That kid is amazing. The posters were pointed and hilarious. It sounds like he's only a freshman, too. He's right; he should have been able to post his signs. And the teacher was completely wrong and made a fool of herself. As a person of "authority," she should not be allowed to get on her soapbox and then tear down someone else's rebuttals.

In fairness, only some on the Left would agree with her tactics. And there are some on the Right who also try to squelch the expression of ideas they don't like [heaven forbid we discuss birth control in health class].

Some of the worst lessons you can teach kids in school is that their opinions don't matter, that they're too young to really have formed an opinion of their own, or that their opinions are so offensive that they need to be silenced.

This kid is so politically engaged at a young age -- I wonder what dinner table conversations are like at his house.

Just a suggestion, RJ: it would have helped if you had summarized the story in a short paragraph in your blog entry. I actually clicked the "this is well-known" link first, but the "check this out" link was really the point and was FAR more interesting.

Well, the kid did learn one thing about the Right early on, that is for sure. Spreading his viewpoint through a quite over-exaggerated slam on the opposing side, rather than with sound information...the Right has taught him well.

Yeah, but the details don't matter. The important point is that he had the right to express his opinions.

Plus, he was reacting to the teacher's talking about Chomsky. She shouldn't be teaching her political opinions in class. She can teach Chomsky's, but she shouldn't teach hers.

BTW, last week I wrote a piece where I defended a teacher who gave her political opinion in school. That's because she objected to the mandatory moment of silence for Ronald Reagan that the principal announced over the loudspeaker. I defended her because the moment of silence is itself a political statement, and the teacher was being "investigated" by the school board for her political speech while the principal wasn't being investigated for his.

If a teacher isn't allowed talk about his or her political opinion, then s/he shouldn't be compelled to silently support anyone else's.

And the same goes for students. If the teacher can speak, so should they be able to speak.

I agree he had the right to express his opinion. Just offering my opinion on how he chooses to express his.

Okie doke.

So are you saying that the Right talks like a 14-year-old boy, or vice versa?

How far can one go in expressing opinion in a public school, bhw?

If a teacher advocates a religion, then a student should be able to counter, right? Same with politics?

But then what about orientation? If a teacher said something about me, does a student get equal time to quote the bible? Can a student use his freedom of speech to condemn me as a person in public? What if I were a student sitting next to him?

Now instead, replace the word orientation with the word liberal. He's putting up posters insinuating that liberals are against saving children. Sounds to me like he's slandering their character rather than promoting his pro-war viewpoint with information. If he is to be the rallying cry of the Right for 'liberal censorship', well, then I'm not surprised.

I don't agree with his opinions, but public school teachers aren't supposed to teach their political [or religious] opinions. That's indoctrination.

His teacher, according to him, went on about how right Chomsky is. She opened the door to political opinion, and then when someone who didn't agree with her tried to rebutt, she tore down the signs. She wants her political opinion to be the only one discussed, and that's wrong.

Why should he have to sit there and listen to her politics and not have a chance to rebutt?

I also didn't see those posters as being slanderous. The one about pushing the Jews off the planet [or however it went] crossed the line, but it seems like he otherwise tried to push buttons without getting personal or slanderous.

Students shouldn't be able to create a so-called hostile or threatening environment for others in public school, but they do it all the time -- it just usually has nothing to do with national or global politics. Instead, it's about who's not cool or some stupid thing. They're kids, they're mean, and someone's always on the least favored list.

It seems to me like the hostility in this case came from the people who didn't like what the kid said or how he said it. And in typical public school fashion, the discussion was squelched and an actual opportunity for the kids to learn something meaningful -- like how to think, analyze, and debate controversial ideas -- was squandered.

"But then what about orientation? If a teacher said something about me, does a student get equal time to quote the bible? Can a student use his freedom of speech to condemn me as a person in public? What if I were a student sitting next to him?"

If the teacher decides to make a statement about someone's sexual orientation, either outing them, praising them, or condemning them -- which s/he should not be doing in a classroom -- then YES, the other students should have the opportunity to chime in. Why shouldn't they, even if they have something to say you don't like? Why shouldn't you have a chance to speak, too?

I agree with your overall premise but it seems to be all encompassing.

A student can counter if a teacher talks about:
faith/belief system
political affiliation/preference
orientation/identification
evolution (counter with creationism?)

Does a med school teacher, educating about stem cells have to allow a med student to speak out on the behalf of Right to Life group?

Doesn't sound like a school where people learn, sounds like a debate where people go to present what they already know.

Just an aside because it's kind of related:
I am a human being. I do believe in Free Speech. However that doesn't mean I'm required to respect what one says. As an example, if a teacher tells the sociology class about experiences I go through because of my orientation - for educational purposes, and then the school allows the student next to me to stand up and tell the class that I am an abomination before God, and that we all must 'respect' that person's right to his belief, I would sue that teacher, that principal, that school, the system, the PTA, all the parents who just drop their kids off, the custodian and the old lunch lady.

A student can counter if a teacher talks about:
faith/belief system
political affiliation/preference
orientation/identification
evolution (counter with creationism?)

Yes, especially if the teacher decides to dictate that his or her opinion is correct, as opposed to just teaching the subject matter at hand.

In this case, we're not talking about a teacher just "talking about" something. We're talking about an English teacher saying that one writer's political opinion is correct. That's wrong.

She can teach a writer's politics without teacher her own. Even so, if you want to teach Chomsky, you kind of have to expect that people will disagree with him. He's not exactly middle of the road. And a good teacher WOULD include writers that disagreed with Chomsky. That's one way of getting the debate going without the teacher spouting off her opinion.

In a science class, teachers should teach evolution because that's the accepted theory *in science* about how we got here. And they should make sure the students know it's still only a theory. But if some kid counters with Creationism, he should be told to be quiet? No, I think the teacher should address the situation briefly and then send the kid to his/her parents or religious leader to talk about why his/her religion disagrees with science [and not the other way around].

Ideally, science [and all subjects] wouldn't be taught in a vacuum. It would be taught in the context of the world in which we live, so that students could discuss ethics, competing theories, etc. But we're so friggin' focused on multiple-choice test scores that we forget that learning should happen in context and that students are trying to fit all the pieces of the world around them together.

Re: your aside: A teacher should NEVER single a student out as an example like that. Who wants to be the poster child for homophobia or whatever the subject is? If s/he does, of course some kids will disagree. If the teacher wants to teach about sexual orientation and societal mistreatment, then s/he should use non-students in any examples.

In general, though, if you're teaching controversial subject matter -- and homosexuality is quite the polarizing subject, as you know -- then you kind of have to allow debate. The best questions you can ask kids are "what do you think?" and "why?" even if you don't like what they say in response. It's worse to stifle ideas you don't like than it is to hear them, in my opinion.

"Does a med school teacher, educating about stem cells have to allow a med student to speak out on the behalf of Right to Life group?"

Well, we're talking about public schools, not medical schools, so everything is different once you take public schools and kids 18 and younger out of the picture. Also, you're talking about teaching science/medicine, which is not the same as teaching the political opinion of the teacher.

That said, the medical school doesn't have to allow anything it doesn't want. But shouldn't medical schools address ethics and societal issues, too? Or should their courses just teach scientific study and research? I think I want my doctors to have participated in those types of debates so that they know why they do what they do and how it fits into their sense of ethics vs. the ethics in their community at large of their patients.

Maybe the right to life vs. stem cell discussion doesn't belong in the lab itself, but I don't see why it doesn't belong at med school at all.

"the ethics in their community at large of their patients."

Should be "...AND of their patients."

well, I never was singled out like that of course, but this is very similiar to a discussion I had on a surrogacy board. Even if the topic isn't about me personally, but if a teacher allows a student to condemn other human beings (gay people) as an abomination, as a 'viewpoint' to be considered, well sorry, but I think that's wrong. I'm going to be a bit biased about that though. I see the posters spreading lies about liberals here in the same vein. I'm all for free speech, but I don't think that intolerance, misinformation and hateful slander should be allowed as a 'point-counterpoint' option for consideration as a valid viewpoint.

"the ethics in their community at large of their patients."

So if we were in the stereotypical rural southern white school, then the advocation of racism in the school would be okay because it happens to be the ethics of the majority of parents? Hmmm. If I'm in the minority opinion here, it looks like yet another reason why I should homeschool my daughter.

On the surrogacy board, I presented this topic to the women like this:
Imagine you are sitting in a restaurant with your husband and your kids. A woman walks up to your table and sits in your husband's lap, slides her tongue down his throat and just basically starts making out. Why? Because she doesn't acknowledge your relationship with him, she doesn't believe in it. What do YOU do then? Now imagine that everybody else in the restaurant turns to you, places a restraining hand on your arm and says 'now, she is entitled to her opinion. We should respect it'. How does that make you feel as a person?

