News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I don't agree with their message at all, but it sounds like they were being fairly passive in their expression of that message, and if it really was just wristbands... were they really causing harm here?
Sometimes I wonder how America voted in a fascist government and then I read comments like this. This is the same as wearing a white hood to a game with a black student. It is a direct threat against the student. It doesn't matter how passive they make the threat.
Oh come on. I respect your opinion but this is a completely ridiculous comparison. It's the equivalent of wearing an "All Lives Matter" wristband, maybe.
An all lives matter wristband is just a white hood without the dry cleaning bill.
Not just wrist bands. They were seeking legal approval to escalate the harassment.
Which is a form of reactionary bigotry.
If a group of parents coordinated wearing "All Lives Matter (but Black Lives Matter Less)" wristbands to protest inclusion of a black athlete, sure.
What other organisation wears white hoods?
Just because they were polite with their bigotry does not make it less harmful, also asking whether polite bigotry caused harm is normalizing said bigotry.
The judge thought so ...
Yup. Hate speech is not protected speech.
Yes it is.
https://uwm.edu/freespeech/faqs/what-is-hate-speech-and-is-it-protected-by-the-first-amendment/
From the linked article - yes, hate speech is protected, however harassment isn't.
The judge in OP's case ruled that it was harassment, so the school was well within its rights to eject the parents.
Right. Hate speech is protected.
Time place and manner.
Tell the person I replied to.
Everyone misunderstands free speech protections. The judge in this case ruled that the parents didn't have a right to free speech in this circumstance because, as you say, time and place matter. You're at a school event on school grounds you're not allowed to say things the school doesn't let you say. The bar is lower. BUT their speech is definitely not illegal because their hate speech is protected generally.
From the article:
So subtle bigotry is ok? What is the purpose of wearing a uniform visual identifier for a cause? It's for people to see it. They were spreading hate against a child and refused to stop when asked by the school authorities.
That's pretty sick and twisted.
They were just wristbands with the express meaning of telling trans kids they aren't welcome. I mean, they're in high school, they won't care! The adults should be allowed to have a little transphobia, as a treat. /s
It sounds like they sent emails to the district and made some noise in online spaces that made their intentions clear. If it was just wearing wristbands as silent protest, we'd never have known, but they told the district via email, the general public online that they were going to do someone bigoted, and then they did a minor version of it.
Imagining the perspective of an administrator, they really should do something about that to protect their students. And it seems like they went with a temporary ban, which seems proportionate.
The fathers in question here were taking advantage of the paradox of tolerance. I, for one, support the fact that they were slapped down.
Let’s put it another way: how would you feel if they were wearing iron cross bracelets? Because that’s what this dog whistle is.
The iron cross is a symbol from the Wehrmacht, which makes it a symbol of hate.
Is it OK for parents to show up wearing Nazi armbands when the team plays against a team with a large number of Jewish students on it?
Do you really not see a difference between the Holocaust and parents with the opinion that trans girls shouldn't be on the same sports teams as AFAB girls? Is this really where we're at here?
People's passports are being revoked, the healthcare people need to keep breathing is being targeted for elimination, and it is the official policy of the sitting US president that being trans is by nature pedophilic, and that pedophiles deserve the death penalty.
Spare me your dismissive bullshit. If you think this is actually about sports, you are the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.
YSK that one of the early groups targeted by the Third Reich and the Holocaust were LGBT people. They just never got that much attention, especially compared to the Jewish people.
Fairly passive in their harassment. It's still harassment. And yes.
It was still harassing a student all the same.
So wristbands are okay… Because they’re just clothes, not marching in circles and chanting? How about if it’s t-shirts instead? After all, both are just clothes. How about if those shirts or wristbands have wording that calls the student a slur?
The student will undoubtedly find any kind of protest clothing offensive because they’re protesting her existence… So where do we draw the line on parents’ right to offend a student? Is it just slurs that aren’t allowed? Who decides what is and isn’t offensive? It obviously can’t be the person doing the protesting, because their entire goal is to offend the targeted student.
How about if it’s signs instead of clothing? The student will likely find any kind of signs demeaning, but are they okay because they’re just passively holding them? How about if those signs call the student a slur?
The issue with allowing protest (especially one that targets a specific student) is that someone has to decide where to draw the line. And every individual will have a different line in the sand… So if our goal is to protect the student, (and again, this protest is 100% without a doubt harassing a student) they need to go by the lowest threshold, not the highest.