At the core of the American ideal is the concept of freedom of speech. But with such concepts come the good and the bad. Ideally, under this ideal all individuals are theoretically free to express themselves. Yet, with such freedoms comes responsibility. Inevitably, any message one sends will offend someone somewhere. The ying and yang of free speech dictates that positive and affirming messages in one person's perspective cannot exist without messages that offend. In theory, freedom of speech becomes an open forum of discussion with the purpose of hopefully soliciting understanding and a common ground. However, the quest for widespread free expression can be far from ideal. The question that has always eluded any free speech culture is who's expression is right and who's is wrong.
The Cotton Controversy
Back in March of 2007, I wrote about a Supreme Court decision that denied a high school student's petition to wear an anti-gay T-shirt that read, "Homosexuality is shameful" on the front and, "Be ashamed. Our school has embraced what God has condemned," on the back (more). The court ruled that the shirt was "injurious to gay and lesbian students and interfered with their right to learn." The reader opinions in our Gay Life poll about the decision was split 50-50 on whether wearing the shirt was a right under free speech or if it interferes with other students' right to learn. Here are the results of the anti-gay T-shirt poll.
My opinion back in March remains the same today: Non-affirming messages (anti-gay or otherwise) promote hatred and bigotry. However, by disallowing anti-gay messages on T-shirts, is the door opened wider for the proscription of pro-gay T-shirts?
The Latest
The latest gay/anti-gay T-shirt controversy surrounds a Spencer, N.Y. teen that was sent home from school for wearing a shirt that said, "Gay? Fine by Me." Heathyre Farnham, a straight 16-year-old Spencer–Van Etten High School student, says she was not trying to offend anyone by wearing the shirt. "I had worn it two or three times before, and all of a sudden it's inappropriate," Farnham said in her statement. "[Principal Ann Sincock] said I was advertising my sexual preference and that was offensive, which makes no sense because I'm straight. Maybe she herself was offended by it." (more)
Farnham says that her peers were very supportive of the shirt's message (even the students who didn't agree with the message were saddened that she was disciplined).
Free Speech or Social Responsibility?
The messages are clear on both ends of the spectrum: "Homosexuality is shameful" versus "Gay? Fine by Me." As a gay social activist, and simply as a gay man, of course the former message solicits a reaction of offense, while the other a smile. But does that give the wearer of the anti-gay shirt any less right to don his gear or Heathyre Farnham any more right to sport hers? Fundamentally no, but in a culture so lacking in love, inclusion and understanding of all people (especially gay people), there is an inherent social responsibility to keep non-affirming messages off billboards (T-shirts or otherwise).
The Opinions
Trever, a Gay Life reader, says, "It just rubs me the wrong way. I get hot when I hear about stuff like this," referring to the Heathyre Farnham story.
What's your opinion? Should some messages be allowed and not others? Was it right for Heathyre Farnham to be disciplined? What about Tyler Chase Harper who wore the anti-gay T-shirt? Comment below...
More Debates
Should Gays Be Allowed to Discriminate?
Image © Ivan Veliki.
As a Canadian, and as a gay man, I look upon this uniquely American debate with great interest.
Our countries have the same tenet (ours, entitled the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but America is much more assertive (for the better) in their declaration of constitutional rights…and when they are infringed upon.
I believe that, while Tyler Chase may have the right to wear his anti-gay t-shirt, he comes perilously close to hatemongering. For me, language plays the most important role in debates between divided factions. Heather’s shirt was simply a statement of support/acceptance for a part of the population, while Tyler’s shirt was a moral judgement. Had his shirt been a more subtle statement of his beliefs (Gay? Not Cool, or a catchier: Gay? No Way), perhaps his message would have promoted debate, as opposed to offense and anger. Just a humble thought from a Canuck.
As a alumni of Spencer Van Etten, I am shocked and disappointed to find that this student was apprehended for wearing her opinion. The school that had led me to want to accept all kinds of people and influenced my choice to become a social worker is now discriminating against LGBT people? It is absolutely ridiculous that this student was sent home, when she was merely supporting her fellow gay and lesbian students. When I went to school at Spencer Van Etten we did not have this principal or superintendant, but I seriously question the integrity of the school system and the school board to make this saddening decision in the modern world that we live in.
There is a huge consideration here, and that is that there is freedom of speech in free and open forums, but the schools are NOT free and open forums. Attendance is mandatory and curriculum is set. While schools should support free expression, they can and must control factors that interfere with mandated attendance and education. I favor uniforms.