This is what I'm trying to get at:
If a teacher advocates a position, then a student should be able to counter that position with an opposing viewpoint, rather than countering with a concept that those who hold that teacher's position are baby-killers. See what I mean?

I think one of the things wrong with this country is that there is a large contingent of conservatives (i.e. Foxnews, Coulter, etc.) who do not offer substantative pro-conservative viewpoints as much as they offer anti-liberal viewpoints. I think when this mentality becomes accepted by the country as a valid counterpoint, it leads to more polarization, more division, more animosity, and makes the world a more miserable place to be.

I guess if the student wanted to put up posters advocating conservatism and a pro-war stance with information on the posters, I would agree with you more and be more on his side, but as it stands now, I'm becoming more convinced that there are really just two viewpoints anymore. Liberal and anti-liberal. When was the last time Tucker Carlson or Robert Novak was able to offer facts to substantiate their opinion rather than just attack the other side? I can't even remember. It's just detrimental to us all when that type of mentality is accepted as a valid counterpoint.

SHUT UP PINKO!!!

AMERICA-HATER!!!

;-)

hoo boy! this is fun!!

Boom, you're starting to fade away on me.

"I see the posters spreading lies about liberals here in the same vein. I'm all for free speech, but I don't think that intolerance, misinformation and hateful slander should be allowed as a 'point-counterpoint' option for consideration as a valid viewpoint."

Well, who gets to decide what a valid viewpoint is? And which ones get silenced and which ones don't? Lots of people think Chomsky doesn't have a valid viewpoint. Should his writing not be taught in school?

"So if we were in the stereotypical rural southern white school, then the advocation of racism in the school would be okay because it happens to be the ethics of the majority of parents?"

I was specifically talking about the issue of medical students and medical school, which I stated was different from public schools and public school students. I responded to your question about stem cell research.

And I also said in an earlier comment that a hostile environment should not be allowed to be created in public schools.

And your surrogacy analogy has absolutely no relevance to the discussion of whether or not a public school student should be able to disagree with his teacher's political opinions and put posters up with his own.

And how anybody feels as a person should have little to no bearing on whether or not another person has a right to put posters up, provided that there is no threat to safety, etc. Hurt feelings? Unfortunate, but that's real life.

You keep forgetting that the teacher didn't just teach Chomsky's views: she presented them as being correct. I still haven't heard you say she was wrong for doing that or that she opened the door for the students to speak up.

"If a teacher advocates a position, then a student should be able to counter that position with an opposing viewpoint, rather than countering with a concept that those who hold that teacher's position are baby-killers. See what I mean?"

No, because the kid didn't do any of that. His posters were political speech and attacked anti-war sentiment. He made no personal attacks on anyone. He merely mocked the opposing point of view by exaggerating their claims. I thought his posters were pretty effective, and I don't even agree with the kid.

Again, who gets to decide whether or not someone's counterpoint is valid? How do you propose to teach students to think about what they believe and say if you won't let them say it?

Censorship is usually a bad idea. Nobody learns anything when only one point of view is permitted or is given complete freedom while others are silenced or restricted.

Well, who gets to decide what a valid viewpoint is? And which ones get silenced and which ones don't? Lots of people think Chomsky doesn't have a valid viewpoint. Should his writing not be taught in school?

Truthfully, I am unfamiliar with Chomsky's work so I don't know if he should be taught as valid or not. I can't comment on that aspect.

And your surrogacy analogy has absolutely no relevance to the discussion of whether or not a public school student should be able to disagree with his teacher's political opinions and put posters up with his own.

It was an example to try and illustrate the difference between putting up posters or speaking in favor of a topic, versus attacking the character/person who holds an opposing view. Homosexuality is a good topic for that, because it's impossible to oppose it without holding to the opinion that a homosexual is a lesser human being.

Hurt feelings? Unfortunate, but that's real life.

Not so much hurt feelings, but rather disseminating misinformation. I just don't think misinformation should be considered a valid viewpoint.

You keep forgetting that the teacher didn't just teach Chomsky's views: she presented them as being correct. I still haven't heard you say she was wrong for doing that or that she opened the door for the students to speak up.

Actually, I didn't comment on that because 1) I am unfamiliar with Chomsky, and 2) all I could see in the guys blog was that the teacher said Chomsky was articulate. I didn't really see that as promoting Chomsky's viewpoint, for all I know she could have been commenting on his grammar.

No, because the kid didn't do any of that. His posters were political speech and attacked anti-war sentiment. He made no personal attacks on anyone. He merely mocked the opposing point of view by exaggerating their claims.

Well this made me laugh. Sorry, bhw. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, there were no personal attacks. He didn't say the teacher was a baby killer, he didn't say I was a baby killer, etc. he said liberals were. Generically speaking. I'm talking about the harm of attacking an opposing viewpoint with exaggeration and misinformation. You confirmed that is what he did. I don't see that as productive. It might fall under free speech, but I don't see it as beneficial to promoting his viewpoint.

Censorship is usually a bad idea. Nobody learns anything when only one point of view is permitted or is given complete freedom while others are silenced or restricted.

Actually in comment 6, I agreed that he shouldn't have been censored. I just don't see it as an effective counterpoint. Did the teacher refer to all students who don't like Chomsky as bible-thumping, venom-spewing fanatic fundamentalists? Probably not.

I know there are liberals who do exactly what I'm talking about. Michael Moore comes to mind, and people would probably put Al Franken on the list, but I can't say as I've never heard Franken's show. However, when you look at the media in general, and how people rant against it's liberal bias, I see in the media, people like Brokaw or whatever promoting liberalism. Not attacking conservatism. By and large, it's not the same in reverse.

While it's free speech and it's the way the world is, I'm just saying I think it's largely responsible for many of the fucked up problems we face in this world.

We will never be free. Although we're in the "most free" country in the world, free speech is just an illusion.
Sure you can say whatever you want, but you would have to worry about the government watching your back. Just look at history. Remember the communist scare of the Cold War? I Know for a fact that there are many other stories of the government crushing those who use free speech against against the government threateningly. But those stories have not been released. Oh well. Who cares? As long as we're all happy with sexual pleasures and television. Yay!!!

SHUT UP YOU PINKO COMMIE!! I BET YOUR MAMA SUCKED OFF GOOKS IN 'NAM!! THAT IS WHY YOU ARE A PINKO! YOUR MAMA'S TASTE FOR ROOT WAS INHERITED!

You ought to be happy that we don't just dive up to your house, drag your gay ass out, and have an old fashion lynching preceded by you being sodomized with various farming implements! Now you want "free speech"? Just cause we ain't chasing you anymore doesn't mean you're one of us, butt bandit. There is US and then there is YOU and YOU ain't one of US.

Now, why don't you do something that you are good at... like fix someone's hair or decorate someone's house, or put on a dress and pretend that you are a woman.

Pinko!

SHUT UP!

Hey, I'm not Communist. It's just that everything is flawed. There's no such thing as a true democracy, and if there is (or was), it's highly unsucessful. Why? Because WE are flawed as humans. That's also why Communism bombed so bad.

P.S. You weren't talkin' to me by the way, right, "Evil Twin Ms. Tek"?

Boom, show me where the kid called liberals "baby killers". I can't find it.

Chomsky is a very left professor of linguistics at MIT who is very vocal in his criticism of American foreign policy. His opinions are no where near the middle, so they always spark debate.

"Generically speaking. I'm talking about the harm of attacking an opposing viewpoint with exaggeration and misinformation. You confirmed that is what he did."

I said he did it with exaggeration, not misinformation. There's a difference, not that it matters in the debate about free speech. Political cartoons exaggerate. Do they by definition misinform? And the so-called harm that can be done with misinformation can be countered with a debate! That's the point.

"I don't see that as productive. It might fall under free speech, but I don't see it as beneficial to promoting his viewpoint."

So what? Lots of speech isn't productive or beneficial. These aren't good reasons to tear down the posters or oppose his right to speak. This business about his viewpoint not being valid is b.s. He has an opinion and he has obviously been following world events. It seems to me that his teacher doesn't like having her opinions challenged.

He's a h.s. freshman. You're holding him to an awfully high standard for political debate, one that isn't reflected ANYWHERE in the real world. Give him some credit for giving a crap and standing by his convictions, even if you don't agree with those convictions.

Boom, show me where the kid called liberals "baby killers". I can't find it.

He had a poster of iraqi children and insinuated that liberals don't want to save them because it costs too much money.

If I misrepresent and exaggerate and say that's the equivalent of calling us baby-killers, hey, it's a free country and it certainly didn't confuse you with a bunch of bs as to my point, did it?

