

So, a t-shirt is less offensive depending on the context it's in. I submit that, at least in part, this is because of what that t-shirt, in that context, is representing. The t-shirt itself, within some margin, is not the root problem but rather the attitude and ideas it's giving expression to. By censoring what and how people say things, you're at best treating the symptom rather than the disease. At at the cost of attacking what I think is a basic right, free speech. A school where gay kids are brutalized for being gay will STILL be a hostile environment regardless of what shirts kids are wearing. And a less-hostile environment is still less hostile regardless of what shirts kids are wearing.

I think public policy is a supremely BAD place to try to formalize what people can and can not say. If someone is DOING something -- committing violence, actively inciting violence, actually harassing someone -- then call them that. Trying to delineate what's proper expression is a dangerous area to get into, I think, particularly for something like a government.

I would say don't prohibit speech, but definitely hold people responsible for improper and illegal behavior.

[nif.livejournal.com]

I think the obligation to provide a safe and comfortable school environment supersedes free speech in this instance.
Plus, I would say that the t-shirt doesn't fall under free speech but hate speech. In every class of 20 students, 2 are likely to be gay. The chances of someone in the class having someone important to them be gay is much higher. Homosexual teens have the second highest rate of suicide out of any demographic in the United States. I don't allow the word "faggot" in my classroom, so why should I allow a shirt that carries the same meaning? When surveyed, 75% of high school students reported hearing "gay" used in a degrading manner on school grounds. Letting a student wear a shirt like that gives tacit approval for such behavior. Of the same group of students surveyed, 1 in 5 students reported being physically assaulted because of perceived sexual orientation or gender expression. Schools would NEVER let a student wear a shirt saying "Be happy. Don't be a nigger." (And I use that awful word here to illustrate the severity of the offense) There's absolutely no difference between the two examples.
Free speech ends when it infringes on the right of the individual. The famous line about not yelling fire in a crowded theater still holds truth. From my perspective, in that hypothetical theater, the theater-goers have paid for the right to occupy a seat for the duration of the movie. By yelling fire, that person is, in effect, stealing from the people in the theater. If we apply the same example to schools, if someone undermines the right of safety and education that a single student is entitled to, they are stealing. And that is illegal.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

(I'll preface this with a note that I admire you tremendously, mostly because I feel unaccountably bad for arguing with you.)

I disagree with your first point fundamentally. It is more important, I think, that we each be allowed to express ourselves openly and honestly than that you, or I, or any other person is 'comfortable.' 'Safe' is another story. Words don't make a place unsafe, only actions do, and I am 100% all for disciplining inappropriate and illegal actions.

The particular instance of being gay and statistics attached to that aren't important. Replace gay with anything -- Catholic, Black, foreign-born, blue-eyed -- and I still hold the same stance.

'Nigger' expresses an attitude and idea; the word isn't the problem, it's the underlying attitude. Censoring the word will not address the underlying cause; at best it hides the problem, and I think that's problematic.

I've never liked the theatre example; it doesn't make any sense. Yelling 'Fire!' isn't an expression of anything. To address it, though, I think that they should be perfectly free to SAY whatever they want; but if they behave in a way that endangers people, as is the crux of the example, they should be held liable for their actions and charged with endangerment or fraud or something else pertinent. You'd allow that simple saying 'fire' isn't the problem, but rather yelling it in such a way as to give the impression that there is an actual emergency, thereby inciting panic and probably causing injury. Inciting panic and causing injury is the crime, not speaking.

I think it's irresponsible to equate with theft things which are not theft, but that's a whole different topic besides.

[nif.livejournal.com]

Don't feel bad for arguing with me. That's what a topic like this is all about.

As for your first point. I agree that words are not actions, and that actions make things unsafe. However, I don't think you can say that words don't play a crucial role in inciting actions. That's why "inciting a riot" is a crime. I think there is little difference between letting a kid wear a shirt that carries a negative and hatefully charged message and letting that same kid get up on a soapbox in the hallway and give a speech about the evils of homosexuality. I'd honestly like your opinion on this: would a speech in a hallway directed against a group of people be ok?

I'd like to backtrack for a moment and say that I honestly don't think kids at a school have the right to free speech. It's a place of business. Wearing a shirt bashing gays would get someone fired from their job. Wearing the same shirt should get someone kicked out of a school.

I'm unclear about what you said about statistics. I was using them as an example to demonstrate that gay students have a basis for feeling afraid particularly in a school environment.

As far as censoring a word like "gay", I agree that it does not address the underlying problem. And I agree that it expresses an attitude and idea. The word is just a word. But what I'm saying is that if the school allows it (or any other hate term), the school is giving permission for those ideas to be flaunted, even covertly agreeing.

We could debate the theater example all day long.. which would lead into a discussion of libertarianism and economics. I'd love to do that over a beer, not in this post. I will say that I do believe it is theft and that I'm using the term responsibly. Theft is the wrongful denial of goods or services owed to or owned by a person because of the actions of another. Anyway.

I think this is a case of ideals on one side and practicality on the other. Ideally, should anyone be allowed to say anything they want at any time anywhere because it is an inherent right? Yeah. Can that reasonably happen safely? I really don't think so.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Would I be ok with a hallway speach? In and of itself yes, as long as it were not directly advocating violence. Do I think such a demonstration should be allowed? Probably not; depending on how it's done it's probably disrupting the proper operation of the school and/or blocking the hallway. But that is all inappropriate behavior, and he should be called on that, not the content of what he said.

That basic rights of students can be and are denied to them upon entering the building, and people are OK with this is, I think, one of the greater failings of the school system. I agree to certain similar cases in business only because one's appearance and attitude can negatively impact the direct purpose of the company, such as ticking off potential clients st cetera. A better analogy is that a kid wearing a tshirt is like a CLIENT wearing a tshirt. Schools are meant to render a service to the students; students are not employees.

My point was that particular stats don't matter because my argument stays the same regardless of the particular case. I never disputed that gay kids weren't subject to hostility. That's more a problem in society, though, an legislation or public policy are inappropriate to address it.

One of these days I'd love to sit and argue with you over a beer. We can add the definition of theft and the implications of that defintion to the agenda.

Yeah, definitely an argument of ideals and practicalities. But I think we should strive for the ideal, and I still hold that words in themselves don't make an environment unsafe. Deal with the actions and behaviors, and let people say what they will.