Is anti-gay adoption article in paper free speech or hate speech?

If someone I agree with says something controversial, it’s just free speech and should be protected. But if someone I disagree with says something controversial, it’s hate speech and should be banned. Right?

Newspapers frequently air opposing views of issues on their editorial pages. It’s been a staple of school newspapers for years. Pick a controversial topic and two students write opposing views about the subject. It doesn’t seem controversial, but an attempt to air opposing sides about adoption by gay couples has turned into a serious conflict over free speech.

A high school newspaper in Shawano, Wis., is facing criticism after someone had the temerity to argue that adoption by gays was wrong. The article taking the other side — saying that adoption by gay couples was acceptable — didn’t draw criticism. So it’s not the discussion of the subject that’s the problem. It’s that some people don’t believe those with other opinions have the right to express them in print. That’s not free speech, apparently. It’s “hate speech.”

I’m not interested in trying to get into the subject of adoption by gay couples. It’s completely irrelevant to the point here. The only issue we’re going to look at is free speech and “hate speech.”

Here’s what the offending article said:

“If one is a practicing Christian, Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is (a) detestable act and sin which makes adopting wrong for homosexuals because you would be raising the child in a sin-filled environment.

“A child adopted into homosexuality will get confused because everyone else will have two different-gendered parents that can give them the correct amount of motherly nurturing and fatherly structure. In a Christian society, allowing homosexual couples to adopt is an abomination.”

A gay parent who has kids in local schools complained about the article. He said that article is “hateful” and shouldn’t have run. “This is why kids commit suicide,” he said.

For its part, the school system has apologized for the article and said it will review the editing process for the paper.

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the school superintendent said in a written statement.

So if you express the opinion that something is acceptable, it’s just free speech. But if you express the opinion that something is wrong, it’s an “offensive article” that creates a “negative environment of disrespect.”

So who gets to decide what’s offensive? And who decides what creates a “negative environment”?

An Alabama school is facing just the opposite problem right now. At a small high school near Tuscaloosa, a sophomore wore a hooded sweatshirt with the slogan, “Warning, This Individual Infected With ‘The Gay,’ Proceed With Caution,” so she was required to remove it. A progressive left organization is pressing the school on the issue, demanding that the policy be changed.

In both cases, the opinions expressed have the potential to be disruptive and create a negative environment. Some people are going to disagree with each message. Many social conservatives are going to be offended by the Alabama girl’s sweatshirt. Many social liberals are going to be offended by the Wisconsin Christian’s article. So why is it OK to offend one group, but not the other?

Honestly, I don’t care which side of the issue schools come down on. I don’t care if all offensive opinions are allowed or all offensive opinions are banned at school in order to avoid interfering with the school’s mission to teach. Personally, I’d err on the side of allowing more speech, but I’m mostly concerned with being even-handed.

There was a time when social liberals were concerned about making sure that students had the right to speak their minds. They spoke up for student rights and student press rights when the issue was expressing opinions about the Vietnam war or a number of other issues — as long as the dissenting opinions were socially liberal. But now that those socially liberal opinions have become mainstream, many liberals want to close the door to free speech. They’re no better than the social conservatives a couple of generations ago who wanted to ban different ideas.

Running a school can be a complicated thing. Sometimes it’s not easy to maintain an environment that’s conducive to keeping the focus on learning. I don’t pretend to have all the answers about how it ought to be done. (I will say, however, that a lot of these problems would go away if all schools were private and people could choose different rules by choosing the provider that had rules they liked.) But if we’re going to have government-run schools for now, the same rules need to apply to everyone.

If a writer for the school paper gets to express his view that a certain social position is right, it’s reasonable to let someone express the opinion that the position is wrong. And if someone is so fragile that he can’t deal with the fact that someone thinks he’s wrong, he needs to grow up and accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with any of us — even on issues that we feel passionate about.

The same rules need to apply to everyone, regardless of the content of the views being expressed.