Ahh, thank you Ms. Tek, there's nothing like a nostalgic trip back to the time when we were in high school. It's nice to know we're still practicing the art of such conversation in this day and age. One always enjoys such conversation over a cup of tea. Helps to better humanity, don't you think?

SHUT UP PINKO!!

TEA IS FOR FAGS!

REAL MEN DRINK COFFEE!

FOUR MORE!!!

BUSH IN 2004!!!

DIE DIRTY BROWN PEOPLE!

KERRY IN 2004!!!

YOU RACIST FUCK!!!

It doesn't matter if you confused me or not, Boom. You can say whatever you want. And the h.s. kid should be afforded the same courtesy.

You won't "better humanity" by censoring ideas you don't like. And you definitely won't better schools that way, either.

BUSH 2004
DOWN WITH BROWN!
THE MAN WITH A PLAN!!
SHUT UP YOU ANTI-AMERICAN COMMIE!!

Censorship is wrong when the Right or the Left does it. I said the same thing when the Dixie Chicks were lambasted for expressing a political opinion.

okay, we can agree to disagree I guess.

I am against censorship, I am for - holding a person accountable for their words and encouraging them to speak fact rather than falsehood. To me, that is not censorship.

Evil Twin Ms. Tek, are you an Ameri-can or an Ameri-can't?

SHUT UP MALIGNANT COMMIE PINKO!

I will NOT be drawn into one of your LIBERAL INTELLECTUAL MIND GAMES>

SHUT UP! TERRORIST!

Just say emsevolsusej backwards and everything will be okay. Redrum? Daedsiluap? tihstaei? Whatever, just turn yourself around backwards (no sexual innuendo intended) and become good Ms. Tek. "If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you" (Nietzsche). Wonder Twin Powers deactivate! Form of Ms. Tek, blasphemer, spewer of vitriolic truth, condemner of all things inane--a take-shit-from-nobody prophet.

"okay, we can agree to disagree I guess."

Good enough, Boom. Thanks for the debate.

Great post RJ. I'm thinking this kid made a huge impact on his fellow students to open their minds and challenge authority. A lot of courage, that one. A big part of liberal indoctrination depends on the tractability and the yearn for acceptance that is inherent with adolescent victims. Another telling feature of this story is how he had to face down the shrieks of "racist", the most typical censoring mechanism liberals employ. Being a "racist" is the gravest sin one can commit; but only if you're white.

Bhw, good show of non-partisanship.

Boomcrash, you say "Homosexuality is a good topic for that, because it's impossible to oppose it without holding to the opinion that a homosexual is a lesser human being." I've heard some reasonable arguments against (also some for) the homosexual agenda, and never has the opinion holder expressed the idea that a homosexual is a lesser human being.

"Great post RJ."

Thanks Dan. And thank you, bhw, for supporting free speech, even if you don't agree with it.

Boom states he opposes censorship, then makes a pro-censorship argument. Sort of funny, actually...

Boom states he opposes censorship, then makes a pro-censorship argument. Sort of funny, actually...

I must not be making myself clear then. I said numerous times that he shouldn't be censored.

What I did say is that he should be encouraged to do research (has anybody heard of a school library? They do have them, you know). He should do research and gather facts to promote his view. The school should be encouraging THAT. Encouraging one way, does not mean stifling another way.

I definitely need to homeschool my daughter. Apparently now in society, encouraging children to learn and/or how to properly debate is now the wrong thing to do.

Boom, you didn't really say that he should be encouraged to do research. You kept saying that you didn't think his way of expressing his ideas -- with exaggeration and, in your opinion, misinformation -- should be "allowed" as a valid viewpoint.

When you talk about allowing or not allowing viewpoints, that sounds like censorship.

But I agree, encouraging the kid to do more research is fine. But he's already pretty well-researched, I'd gather, particularly compared to his peers. He just doesn't use sources you or I would recommend.

Or another way you could look at it is that he did research and gathered facts and now has a valid point of view.

Boomcrash, you say "Homosexuality is a good topic for that, because it's impossible to oppose it without holding to the opinion that a homosexual is a lesser human being." I've heard some reasonable arguments against (also some for) the homosexual agenda, and never has the opinion holder expressed the idea that a homosexual is a lesser human being

Dan, as a homosexual who has been active in my community for many years, can you tell me what our agenda is? It's never been discussed by all those I have met in my life.

And of course, almost no one will ever express the opinion that a gay person is less than a human being. Most who hold that opinion, do not see it that way. They aren't aware they even feel it. It's my belief though, that a society should be built to ensure safety, survival and opportunity for all it's members. You know, humanity, a species working together and all that. So when an indvidual advocates or believes that some other individuals do not deserve what everyone else gets, I can only see it as the feeling that the individual 'deserves less' ergo, that individual IS less.

Unfortunately, no one is going to be able to convince me that denying my daughter the right to a stable household foundation, when others are assisted to have it, comes from a sound, logic and humane viewpoint. (by assisted, I mean allowing a spouse to have social security after one passes on, by filing jointly and saving money for running the house, etc. ad nauseum). Since I'm on the raw end of the deal, you won't be able to convince me that what is going on is the compassionate humane thing to do. Millions of families across America have to work harder to compensate for what other families are given to assist the household. There is no 'for' argument that can justify it.

I think the kid has done his research and has a valid viewpoint. I don't agree with his conclusions, but he's definitely been reading.

Boom, I'm honestly not sure why any families get tax and other benefits. I'm not sure why I was more deserving of a bigger tax refund than some of my peers, just because I have kids.

That said, if the government is giving out breaks to families, ALL families should get them.

Oh, he's been reading and he has a valid viewpoint. Hmmm. Perhaps what I need to realize is that I'm not a liberal then. Because I do not put the dollar above the welfare of a child. But apparently, it's valid and accurate. Perhaps I should switch over to the Corporate Republican party. THAT'S where the compassion for humanity is. Okay then.

Sorry, gotta go, Rod Serling is at the door.

A viewpoint is biased because it's colored by ... the point of view. It's basically his opinion, Boom. He is entitled to it.

And since *some* people have been making noise about the dollar cost of the war ....

Like I said, I don't agree with his conclusions, but he is entitled to his point of view.

BTW, I was mistaken earlier when I said he was a freshman. He's an 18-year-old senior.

I thought I'd read in the essay that he had "4 more years" to look forward to. I guess maybe he was talking about college, and I assumed he was talking about h.s.

Boomcrash, didn't mean to offend by using the word "agenda". You can call it the quest for equal and humane treatment by society if you want. I'm not hostile to your viewpoint about "assisted" spousal rights either. I am saying that maybe my distance from the debate might give me a better insight into the motives of people who hold the opposite opinion, and I'm absolutely certain that hatred or thinking that gays deserve less is not a prime motivational factor. Not to say that that sentiment doesn't exist, it surely does, but to think that it is the driving motivation for the anti-homosexual agenda (how's that?) I think is off base.

It's not unlike the highschool boy being called a racist. If it can be established (by popular opinion) that his viewpoints are based on irrational emotions like hatred or fear, then he can be discarded. Almost invariably it is liberals who play this game, and it gets old.

"I should switch over to the Corporate Republican party. THAT'S where the compassion for humanity is. Okay then."

I think there is room in the "log cabin" :)

Bryan Henderson is my new hero.

I wasn't offended. But that word keeps popping up, so I usually need to ask what it means, because the answer is usually different. (I've been told my agenda is to 'advocate' homosexuality to America's children or it's to get 'special' treatment, etc., so I like to know what it means to people who use the term.)

If it can be established (by popular opinion) that his viewpoints are based on irrational emotions like hatred or fear, then he can be discarded.

I've heard that claim many times before, so it's a viewpoint that exists I'm sure (on the liberal side), that it can be easy to discard something if you can classify it as irrational. That may be the case, I can only speak for myself when I say this:
Even if someone can come up with a 'sound, logical' reason to discriminate against my family, I am still going to discard it. And I have never heard of a sound logical reason to punish alternative families, and I've heard a lot of reasons. I'd be interested in hearing what you perceive to be a justifiable reason to assist two people who meet in Vegas and marry the next day, yet do not acknowledge another couple who has been struggling together for 50+ years.

I have to repeat: Even if someone can come up with a 'sound, logical' reason to discriminate against my family, I am still going to discard it.
What else am I supposed to do, Dan? Say 'oh, I see, you are right, my family doesn't deserve this or that, but the couple who marries for money or doesn't honor their vows or whatever, does?'

Tell me a rational reasoning, not based on hatred or fear, that justifies discrimination, and if you can get me to see it, I won't accuse anybody of it anymore. Until then don't tell me my complaining about not being treated equally is 'old'.

