Suppressing speech you don’t like is a lousy way to encourage tolerance

By David McElroy · June 23, 2012

If you’re a high school, what’s the best way to demonstrate tolerance? If you said that the best way to be tolerant is to shut up those who disagree with you, you might already be qualified to be principal of Wolcott High School in Wolcott, Conn.

In April, Wolcott High set aside a “day of silence” to promote tolerance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and “transgendered” people. Student Seth Groody is opposed to gay marriage and didn’t like the school’s promotion of a specific point of view.

So Seth wore a t-shirt with a slash through a rainbow to express his disagreement. (The picture of the front of the shirt was provided by the family.) On the back of the shirt was a graphic with stick figures of a male and female, along with the words, “Excessive Speech Day.”

That’s all he did. He didn’t bully anybody. He didn’t disrupt classes. He didn’t hold protests. He merely had the gall to have a belief that was contrary to what the school wanted him to believe.

“Tolerant” school officials sent Seth to the office, forced him to remove his t-shirt and forced him to wear another shirt instead. In other words, they suppressed speech they didn’t like — in the name of tolerance.

Seth’s family contacted the Connecticut ACLU, which has contacted the school (PDF) to ask for assurance that this won’t happen again. The group’s legal director makes it clear the ACLU disagrees with Seth’s position about gays, but defends his right to express his opinion.

“The First Amendment was written to protect unpopular speech, which is naturally the kind of speech that will always need protection,” Staub said. “The ACLU has fought hard for same-sex marriage and we couldn’t agree with Seth less on that issue, but he is absolutely correct about his right to express his opinion.”

It seems that the legal case is very clear. A school promoting a point of view about a social issue can’t stop a student from expressing his disagreement. The thing that’s frightening is that the case even has to be made.

Most people say they believe in freedom, but when it comes right down to specifics, it appears that most of them simply believe in people having the right to agree with them. I see hypocrisy from most every political group about this at one time or another. It’s not just social liberals or social conservatives. It’s almost everyone.

I don’t see any reason for a school to insert itself into a social issue in the first place, especially since it destroyed effective student participation for the day from the “day of silence” kids — who were allowed to wear tape over their mouths all day. I also don’t see any legal or moral justification for a school to ban a message from someone who disagrees with the popular or accepted opinion.

This issue has nothing to do with accepting gays as human beings and treating them just as anybody else would be treated. The issue is about a government agency dictating what opinion someone is allowed to express.

Official suppression of speech is wrong, even if you hate the point of view being expressed. I’m glad the family is fighting back, and I’m very pleased that the people at the ACLU are taking this position in favor of freedom instead of taking the position that would have been easier and more politically convenient for them to take.

Share on Social Networks

We are ruled by the dumbest and most incompetent people among us — and we have a system which allows stupid and irresponsible people to force the costs of their idiocy onto smarter and wiser people. Can we get away with that? Yes, for quite some time. But we eventually reach a point at which the dumbest of the dumb — who are habitual liars and mentally ill fools — lead us to the disasters and destruction that some of us have seen coming for years. We are approaching that point. And yet most of the idiots around us still wave their rhetorical banners of support for the evil people who are leading us to ruin — and all of them point their fingers at someone else, never noticing that their own enthusiastic support of evil is to blame. When things finally fall apart, blame yourself for your blindness to the evil, not whoever happens to be in power when it happens.

I’ve been making some changes to the site lately and there are more changes coming in the days ahead, so don’t be surprised if you some small differences. This is not a wholesale redesign, but rather the addition of some features. Since they’re smarter than I am, I’ve put Oliver and Alex in charge of the technical work, which you can see in this action photo from the control room of our media complex. I recently added a series of landing pages for readers who randomly discover the site from an Internet search. I’ve also changed the YouTube link at the top of the page to go to the new YouTube channel for video essays that reflect things I’ve already published here. (Here’s a little bit about both of the YouTube channels I’m working on.) In addition, I’m trying to move away from using Instagram, so I’m experimenting with photo plug-ins that will eventually allow me to host the pictures — cats, dogs, sunsets, whatever — that I often take. So don’t be surprised to see more changes. Thanks for your patience. Let’s hope Alex and Oliver know what they’re doing.

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

Related Posts