some people just don't get it...

[Kuciwalker]

Recently, a bunch of students at my school have started wearing "pro-life" T-shirts - I believe it's actually a club*. Anyways, a girl in my usual lunch group** has been b1tching about it for a few days, basing most of her complaints about one person who apparently was arguing with her about it (originally she was complaining about all of them, until we challenged her on it). It was during this today that I remarked "Yes, God forbid they express their political opinions! I mean, who would do such a thing?" She never quite came up with a concrete reply, and somehow she compared it to (or brought up, at least) some bumper sticker saying "marriage = man + woman". She attacked it because it was "offensive". I again pointed out that her views were probably equally offensive to them, but she replied that "their views were attacking gay people" and that hers were not attacking heterosexuals. She then went on to call all Republicans Christian fundamentalists, basically, which I found incredibly amusing because she knows I'm a) Republican and b) an atheist. I even agree with her on these issues. Anyways, I challenged her by asking if she thought the ACLU was equally bad because it "attacks" Christians when it is attacking public prayer in school. She responded that "it doesn't attack Christians, it just attacks Christian prayer in school". I would have responded with "but these other people are only attacking gay marriage, not gay people" but by this time the rest of the lunch group was fed up with us and told us to shut up.

Anyways, I just marvel at the self-centered idiocy that can produce things like this.

*my school is somewhat unique in that our eight period is a sort of "free period" in which we can attend various clubs or activities, or go to study hall or work in a computer lab. It takes a lot of the activities that would normally be after school (though not sports, generally). There's a pretty broad selection of activities, set up by students in conjunction with a teacher who has to supervise.

**we can eat lunch wherever the hell we want, pretty much, because everyone has lunch at the same time and the cafeteria can't fit 1700 students. Most people eat at various places in the halls, and groups of people generally eat together in the same place.

[Verto]

There is no 's' at the end of anyway.

[Agathon]

So if someone started wearing a swastika armband, that would be peachy with you?

People who discriminate against homosexuals are simply wrong. They don't have anything other than religious belief to back themselves up, and a staple of liberal democracy is that the church is separate from the state. At root, people who want to impose their religious views on the law are theocratic fascists. That's what the ACLU is attacking. It's completely consistent, as anyone who reflected on the matter for more than ten seconds would realize.

Attacking gay marriage is attacking gay people. Or do you think that banning heterosexual marriage would have no effect on straight people?

[Kuciwalker]

Aggie, I'm pro-gay marriage. I'm a frigging atheist. You don't have to convince me that the anti-gay marriage crowd is wrong. It's preaching to the choir.

But would you say that somehow they shouldn't express their opinion, simply because you think it's incorrect?

[General Ludd]

What exactly is there to not get? Seems fine to me. Everyone is "expressing their politic opinions".

[Kuciwalker]

I guess then it's OK if I try and ban all speech that's for legalization of marijuana, then, because I think you're wrong?

[MRT144]

kucinich, you need new friends. ones that will preferably have sex and smoke weed, and maybe if youre good get drunk. Enjoy life, rather than have political discussion during lunch.

[Agathon]

You are asserting a moral equivalency between the two. We are justified in banning hate speech, like that of the Nazis, because they are wrong. Similarly, we could be justified in banning homophobic agitation because it infringes on the rights of homosexuals to live unmolested by bigots who wish to impose their theological beliefs on others.

Free speech is not an absolute right. We have free speech rights because in most cases everyone is better off without censorship. However, people also have other rights which may come into conflict with free speech rights. And in this case it is clear that the harm done to homophobic bigots by preventing them from putting up posters in school is a lot less than the harm done to homosexuals by allowing that to happen.

The same goes for racists and other people who appeal to rights while trying to trample on those of others. No sensible person agrees that racism is morally justifiable and tolerating racists undermines the very freedoms we seek to protect in doing so. A society is not value neutral, all societies have norms. Sometimes these are wrong, but that doesn't mean that when they are basically right they should tolerate wrongdoing. The only counter to this is some form of relativism, and that doesn't work because it undercuts the very thing you are trying to establish, since tolerance becomes just another preference.

And people talking about legalizing marijuana does not single out a minority for persecution, unlike racist or homophobic speech.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich
I guess then it's OK if I try and ban all speech that's for legalization of marijuana, then, because I think you're wrong?

She must be a very powerful 16 year old.

[Tripledoc]

So when will you start throwing liberal teachers out the window and burn books?

[Verto]

So we have freedom of speech, so long as it does not criticize or in any way insult a minority?

[mrmitchell]

Ag
Live free or die
gay rights
"insulting gays should be illegal"
Skywalker
Kucinich

Kucinich, what school do you go to if it has kids that are actually interested in politics? Oh. I get it. He's not in America. OK

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
You are asserting a moral equivalency between the two. We are justified in banning hate speech, like that of the Nazis, because they are wrong.

According to you. Basically, you are assuming you are infallible. You are so right, that you can in fact make it illegal to disagree with you. Yay! Freedom to say something that Agathon agrees with!

You wouldn't be very happy if we banned the Communist Manifesto just because it's wrong.

Similarly, we could be justified in banning homophobic agitation because it infringes on the rights of homosexuals to live unmolested by bigots who wish to impose their theological beliefs on others.

Can we ban antireligious agitation because it infringes on the rights of religious people to live unmolested by bigots who wish to impose their theological beliefs (or rather, the lack thereof) on others, like no public prayer in school?

Free speech is not an absolute right. We have free speech rights because in most cases everyone is better off without censorship. However, people also have other rights which may come into conflict with free speech rights.

Such as? You don't have to listen.

And in this case it is clear that the harm done to homophobic bigots by preventing them from putting up posters in school is a lot less than the harm done to homosexuals by allowing that to happen.

1) it wasn't anti-gay marriage, it was anti-abortion. And it wasn't even really attacking any people.

2) if you're "damaged" by a bumper sticker (which isn't even in school, obviously) that says "marriage = man + woman", don't read it! When did people get a right not to be offended or have their feelings hurt, anyway?

The same goes for racists and other people who appeal to rights while trying to trample on those of others. No sensible person agrees that racism is morally justifiable and tolerating racists undermines the very freedoms we seek to protect in doing so.

Like freedom of expression and association? We shouldn't tolerate opposing viewpoints?

And people talking about legalizing marijuana does not single out a minority for persecution, unlike racist or homophobic speech.

But surely, the harm done by allowing people to support legalizing marijuana (they might even convince the majority of the population!) would be greater than simply not letting them support it, wouldn't it? I mean, using drugs is just wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Ag
Live free or die
gay rights
"insulting gays should be illegal"
Skywalker
Kucinich

Kucinich, what school do you go to if it has kids that are actually interested in politics? Oh. I get it. He's not in America. OK

here

[MrFun]

Homophobes are entitled to the expression of their opinions. I'm fine with this for two reasons:

1) When you agree to suppress the opinion of one group of people, it's down hill from there in terms of freedom of speech.

2) Homophobes make themselves look increasingly stupid the more they publicly express their opinions.