Your going to have an easier time though, convincing an African American that there are sound, logical justifications behind slavery.

good response Boom.

It's the only response there is.

As an aside, in comment 40, you imply, if not outright state, that the cries of 'racism' he endured was at the hands of self-serving liberals, however if you actually read his blog, you would see that it was muslim students who made the claim after being shown the posters by the girl who tore them down (and also made the claim). Muslim students, by the very definition of their faith, do not normally fall under the umbrella of 'liberal'.

Boomcrash, OK, I went back and "actually read his blog". Under the sentence: " She then distributed them (the posters)to several Muslim students, and I heard her loudly explain to them how I was a racist, how awful the signs were, etc." is a picture of two apparantly Muslim students looking at posters with a seemingly dramatically traumatized girl in the background. The caption reads: "Sean John" (hulking badass Muslim on the left): "Wait... why are these posters bad?"
"Tie-Dye"(outraged trama victim):"Because Bryan's a racist!"
Sean John: "Oh."" They weren't bothered by them.

The only person described as a Muslim who called him racist was "an angry woman in her thirties" whom he was unfamiliar with. Apparantly, at this school, they allow adults to come in off of the street and assault those with dissenting opinions. All other nasty labelers were described as "students".

Anyway, I'm not sure that it matters, My point remains that liberals typically resort to the racist label to shut down debate. It certainly happens to me a lot at B.C. Not to mention the twisting and contextual Bedlam my words are subjected to. Case in point (perhaps not intentional): You say " don't tell me my complaining about not being treated equally is 'old'". I didn't say that.

No, I'm not going to debate same sex marriage with you. For one thing I'm a staunch 'fence sitter' on the issue. For another, You've closed the debate--"Even if someone can come up with a 'sound, logical' reason to discriminate against my family, I am still going to discard it".

"What else am I supposed to do, Dan"?

If my advice were worthy of respect, I would say stick to your guns but be fair. Knock off some of the emotional appeals and exaggerations you accused the high school boy of doing like: "denying my daughter the right to a stable household foundation" and "Your going to have an easier time though, convincing an African American that there are sound, logical justifications behind slavery". But then, I'm a hateful frightened little man. MD should have fun with that last.

No, I'm not going to debate same sex marriage with you. For one thing I'm a staunch 'fence sitter' on the issue.

That's alright, I wasn't looking for a debate. It was a comparison to the free speech issue which was the main topic of the thread. And anyway, when it comes to equality and fighting discrimination, when someone tells me they are a fence sitter on the issue, I already know they are sitting on one side of the fence. I've never heard of anybody having no opinion on discrimination.
I hope I don't seem like I'm picking on you or anything, just calling it like I see it.

Knock off some of the emotional appeals and exaggerations you accused the high school boy of doing

I was the only one who had a problem with him exaggerating. Is exaggeration okay if it comes from a viewpoint one agrees with? I'm working on my writing, I don't have any training, but truthfully I don't see what I said as an exaggeration. I''ve talked on different threads about the police brutality, hate crimes, attempted murder, and life on the streets that I had to go through, in my life. I really don't see that saying 'denying my daughter the right to a stable foundation' is all that much of an exaggeration. But then you're not in my world. It's unfortunate that it comes across as an exaggeration.

But then, I'm a hateful frightened little man.

I never called you that. All I said was that discrimination stems from hatred or fear. You said you were sitting on the fence. So it wouldn't apply to you unless you really were on one side of the fence.

You've closed the debate

call me silly, I'm of the thought that here in America, land of the free, equality shouldn't be open for debate.

Thanks for the conversation.

The saga shows that we have teachers and school officials who are uninformed and timid enough to be intimidated by little neo-Nazis. The law of free expression in public schools is simple. Students are not allowed to engage in conduct that is disruptive or creates a hostile environment for other students, staff or faculty. The behavior the boy so proudly details here does both. Students and staff had work they should have been attending to that was interrupted by Henderson's antics. Muslim students may well have been insulted by Henderson's claim that their families in the Mideast should be driven from their homes and the land handed over to Jews. The principal would be completely justified in disciplining him. I would opt for expulsion. If any kid ever needed to be taught a lesson, this one does. And, school is a great place to learn.


Not only has his right to free speech not been infringed on, he has used a false claim of infringement to disrupt the school and abuse others. Bryan Henderson, with his utter contempt for the rights of other people and grandiose ego, is a Matt Hale in the making. Instead of waiting until he has followers who kill people, adults should hold him accountable now.

I doubt very much that you would feel the same way about a student with liberal views putting up posters in a conservative school, MD.

You teach nothing by kicking the kid out of school except that the majority can exercise its power at will and that minority voices will be silenced [or worse, that those who speak up will be punished].

He created no hostile environment. Nobody's safety was threatened. Nobody was bullied or prevented from attending class or participating in school activities. Nobody else's opinions were silenced. [Very few actual bullies EVER get expelled from school. The football team comes to mind.]

His behavior was disruptive, but only because the people around him acted like idiots. Should that be the litmus test for whether or not a kid should be able to voice an opinion, how quickly other people get hysterical over contrary ideas?

He challenged the prevailing attitudes of his peers and his teacher. They were upset because he voiced a strong opinion in a very overt way. That's their problem.

And it's a real shame that schools don't know how to channel stuff like this into REAL educational experiences.

"His behavior was disruptive, but only because the people around him acted like idiots."

I need to change that. HIS behavior wasn't disruptive. The students, teacher, and that abusive parent were the ones disrupting school.

I did not read the comments until after making my remarks above. I believe Steve (Boom) was on the right track. There is no evidence in an account biased in Henderson's favor (he wrote it) that the teacher promoted her political views. He says she said Noam Chomsky is articulate -- not that she expressed any political views. Then he goes on to refer to teachers and staff as socialists, Leftists and Communists. Ergo, Henderson is the one obsessed with politics, not the teacher.

Operation Tiger Claw was my first attempt at leading a protest against the apathy and leftism running rampant at my school. It all started on Friday, May 14th with a small act of conservative pride. My socialist history teacher was on another kick about how articulate Noam Chomsky was, when I finally reached my limit.


People are adopting Henderson's biases as true. That is a big mistake.

bhw wonders what Henderson says at the dinner table. I wonder what he says to women, people of color and Muslims that he walks past on the streets and at the mall. (Says something about our situations in society, I suspect.) Matt Hale's murderous follower, Benjamin Smith, did exactly the same things Henderson is doing. When he took his show to college, he got expelled for the behavior. If Brown had disciplined Henderson, his behavior would have at least been examined for the sociopathic tendencies it may represent.

A return to my main point: The disruption is the most important aspect of the situation. It is why Henderson is legally legless.

[This comment has been edited to remove violations of the house rules. The person posting the comment has been banned for one month. -Admin]

[Mac Diva], as usual, completely flips her lid in the comments section.

"The saga shows that we have teachers and school officials who are uninformed and timid enough to be intimidated by little neo-Nazis."

Immmediately we start with the name-calling. There is nothing to indicate this young man is a Nazi. But complete lack of evidence never once stopped MD from making personal attacks.

"The law of free expression in public schools is simple. Students are not allowed to engage in conduct that is disruptive or creates a hostile environment for other students, staff or faculty. The behavior the boy so proudly details here does both."

Actually, it does neither. The persons responsible for creating the "hostile envoronment" were the kooks chanting "racist" (MD's ideological peers). And, placing if placing a sign on a wall is somehow "disruptive", then every student organization who advertises their activities in such a manner (chorus, spanish club, etc.) should be immediately disbanded.

"Students and staff had work they should have been attending to that was interrupted by Henderson's antics."

No. Students and staff had work they should have been attending to, but instead they decided to squelch another person's free speech and engage in childish name-calling.

"Muslim students may well have been insulted by Henderson's claim that their families in the Mideast should be driven from their homes and the land handed over to Jews."

Tough shit. I'd be insulted by a professor telling her captive audience of students that the anti-American, disingenuous pinko Noam Chomsky is some kind of fucking political sage. But that's life in a free country.

"The principal would be completely justified in disciplining him. I would opt for expulsion."

Of course. If you were in charge, you'd censor everything you disagreed with and punish everyone who didn't parrot your twisted, left-wing fringe world-view. Why am I not surprised.

"If any kid ever needed to be taught a lesson, this one does. And, school is a great place to learn."

The lesson being: "Don't speak up and offer dissenting views in front of your betters, or you'll be called names, censored, and punished by the powers-that-be."

"Not only has his right to free speech not been infringed on, he has used a false claim of infringement to disrupt the school and abuse others."

Who was "abused" here Mac?

"Bryan Henderson, with his utter contempt for the rights of other people"

???

