2
Censorship vs. Hate Speech and the Word Gay
20 Comments | Posted by George in General, Lifestyle, Politics
Often, the word “gay” is used in high schools as slang for something bad. When high school freshman Rebekah Rice said “that’s so gay” in 2002 she claims, now as an 18 year-old, that the phrase meant: “That’s so stupid, that’s so silly, that’s so dumb.”
She was reprimanded by her school, and received a warning and notation on her file. Her parents sued, and claimed that Rice’s first amendment rights were violated because she used a phrase that “enjoys widespread currency in youth culture.” Supporters claim that the school’s actions are just another overly politically correct action.
On the other side, the school district claims that there is a duty to protect gay students from being harassed. They claim the phrase “that’s so gay” used in a derogatory manner has been shown to make gay individuals feel uncomfortable or hurt, just as derogatory terms directed at someone because of his or her race is hurtful.
So, the question is, will this be considered slander or is it merely an innocent comment that Rice didn’t believe would cause harm and thus would be protected under the first amendment? I think this will be an interesting case and I look forward to finding out what the court rules.
Note: I have taken very few legal classes and studied little law at this point so feel free to critique my writing. Next year law commentary on this site will be a bit more robust and/or accurate.
20 Comments for Censorship vs. Hate Speech and the Word Gay
Anonymous | March 2, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Anonymous | March 2, 2007 at 6:56 pm
should have proofed the post above…should read…I don’t think people…
Author comment by George | March 2, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Perhaps they’re not trying to be derogatory towards homosexuals, but it’s not like it’s a secret that attaching a meaning of stupid/crappy/bad/etcetera to a word that describes someone’s sexual orientation makes them feel offended. If people said: “that’s so Asian” when referring to something negative, I don’t think there would be any question that it would be considered offensive to Asians. I don’t see how homosexuality is any different from that.
Simply because the word gay has been used to mean something negative in the past doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right, just as a word with a negative connotation was used to refer to African Americans in the past.
Anonymous | March 2, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I can see the parents wanting something off the student’s record but what other damages are they seeking?
Author comment by George | March 2, 2007 at 8:32 pm
They are seeking unspecified damages and want the disciplinary notation expunged from Rebekah’s school record.
“Unspecified.”
Author comment by George | March 3, 2007 at 12:04 am
Tomorrow I will publish an article regarding Ann Coulter’s very open anti-gay slurs.
Freedom of speech is a fun subject. Basically, speech is rarely restricted, because it is of such high value, and it’s really interesting to read these cases and see the courts emphasize its value.
Anonymous | March 3, 2007 at 11:43 am
There is another case this week about a woman using profanities in an airport initially being charged for disorderly conduct. She claimed she had the right under the Cohen case. Her charges have been dropped but she wants to pursue the case because she is a rable rouser and wants to make it a point about free speech.
Author comment by George | March 3, 2007 at 3:00 pm
From Cohen:
It is, in sum, our judgment that, absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense.
I’m not familiar with the case you’re referring to, but her right to swear depends on whether her swearing is conduct or speech, which is always a tricky issue. What was she swearing about?
Anonymous | March 4, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Here is an article about the airport case
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1594769.php
I’d have to review it but I thought the Cohen case would only applied to written speech.
Author comment by George | March 4, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Hm. From what I know, if she was just cursing to cause a ruckus and not actually saying anything, her speech probably wouldn’t be protected. I.e. if she just kept screaming: “f*ck, f*ck, f*ck” just to make a lot of noise, she could be charged for disturbing the peace, hurting airport business, etcetera.
I don’t know much about the “public forum vs. nonpublic forum stuff.” Maybe a business is a nonpublic forum because she could be hurting their business.
Does the state have a legitimate interest in protecting children. Yeah, I think so. Do they have a compelling interest in restricting free speech to do so? Generally, no, but I guess it depends on whether or not she was just trying to say expletives for the sake of saying expletives and whether or not the airport was a nonpublic forum. I think a big difference between Cohen and this is that Cohen was definitely making political speech, which virtually always falls under the 1st amendment protections. But then again, maybe this chick was swearing in order to make a political statement that she should be allowed to swear.
I think this will be ruled as a form of free speech.
Author comment by George | March 4, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Thanks for the link by the way, this is interesting stuff.
steve | March 6, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I remember using the word “gay” in high school to mean “stupid,” but I have always been, at the same time, an advocate of gay rights. That word isn’t in my vocabulary anymore, but looking back on it I didn’t even think anything of it. I didn’t mean it as an insult to gay people, it was more of a term that I picked up from other people that had a different connotation. I don’t think that high schoolers think too deeply, in general, about these things. I also think it’s dumb that the school put it on that high schooler’s record. That was unnecessary and is an example of how no tolerance policies have been taken too far.
I guess the real question is just because something is offensive, does that mean we should ban people from saying it? Is it the role of a public school to protect the students from hearing anything negative? I agree that using the word “gay” is not a constructive criticism, but who cares? Would someone get written up for saying someone else is stupid? These are people who are about to go off to college, so I think the school should be less like Nazis.
Shaniqua | March 8, 2007 at 8:57 am
Next year law commentary on this site will be a bit more robust and/or accurate.
Because next year you’ll know how to think according to established wisdom?
Caliban | October 3, 2007 at 2:50 am
Is using “gay” as a meaningless pejorative hate speech? You betcha. It depends for meaning on the usage of “gay” understood as “homosexual”, and of “homosexual” as inferior or undesireable. “Nigger” was a word in wide useage 50 years ago. Do we want school kids saying that? I didn’t think so.
If it wasn’t offensive and hurtful, it wouldn’t be an issue. But a quick look at suicide rates amongs LGBT youth say it really is.
Annon | May 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm
The term ‘gay’ used in any way that is portraying gay people in a negative light IS homophobia which is considered hate speech in both the United States of America and Canada. Saying “Thats So Gay” Is just as offensive as “Thats so Jewish” Or “Thats So Retarded”. Punishing students for saying swear words, racist comments, ablest comments or sexist comments while not punishing homophobia and heterosexism is there by excusing homophobia and heterosexism making it seem okay for the students to use. It is NOT okay to allow students to say “Thats so Gay” without punishment, although I might be bias as I am in high school.
The fact is, excusing and there by allowing homophobia is an attack on queer youth.
Anonymous | May 7, 2008 at 3:24 pm
“By not stopping racism, we are participating in it.” Says Dr. George Sefa Dei, could this not also be said for homophobia?
Anonymous High School Student | May 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Speech is never to be censored unless it is to protect others, like in this case. Blatant hate speech such as this is not okay in our high schools!
Anonymous | April 24, 2009 at 2:23 pm
It’s not blatant hate speech because it was not said with hateful intentions.
I think most people who say “that is gay” are trying to be deragatory towards homosexuals. The word developed to have a different meaning and has to be looked at in context.
I don’t think many people are aware that homosexuals might be offended just like gypsies may be offended when someone saying they were gypped.