I really hope this is brought to the Supremes and is overturned quickly, for if it is not, we are ALL in big trouble. Right now, the Ninth Circuit Court has handed down a ruling that will start / allow affirmative action in terms of limiting free speech. From TCS Daily is this:
Recently, in a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision which may provide a foundation for applying preferential treatment to freedom of speech. If allowed to stand, the decision could authorize local governments to set varying limits to free expression, depending on the race, religion, or sexual orientation of the listener. Preferential treatment has proved one of the most divisive policies of modern America. The Ninth Circuit’s decision could radically expand its scope.
Big, big mistake. Where in the First Amendment are these criteria listed? You think the PC crowd gets their knickers in a knot about those of us who, while trying to be polite, don’t care if we tick off our listeners or readers? This could shut us bloggers down rather quickly.
Harper v. Poway Unified School District grew out of a decision by a San Diego area high school to hold a "Day of Silence" to "teach tolerance of others, particularly those of a different sexual orientation" (in the words of its Assistant Principal). Participating students wore duct tape over their mouths to symbolize the silencing effect of intolerance. Others wore black T-shirts bearing a purple square and a yellow equal sign. The Gay-Straight Alliance, with the school’s permission, put posters "promoting awareness of harassment on the basis of sexual orientation."
No, this is not teaching tolerance – this avenue leads to demanding acceptance.
And this was with the permission and promotion of the school! I still believe the efforts and concentration of a school should be on the academic subjects, that this overwhelming emphasis on "diversity" is not the end-all-be-all in equiping our kids to compete effectively and well as they grow as we are led to believe. Face it, be polite to all and use good manners would pretty much solve the "accepting diversity" non-problem.
This is nothing more than social engineering and secular moralizing, regardless of the wishes of the parents.
Not all students supported the Day of Silence. Tyler Harper arrived wearing a T-shirt reading "I WILL NOT ACCEPT WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED" on one side, and "HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL ‘Romans 1:27’" on the other. The next day, his T-shirt read: "BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED." School authorities considered the T-shirt "inflammatory" and refused to allow Harper to wear it on campus. When he would not remove it, they confined him to a school conference room. He spent part of the day doing homework, and part discussing the Bible and the T-shirt with school officials and a deputy sheriff. After the last period, Harper was instructed to proceed directly off campus.
Harper sued the school district on First Amendment and other grounds. He sought a preliminary injunction barring the district from "continuing its violation of [his] constitutional rights." After the district court denied the motion, Harper appealed.
Gee, tolerance and acceptance of an alternative viewpoint contrary to the school administration was well received, wasn’t it? Yes, it could be seen to be inflammatory, but I also judge that promotion of an "alternative life style" by the school, when I as a parent do not approve of it, is also imflammatory. What the school is doing is saying to parents that do not agree with this, to students that do not agree with this, is that you do not think the right thoughts in the right way. You are neanderthals in your outlook. And we will punish you for unacceptable beliefs, for we judge them wrong. And the definition of tolerance is…..what? It works both ways…..
This was not an easy case. The school had experienced disruptions and altercations during a previous Day of Silence, and officials were anxious to avoid trouble.
So if this was the case, why did they repeat it? Oh yeah, we have to be tolerant of this particular lifetyle. Didn’t the thought of cancelling the event cross their minds? ‘Course not – we have to spend time and money on non-academic activities in the name of Political Correctness. Other activities have been shut down in school before to avoid trouble, why not here? Oh yeah, back to acceptance of diversity.
Despite his disobedience, Harper was not disciplined in any way. He received full attendance credit for his day confined to the conference room.
How big of them.
… in a 2-1 decision, Judge Reinhardt used the case to articulate a new concept of free speech regulation. Focusing on the specific anti-gay content of Harper’s T-shirt, he ruled that schools may restrict "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students’ minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation." In a footnote, he wrote that the court would "leave … to another time" the question of limiting derogatory remarks aimed at gender. But Judge Reinhardt proceeded to establish a new constitutional calculus, under which the protectability of speech would depend on the minority status of the listener.
That’s right, leave it ambigious for all eternity, just forcing more reliance on the courts to settle bad decisions.
Judge Reinhardt wrote that a different standard should apply to derogatory remarks aimed at "majority groups such as Christians or whites" because "there is, of course, a difference between a historically oppressed minority group that has been the victim of serious prejudice and discrimination and a group that has always enjoyed a preferred social, economic and political status."
Here we go, as the barn door has been thrown open wide. Who is to judge what is now correct or not? Who is to say WHICH minority wins out when there is a clash? It also means that minorities can now throw all kinds of brickbats at those they believe to be in the majority without worrying about recrimination, right? Or sue when a "majority" person answers back in a way they don’t like?
I feel an extreme chill emanating from California (home to the 9th Circuit).
Words fail me in trying to comment on this. When is this idiotic philosophy going to end? Here is the un-PC truth: if this nonsense of identity politics, whether gender, sexual orientation, skin color, socio-economic class, education (or lack thereof) and manners is not taken out and shot, we will never get to the end goal of having people treat each other equally. At some point, a lot of somebodies have got to stand up and say "stop it!".
Think of the problems this will cause! Or, the opportunities this may afford for either those wishing to cause problems (in the bad sense), or in the mischevious way (good – but will cause me heartache as I chuckle). The best part of the article, once I got past the actual news, was when Lawrence Siskind started in on playing Devil’s Advocate:
In his dissent, Judge Kozinski pointed to the practical difficulties of applying Reinhardt’s novel concept. If the Pope condemns gay marriage, could a student wear a T-shirt reading "CATHOLICS ARE BIGOTS"? On the one hand, Catholics are a minority with a long history of oppression in this country. So they would seem to qualify for Judge Reinhardt’s preferential treatment. But Catholics are part of the larger Christian faith, which Judge Reinhardt described as having "always enjoyed a preferred social, economic and political status." Blacks are a minority nationally, but in many school districts they constitute a majority. May a white student wear a T-shirt bearing an anti-black message in a nearly all black school, since the white student would be a minority in that context?
One could really have fun thinking of all the possibilities and making light of them. Sammy Davis Jr. (a deceased black comedian / singer / dancer / performer who was Jewish) must be rolling over in his grave.
But now for the money part of the discussion:
Beyond the problems of defining who receives extra protection and who is subject to extra restriction, there is this unsettling thought: If freedom of speech depends on the minority status of the listener, what about the other enumerated constitutional rights? Why stop at the First Amendment? The Bill of Rights contains nine more.
The Second Amendment protects gun ownership. Are Jews entitled to easier access to guns in view of their history as victims of violence? The Fourth Amendment provides that no property may be taken for public use without just compensation. Are Japanese-Americans entitled to greater monetary compensation in eminent domain cases, in view of their forced relocation during World War II? For each component of the Bill of Rights, one can make a historical case for granting some groups greater entitlement than others. If the Ninth Circuit’s decision stands, and if assorted factions vie for the title of "historically oppr
essed minority group," the courts may end up facing just such cases.
Being the suit happy folks we are, these cases will come! And will they be worth the trouble? Unfortunately, some will think so. And if this ruling rattles your cage, I really can wait for the follow ons.
Our hope is that the full Circuit panel will overrule this. Failing that, the Ninth is the most overruled Circuit Court by the Supremes. Even at that, I hope that another conservative is placed on the Court. Why?
If nothing else, stop this impeding chaos.