Isn't his freedom of speech an important right too?

"and grandiose ego, is a Matt Hale in the making. Instead of waiting until he has followers who kill people, adults should hold him accountable now."

And, of course, we end where we began, with baseless accusations that the young man, simply by expressing a conservative viewpoint, is a murderous bigot, and only "enlightened" folks who follow MD's advice will be able to set him straight and indoctrinate him into the Leftist ideology. Perhaps after he is expelled from his current school, he should apply at MD's special Angry Anonymous Blogger Re-Education Camp, as Mindless Automaton #478325.

[Personal insult deleted.]

We are going to have to agree to disagree about this one, bhw. Benjamin Smith would have driven past you and maybe waved and said 'Hi.' He would have shot and killed me. I cannot urge the development of more people like him and Matt Hale.

And, RJ Elliott.

[Personal attack deleted. -Admin]

"There is no evidence in an account biased in Henderson's favor (he wrote it) that the teacher promoted her political views. He says she said Noam Chomsky is articulate -- not that she expressed any political views."

The kid wrote: My socialist history teacher was on another kick about how articulate Noam Chomsky was, when I finally reached my limit. "

Sounds like she's talked about Chomsky's merits more than once.

"Then he goes on to refer to teachers and staff as socialists, Leftists and Communists. Ergo, Henderson is the one obsessed with politics, not the teacher."

How do you know if you don't go to that school? The kid also said that the Vice Principal agreed that students didn't have free speech at the school.

"bhw wonders what Henderson says at the dinner table."

Yes I do. My guess is that his family talks politics.

"I wonder what he says to women, people of color and Muslims that he walks past on the streets and at the mall."

Why? Because he voiced a political opinion at school?

("Says something about our situations in society, I suspect.)"

I'm a white woman, for the record.

"Matt Hale's murderous follower, Benjamin Smith, did exactly the same things Henderson is doing."

Way, way off the mark. First, the kid hangs up posters and now he's a muderer-to-be?

Second, you're advocating the thought police, where unpopular ideas are silenced because they're unpopular and where people who express unpopular ideas are punished, under the premise that the ideas eventually and lead to criminal behavior.

Is that really the society you want to live in?

"Benjamin Smith would have driven past you and maybe waved and said 'Hi.' He would have shot and killed me. I cannot urge the development of more people like him and Matt Hale."

I don't "urge" the development of racists and murderers. But I don't advocate limiting speech to only the stuff the majority likes.

The best thing you can do in this h.s. situation is to LET THE DEBATE HAPPEN. Ignorance is not bliss -- if you don't know the ideas are out there, how can you challenge them?

bhw, since you acknowledge that the kid exaggerates in his posters, how can we be certain that he isn't exaggerating about the teacher going on yet another 'kick'?

What I gather from the post, is that this kid is extreme in his views, prone to exaggeration. But then the girl who rips down the posters would be extreme in her anti-war views. So you have two extremists who suddenly go at it, and the faculty now finds themselves in the middle in having to resolve it. And I'm betting the faculty is uneducated on what to do. So their impulse would be to stifle a growing confrontation. Which fires up the boy even more. He obviously thrives on confrontation, not that that's a bad thing.

Next thing you know, the ACLU is mentioned, expulsion is mentioned and the wildfire has started.

And all because nobody is advocating preaching the facts, exaggeration is acceptable (except of course when it comes from little ole me). The wildfire has started. Look at the controversy around Farenheit 9/11 and how everybody is going on about the 'exaggerations' in it.

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round.....

Eric, Phillip, anyone with moderating ability: Something must be done about RJ Elliott. #63 is beyond the pale, wholly offensive, and completely against your stated rules.

"bhw, since you acknowledge that the kid exaggerates in his posters, how can we be certain that he isn't exaggerating about the teacher going on yet another 'kick'?"

I can't. But it's almost beside the point. It is relevant because, as I said earlier, the teacher gave her views about Chomsky, who is quite a polarized writer. We're not even sure they read his stuff in class. So if they didn't read his stuff, then the teacher was just voicing her political opinion in class. If they did read Chomsky, then the teacher introduced one side of the political spectrum. Did she introduce the other? We don't know. Maybe the kid just wanted to show his opposition to Chomsky's ideas.

I also know something about the region, since I'm originally from not too far from there. It's a liberal area -- Princeton, for pete's sake. The kid exists in a liberal community [and it's quite lovely in other ways, too].

Even if the teacher hadn't started the situation with Chomsky, should political debate amongst the student body not be allowed? I don't think teachers should be teaching their politics to students. But I think students should be able to discuss politics and state their personal views, even to the point of putting up posters.

"And I'm betting the faculty is uneducated on what to do. So their impulse would be to stifle a growing confrontation."

They don't sound very prone to stifle confrontation by me. Tearing down the kid's posters right in front of him sounds VERY confrontational [and melodramatic]. If a teacher doesn't know how to turn that situation into a positive one without tearing down the signs, then schools are in bigger trouble than I thought. The absolutely should be educated in how to handle it, especially if they're going to bring up Chomsky with their students.

People in authority often use the "we're just trying to keep everyone safe" excuse when they stifle unpopular speech. Instead of making it clear that abusive confrontation is not acceptable by people who disagree, they make it clear that certain political expressions are not acceptible. So people with unpopular ideas are silenced by authority and the hysterical ranters are not critized [or are even applauded] for their immature, irrational behavior.

"And all because nobody is advocating preaching the facts, exaggeration is acceptable (except of course when it comes from little ole me)."

Again, you are free to exaggerate. Did anyone here "tear down your posters" or did they discuss the exaggerations and other points with you in a civil manner? Who discussed the exaggerations with the h.s. kid? [Sounds like maybe the v.p. did, and then she conceded some of his points.]Did the teacher who took down his signs care about facts? Really, do you think that's what she cared about?

His posters were edgy and made people uncomfortable. That's why they tore them down. And in my opinion, that's wrong.

I think the boy was being disruptive when he put the posters up. Nor am I conceding the point about Chomsky. I think George Will is reasonably articulate. But, I rarely agree with his views. I need more than the teacher saying Chomsky is articulate to believe she was promoting her politics. I don't have it.

Furthermore, putting up posters goes beyond whatever dialogue was occurring because they are viewable by persons not involved in the conversation. In addition, the content of the posters matters. The putting up of the inflammatory posters was incitement, pure and simple. A right to speak and a right to incite are not synonymous.

The political name-calling I referred to is throughout Henderson's sophomoric screed. Everyone he disagrees with is a socialist, communist, etc. I don't see how anyone could have read the piece and not noticed that.

I believe bhw needs to go back and re-read Henderson's screed in its entirety. It does not reflect well on him. One sees a preening little egotist who will run the school or else. The nice little boy protesting bad, bad adults she wants to see is not there.

Nor do I agree with bhw that this thread is being conducted civilly by everyone. It features a white man referring to a woman of color as a 'cunt' and saying she is not worth a bullet. bhw seems to be suffering a rather convenient blindness that effects some white people sometimes. As long as the harm being done does not apply to people who look like her, no harm is occurring. Very convenient.

I need more than the teacher saying Chomsky is articulate to believe she was promoting her politics. I don't have it.

So you think the kid would have mentioned this teacher if she'd said, "Chomsky is articulate, but just in a literary way. He's a linguist, after all. I'm not commenting on his politics in any way." Not so much.

Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say the teacher had them read Chomsky and then proceded to point out why he was RIGHT. Now what about this kid or any other kid reacting with posters?

The putting up of the inflammatory posters was incitement, pure and simple. A right to speak and a right to incite are not synonymous.

Well, he incited something, alright. He incited poor behavior from other students, at least one parent, and at least one teacher. He was definitely trying to make a point and get people riled up. He succeeded, and unfortunately, the people who reacted badly merely reinforced his one-sided beliefs. Now, where did that stereotype about the left trying to squelch speech they don't like come from?

The political name-calling I referred to is throughout Henderson's sophomoric screed. Everyone he disagrees with is a socialist, communist, etc.

How's your irony detector working today?

I don't see how anyone could have read the piece and not noticed that.

I read it and noticed it. And it makes not an ounce of difference to the point about speech.

I believe bhw needs to go back and re-read Henderson's screed in its entirety....The nice little boy protesting bad, bad adults she wants to see is not there.

I read the whole thing before making comment #1 and have gone back to it from time to time during this discussion. I see a kid trying to stir the pot. I don't agree with his politics, but I don't have a problem with that, particularly since his peers usually doesn't think about anything besides pop culture and their next trip to the mall. We need more kids like this representing the entire political spectrum.

Nor do I agree with bhw that this thread is being conducted civilly by everyone.

Quote me. When did I say that? I was talking to a point Boom made about himself, in which he referred to other comments earlier in the thread.

You and RJ have a long history and can duke it out yourselves.

"particularly since his peers usually doesn't think about"

Uh, make that "don't think about".

Soon after leaving the thread, serendipity intervened. I discovered this article about more 'conservative' white youths who some will say deserve our support. This is the next step for school kids interested in 'freedom of speech,' I guess.

Black School Bus Driver: Kids Dress As KKK


OCALA, Fla. (AP) - A black school bus driver filed a complaint with authorities after seeing two children dressed in Ku Klux Klan robes and carrying a cross at one of her stops.

Claudette Johnson told the Marion County Sheriff's Office that she spotted the pair Wednesday among a group of students waiting for the bus. Johnson made eye contact with the two as the other students boarded her bus, but said the robed students did not speak.

The children in robes then crossed the street and handed the cross to another child, who dragged the cross away, the complaint said. They stood between 5 and 5 1/2 feet tall and weighed about 100 pounds, according to Johnson.

Johnson, a 23-year employee of the Marion County school system, said she had also seen a child wearing a KKK outfit at the same bus stop about two weeks ago. Her route serves students attending summer camp at a school.


``I don't think this is funny,'' she said. ``I'm an employee for the public school system. I shouldn't have to deal with this.''

A detective is following the case and had identified one suspect, said Lt. Butch Gallion. To take further action, Gallion said authorities would have to prove the suspects intended to harass or intimidate Johnson.

There's *nothing* I love more than a good, fiesty Klan rally. Especially at my house.

I guess my views have changed as I have gotten older. Truthfully, if I were a student in his school, I would have looked at the posters and said 'what's the big deal?'

Perhaps because I have gotten older, I am able to now see a bigger picture that I didn't see before? I don't know.

I am all for Free Speech. It is the primary concept that has made our country the greatest on earth. I guess though, getting older, made me realize that it doesn't mean we need to throw accountability out the window.

A kid turns in a term paper filled with exaggerations and slander, and it wil get rightly graded accordlingly. There is accountability there (at least for now, thank goodness).

I don't know, it's not the kid's viewpoint I have a problem with, it's his presentation. Foxnews has made it acceptable now to just throw any fallacy or opinion out as fact and it's readily accepted. (but of course, be sure and tune into Scaroborough Country to see a complete dissertation, along with graphs and pie charts, about the lies and misrepresentations in Farenheit 9/11 and hear all about how wrong it is to do that).

bhw, I agree with you about the fact that censorship is wrong. And I agree that the way the school handled it was wrong. But I have to disagree with your premise that Free Speech should run unchecked as long as it does not result in direct harm against anybody else. There is a reason why you will never see, driving down the road, a billboard covered with graphic photos of aborted fetus parts.

Should I ever be allowed to be married, I know that there will be some free speech advocates who will fight for the right of some individuals to tarnish my wedding day by standing outside the church and shouting in all our faces as we walk inside about how sodomites burn in hell. I suppose that is just going to be part of the price some of us have to pay for all of us to have freedom of speech unfettered.

But what I know now, that I didn't know when I was younger, was that even if the hate speech isn't specific about you, it still can kill. This is why the suicide rate for gay youth is 5 times the national average. When you grow up and realize you are a 'sodomite' and everybody constantly tells you that sodomites are the cause of the decay of society, then it doesn't matter if they use your name or not, the effect is still there.

Having said that, the kid should be able to go around promoting the fallacy that the left is anti-children, and it is the right that puts human life above the dollar. And more people will gravitate to the right because nobody bothers to fact check anymore, or hold people accountable for their free speech and this country will continue to go to hell in a handbasket until one day, it's a complete mess and everybody looks around and says 'wha happened?'

Free speech should not mean no accountability.

thankfully though, I can now throw out paragraphs like the hell-in-a-handbasket one and not have to substantiate them with logic or reason. (although one only has to look at the ratings of foxnews to see that I actually have logic or reason in my comments).

I hear you, Boom, and I agree with your discussion of accountability and the level of discourse we're becoming used to. And I also know that gays [and others] have suffered from the speech of people who hate them. I get it, totally.

One of the problems was that there wasn't enough noise made by people who disagreed with the homophobic "agenda." I would say the same is true of your concern about this kid's exaggerations becoming accepted as truth: somebody needs to tell the other side of the story and tell it just as loudly [with perhaps less exaggeration]. Stopping his message isn't the answer. Providing the counter-message is.

I believe that words have power. So that's why I believe all perspectives should be heard. Lay all the truly ugly ideas out on the table so they can be addressed. Don't bury them underground, but DO address them.

That's all I'm saying. Because it's pretty disappointing that a student tore down his posters rather than put up her own.

And, bhw just happens to be safe from the haters. She can sit back and lecture me or the woman being harrassed by baby Kluxers about the importance of free speech while never having to pay the price herself. She can kid herself that no one was harmed by the activities of Bryan Henderson and coo about how cute those kids look in their Klan outfits. (It is just a lighthearted prank, after all.) That is the effect of white privilege.

"Eric, Phillip, anyone with moderating ability: Something must be done about RJ Elliott. #63 is beyond the pale, wholly offensive, and completely against your stated rules."

Apparently, Eric and Phil no longer enforce their rules. Mac Diva has gone back to her old ways of lying about people, calling them racists, murderers, homos, etc.

If Mac Diva is not expected to follow the rules, then I guess they were repealed when I wasn't paying attention. So therefore I was violating nothing.

If comment #63 gets deleted, half of MD's comments better be erased as well.

"Nor do I agree with bhw that this thread is being conducted civilly by everyone. It features a white man referring to a woman of color as a [edited]"

That's your twisted take on it.

The way I see it, skin color is irrelevant to this. What happened is that one poster (myself), sick and tired of being called a murderous racist (and seeing others called the same sorts of things) by another poster (that would be you), decided to get personal as well. And now you're whining about it, as if you haven't been guilty of the same "uncivil" behavior here dozens of times.

Naturally, Mac would like to turn this into a racial thing, and claim "victim" status. How very typical.

But for the ingrate known as RJ Elliott being a Right Wing white man harassing women of color he would have been banned from this site by now. He called Ms. Tek a '[edited]' weeks ago. Now, he has called me a '[edited].' Similar language was used toward Sandra Smallson, before she stopped commenting. If RJ Elliott were to use the same language toward bhw or Dawn Olsen, the response would be quite different. The situation speaks for itself.

[This entire comment was too long to bother editing, so I zapped it. -Admin]

Ah... now I have an idea who probably said all that bullshit to paypal about me... Something about me having "pornographic photos" and selling my "services".

RJ... NO that was not a play on my Website Name. I have NEVER EVER called myself "tekwh0re" on Blogcritics you little lying piece of shit (Well Eric, Phillip... since RJ can call people "cunts and whores" all the time on here any not get banned then I can call him a MOTHERFUCKER- except I'm sure even his mother wishes she swallowed that night. Eric, Phillip, for once, I challenge you to speak up on THAT matter as that I have been here longer than RJ and YOU KNOW the name (one) I used before and why I changed it. So who is lying NOW RJ? Moreover, whatever I decide to call my website is my business and not YOURS.

Finally, you lying sack of shit, you called me a whore not "months" ago but two months ago:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/23/005129.php

Which is interesting because I said something to Phillip about that and he said he would remove it but he didn't.

You know, when I debate people, I don't make a habit of calling names nor to I play dirty until someone starts with me "off the cuff". I was taught how to debate my point in school without getting personal or call names. As I have said a million times before... I DO NOT TAKE SHIT, however. If you want to "tussle" with me, I don't mind going low too.

But see Eric, you are always pandering to you psychotic, right winger crowd. They can call names left and right and all you do is try to "smooth things over".

I suppose bad publicity is good publicity. So long as there is attention then its okay, right? The terms "cunt" and "whore" are okay in a debate with women, huh?

Which goes back to my original point and why I took on the name "tekwh0re" a long time ago.

When you stand up against a man, first you are a "bitch", if that doesn't rattle your cages, then you become a "slut" and a "whore". If that doesn't work, "lesbo" and "dyke" are next... finally when they really can't prove their point or shake you in any way possible, you become a "cunt".

All it shows is a lack of intelligence and skills on the party that feels the need to toss names out first. They don't know what to say and they are so frustrated by the limitations of their own mind, they start to just spew crap (much like most of RJ's postings).

But hey, double standards... whatever you can get for content on here, right Eric? Doesn't matter if it is crap, plagiarized, or otherwise. People want to constantly call other people names? We'll just make "nicey-nicey" speak out of both sides of our mouths and wait for things to "blow over". We'll just make some lame ass yahoo group to "complain" about other blogcritcs as nothing still is done.

And what is even the most telling of all, Eric... YOU then after some things blow over support and then praise the very people who have caused the problems. You say you are fair but to be honest not once have I seen you praise Mac Diva for something but I have seen you praise Al Barger and EJ Eliott- most recently saying his posts are getting better.

What a load of CRAP.

But hey... I'm not angry with RJ Elliot- I know the type of kid he is... He can't help what he is. However I can blame YOU Eric. You can decide who stays and who goes. You can decide what the quality level is that you want.

Someone said in the blogcritics group that they like it when people start crap in comments because it adds a lot of comments and brings to the discussion.

Yeah, I can see how a lot of "cunts" and "whores" flying back in forth really adds value to this site.

And yes, I am calling both Eric and Phillip out in public on this one because you are both wrong and unfair beyond the point of doubt here. As IF this is the first time that RJ Idiot has resorted to this kind of behavior because of his very limited mental capacity.

What a load of bullshit.

The terms "c*nt" and "wh*re" are okay in a debate with women, huh?

Ms. Tek, I agree with your post. I had mentioned several times on this thread, about having to do something like get married with individuals shouting 'you fags burn in hell' in my face as I walked up the church steps. The response I got (still on this thread for review), was that ANY kind of censorship is wrong and the correct answer is to counter it with speech just as loudly.

Which means when I do get married, I'll need to make sure everyone has a megaphone.

So it seems the correct thing to do, when someone calls you the 'c' word, is to shout back just as loudly, 'Dick!'. Then nobody's rights were infringed upon, (which apparently trumps your right to not be verbally assaulted) and all the people across the world, who surf the internet can stumble across this thread and see 'c*nt' and 'dick' all over the place and know what proud and free speakers Americans are!

She can sit back and lecture me or the woman being harrassed by baby Kluxers about the importance of free speech while never having to pay the price herself.

First, it's not a lecture. It's a comment thread, a discussion. Second, just because I'm not a racial minority doesn't mean someone else's "speech" hasn't affected me negatively.

She can kid herself that no one was harmed by the activities of Bryan Henderson and coo about how cute those kids look in their Klan outfits.

Nice fabrication about the kiddie Klanners. Once again, QUOTE ME. I noticed you never bothered to quote me the last time I challenged you to. That's because you can't.

"That is the effect of white privilege."

Everyone's beliefs are shaped, in part, by their experiences. In my experience, it DOES NOT HELP to silence political speech you don't like, no matter how ugly it gets.

I said twice in this thread that a hostile environment should not be allowed to be created in public school. And I don't think one was created by this incident.

I'm sorry you fall back on racial divisions when people on the left stand up for the rights of people you dislike. Go ahead and paint me as a Klan sympathizer if you want. It speaks more about you than it does about me.

Freedom of speech has a price, Boom. Would I like to see protesters at your wedding? No. Would I like to see your wedding turned into a shouting match? No.

But the alternative is worse. How can you be sure it won't be your speech that is censored next?

Boom, will you be chiming in about Mac Diva's accountability for her speech about me, since it's so important for people to talk about FACTS and not exaggerate?

Who's the fact-checker on this thread?

Jesus. I hadn't read this topic because I didn't find it interesting, but then I see this. You people get too worked up and I've been out too late to process all your petty feuds.

Despite my ironic take on censorship that no one responded to recently, here's the deal with your silly problems:

RJ's comment #63 was fine until he said the four-letter word. He's commented upon how he's had problems with women in the past due to that word :) I think the reasonable solution is to go back and just delete those four inflammatory letters from his post if you folks really insist -- I'd imagine RJ wouldn't care all that much. I don't even think that's necessary, though.

I disagree with RJ's simian political views 100% of the time and I've called him stupid more than anyone else has in my short time commenting on this site, but I respect his ability to say what he wants. If he or anyone else truly deserved to be censored, I would say so, but I think we need a fairly high threshold for policing thought and speech.

I'm farther left and a better leftie than any of the rest of the left-wingers on the site -- and I think I'm the only one of the few liberals who's not a sista (but I do notice that we're all people of color) -- but I think there's a real irony in calling for censorship in a topic about free speech. For what it's worth, the school might have a legal right to determine that politically motivated posters aren't approved for posting, but the kid shouldn't be suspended for being an ass. Chomsky would probably object (as I do) to the idea that a student should be faced with bureaucratic punishment for poorly chosen satire and misguided political sloganeering.

I've had MacDiva incorrectly jump over a comment of mine about racism once before and I corrected her, but I think she has a right to her occasionally difficult speech just as RJ has a right to present simpleton, contrarian positions as well. MacDiva and I seem to agree a lot on politics lately, but I think calling for the limitation of speech is a dangerous precedent. Otherwise, people couldn't converse about topics where they CAN communicate (even if it's nearly impossible on others). Anyone whose identity or beliefs are often in the minority (as mine are) should caution against invoking censorship. Using a four-letter word that's rougly equivalent to MFer is unpleasant but not injurious nor a libelous attack on the specifics of someone's life. It's a generic, dismissive swear word. Deal.

A great example of how to deal with unpleasant speech is the recent topic about the C-word itself. RJ (or Olsen or someone) brought up the word and we quickly decided that anyone who's stupid enough to use the word deserves to hear the scorn of the woman they use it toward. RJ, you're a douche for using it again after that discussion. But if we start censoring certain words, that would mean we couldn't have a frank discussion like that one, a meta-discussion about the use of that word in society and its impact.

I am as mystified as anyone about the Al Barger support and I do sense there's a strong libertarian/right bent to the site that I can't explain. However, I don't think any of those fools should be censored. You have a right to be wrong and I have a right to challenge you into silence. Not that I'm a model of decorum, but I'd much RATHER be able to read and respond to ridiculous or racist claims. Look at the Cosby thread for example. People like Jim Carruthers, Al Barger, and a few other reactionary white folks I'm forgetting made indefensible claims about race and were argued into silence. The best way to shut up a sexist, homophobe or a racist is to present them with the truth. As a minority myself, I'd much rather have bigotry out in the open than the quite politeness of silent distance and shallow tolerance.

But then I don't lose many arguments. You were a debater too, Scary Spice?
See? We can kid each other without it necessarily being personally hateful.
None of us who regularly comment, even the grandfather types, are particularly mature but it's particulary immature to ask "administrators" to use authority to enforce maturity (whatever that means). Sometimes it's fun to be immature about serious matters and I can't think of anyone of you in this dispute who isn't occasionally "off the cuff." Most of the "serious" political debate on the site is relatively shallow and sparse to begin with, so "enforcing" certain types of speech would take away most of what the site currently is. I, for one, would find it very boring to read and I would imagine there would be fewer regular commenters than there already are if we were all walking on eggshells and holding back.

When people call me a "whore," I admit it because they're right. When people say I'm pretentious and arrogant, I admit it. When people are right about something stupid I said, I admit it. Stop being offended so easily, folks. RJ seems to have a fairly decent sense of humor about himself. If he calls you a cunt, just remind him that he reads "get a bigger penis" websites.

I mean, it's RJ. How hard is it to set him straight?

Porn pictures? Where?

I'd rather do the alien.

That is all.

Also, if a discussion gets too heated, just tell the person honestly that you were offended by their comments and tone in addressing you.

I don't think anyone's such a tool that they'd persist in attacking if you asked them to stop.

OK? I'm teaching you all how to live human lives, slowly but surely.

That is all.

Everyone's beliefs are shaped, in part, by their experiences. In my experience, it DOES NOT HELP to silence political speech you don't like, no matter how ugly it gets.

okay, you've put the word 'political' in there, so I agree with this sentence, although I think making a statement that liberals value the dollar above human life does not qualify as a political sentence.

What about religious speech though? Which is more important, the right of a religious person to stand on a street corner and exercise freedom of speech, or the right of an individual who is condemned by said religion to exercise his right to be free FROM religious persecution?

And for the record, I agree with you, that you standing up for the right of KKK kids to have free speech, does not mean you are a KKK sympathizer. However, I think kids purposely wearing white robes, which have a history of murder, lynching, torture and fear, around individuals who for generations were victims by white robe wearers, does NOT fall under 'free speech'. Now free speech includes the wardrobe we wear? Sorry bhw, I respect and like you immensely hon, we agree probably on most everything else, but such an action is specifically designed to intimidate and cause fear and terror. To me, that falls more under 'terrorism' than it does 'free speech'.

If wardrobe falls under free speech, then what about no wardrobe? Why can't those of us who choose so, walk around naked without penalty?

Free speech means different things to different people. If we all had a right to just put up posters of our thoughts, then this world would have a hell of a lot of paper trash. I don't agree that taking the guys posters down (which were done in the heat of the moment and irrationally), is violating his freedom of speech. He can write an editorial in the paper, he can stand out on the school grounds and speak his mind to other students, etc.

To me, the unlimited use of being able to 'post' your posters, or the clothes you wear, etc. do not fall under the ever-growing umbrella of 'free speech'.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that and once again, I don't think you are a KKK sympathizer. I know that you standing up for the right of someone to condemn me, doesn't mean you condemn me personally.

If we're going to start censoring people, I nominate myself. I find myself highly offensive lately and DEMAND immediate correction for our community. We MUST establish values for what we believe and whom we exclude. None of you spoke up when you had your chance to establish the new glorious order of censorship and now look what's happened. Just look! You can only blame yourselves for the chaos of unruly speech -- I offered you an iron fist, whips, and chains and you turned your collective backs on me. Jack Ryan, interestingly, gave me his number.

Phillip -- please censor any comments I have made about politics, animals, or midgets lately, including that last offensive sentence above. I think it's necessary for our community and I offer myself as a sacrifical example to re-establish order among the hoi polloi.

IMMEDIATELY, forthwith, expediently with all due haste, let us embrace the spirit of the times and be the vanguard of enforcing appropriate, high-quality speech. It is up to the intellectuals to take a stand now for pretty talkin.

For the third time, that is all. And I trust Phillip to make the phrase "that is all" mean something for us.

let us embrace the spirit of the times and be the vanguard of enforcing appropriate, high-quality speech. It is up to the intellectuals to take a stand now for pretty talkin.

This sarcasm misses the point. As for 'pretty talkin', refer back to my thought of a billboard of graphic photos of bloody fetus's. It's not allowed in society, but it isn't censoring the pro-lifers. They have plenty of other ways to speak out.

So all students can put up posters wherever they want and it's automatically protected by free speech? What about a student who wants to rent one of those signs that you can pull by a truck, and who parks it right in the school parking lot? Is that free speech too?

Was the kid denied ANY other avenue to express his point? THAT is censorship.

Kids can wear KKK clothes to intimidate and we must put up with it even if it's not 'pretty' because it's now speech? Why can't I walk around buck ass naked as self-expression and not be penalized?

Censorship means silencing a person's voice. It doesn't mean denying them one avenue.

Telling a person to not shout in my face that I will burn in hell, but allowing him to espouse that view on his own website, newspaper or pulpit is NOT censorship.

Boom, thanks for the response.

What about religious speech though? Which is more important, the right of a religious person to stand on a street corner and exercise freedom of speech, or the right of an individual who is condemned by said religion to exercise his right to be free FROM religious persecution?

Well, you're not gonna like this, but ....There has to be a balance, because the first amendment provides for both, freedom of religion for the individual and freedom from government-endorsed religion. So, the religious person on the street has the right to promote his religion.

Unfortunately, we're free only from government sponsored religious persecution, not the persecution [verbally speaking] of, say, the Catholic Church. They're free to [remain hypocrites] teach their "abomination" crap. Now, if the public schools started their day with a Bible reading, I'm with you 100% because that's government sponsored religion.

And for the record, I agree with you, that you standing up for the right of KKK kids to have free speech,

Here's where your earlier points about factless exaggerations come into play. I never said any such thing. I never addressed the rights of those kids at all. MD quoted the story and then put words into my mouth. She has created the impression that I said someting I didn't. So your points about the kid's posters are well taken.

However, she MD has the right to do that. And I have the right to point out her lies.

Now free speech includes the wardrobe we wear?

Actually, I think it does. Seen anyone wearing an offensive t-shirt lately? That said, we do have "decency" laws, as you noted, that prevent us from walking around naked. As for the kids in the white robes, they have the right to wear them on the street, at home, etc. When they get on the school bus, the bus driver and students have a right to protest that they're creating a environment where they feel physically threatened. If that's the case, then the robes go [and hopefully the kids get some intervention]. I draw the line at physical intimidation at school, which I said before.

Free speech means different things to different people.

And that's the problem, really. Today it's kids with posters at school that attack the Left. Tomorrow it's who? We all have different standards for what we like and don't like. Who gets to choose what gets said and what doesn't [or how it gets said]? The people with the most power? That scares me.

I know that you standing up for the right of someone to condemn me, doesn't mean you condemn me personally.

Thank you. I appreciate that you can see the difference. I think I'm well on the record for what my own beliefs are, how I vote, etc.

So I do indeed agree to disagree with you on this topic. I seem to keep getting more adamant about free speech as I get older [I think we're about the same age]. I used to think it was better to censor certain things, and now I don't.

I think the Bush administration has something to do with that. I can't get Ari Fleisher's "Now is the time for Americans to watch what they say" out of my head.

It's an odd world we live in, where we can't show the flesh we are born in, because it is 'indecent', yet as long as we use man-made items like billboards, shirts or posters, practically no rules whatsoever apply.

Physical intimidation is off limits but not verbal harassment? So what are women who live in verbally abusive relationships griping about? Don't their husbands have freedom of speech? Having attempted suicide when I was younger, I know that living under verbal abuse in the house is the equivalent as living under constant verbal abuse within society.

I worry about the Patriot Act, and the loss of our freedom of speech too. ESPECIALLY under the morons running the country. I just believe in our quest to make sure that doesn't happen, we don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

"Ah... now I have an idea who probably said all that bullshit to paypal
about me... Something about me having "pornographic photos" and selling my
"services"."

Why would I try to get you in trouble with PayPal, when I was one of those who donated to your site?

"RJ... NO that was not a play on my Website Name. I have NEVER EVER called myself
"tekwh0re" on Blogcritics"

Hmm. If you say so. My mistake. I must have been confused because "TekWh0re" is in your Website name. So, it wasn't a play on your BC name, but your Website name. Whatever. Mea culpa.

"whatever I decide to call my website is my business and not
YOURS."

Oh, you can call it whatever you want. And then I can comment on what you call it. Free speech, and all...

"Finally, you lying sack of shit, you called me a whore not "months" ago but
two months ago"

One month = singular

Two months = plural

How am I "lying" here?

"Which is interesting because I said something to Phillip about that and he said
he would remove it but he didn't"

Aww, poor baby. You can call people vile names and hope for the slaughter of every Jew in Israel, no problem. But when someone calls you by your Website name, you run to the administrators and demand censorship. You poor thing you...

RJ, you flat out were calling me a whore. You know it. I know it.

And if I say so?

Well, you lying sack of shit, see if can find ANY articles under "tekwh0re" up on this site.

You can call people vile names and hope for the slaughter of every Jew in Israel, no problem.

Once again, you are liar. I NEVER said that I hoped for the "slaughter of every Jew in Israel". You know I didn't say that and anyone who is a regular on here knows I have never said that. Also, I don't make a habit of calling people "motherfuckers" or "assholes". etc... I don't EVER call people names first and it also takes A LOT to get me to toss them. That is called being an adult- something that you have no clue about.

And lets get something straight= Freedom of speech DOES NOT mean the FREEDOM to harass people. If you want to write a book with words whore and cunt all in them, fine. But if you think it is okay for you to call someone whores and cunts in a conversation I would LOVE to see you try that with a cop or a judge.

I don't think the "would you say this in front of a cop or judge" standard is a good one for free speech. Half the things we say in normal conversation wouldn't be appropriate in a courtroom and would get you held in contempt. I'd imagine the same is true in talking to a police officer. Website comments shouldn't be written as if people are corresponding with authorities because, quite frankly, none of you are cops or judges. And if you are, find something better to do with your time because you shouldn't say half the things you say yourselves.

Tek: I never called you a name, by the way. You started that whole business on your own. What was your reason in my case? Other than my being wonderful and adorable, of course.

BoomCrash: I'll tell you a little story. I knew this kid in high school who was on a team with me and we had a lot of the same friends, hung out together. He was kind of a dumb guy, but I didn't know how dumb until someone told me that he had a secret mock celebration of Hitler's birthday and did some mock salute thing as a joke. What made this even more ridiculous was that this kid was 100% Polish -- you'd think he'd know some history and what Hitler did to his people. Not to mention that there were a lot of Jewish kids in our class -- I think a good number of people vaguely knew about his mock Hitler thing but he was so stupid that no one took him seriously. When I heard about it, I told him how stupid it was for a Polish kid to make Hitler jokes and I didn't hear much about that kind of crap after that. For some reason there will always be immature kids who think arch-conservative posturing is cool. They think it's cool to use slurs because it's not PC -- most of the time, I don't think it's even actual hate. I don't think that the answer is to ban their ability to speak -- unless it clearly crosses the line -- but rather to offer counter-speech that exposes the folly o