Texas first grader traumatized by poster of "different colored children holding hands"; school trustee works to remove such 'ideology' from classrooms

[Truth7t7]

So is this the posted that "traumatised" a child?

A Child Was Traumatized by Poster of People of Different Races Holding Hands?!

Yes, you read that headline correctly. A child was traumatized, not by a violent picture or a scary movie poster, but by a poster of people of two different races holding hands.

news.yahoo.com

View attachment 334665


oh my (rolling my eyes)

This video would probably cause a psychic break in the child (or the parents)

IMO The hands of "Adults" showing affection above "Sexuality" have no place in a 1st grade classroom, it's that simple

 

[durangodawood]

...."Adults" showing affection above "Sexuality"....

What does that mean?

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Did anyone post the actual picture in question?

 

[Fireinfolding]

What if you called a school board trustee to complain about how your child reacted to something or other and the school trustee used that as ammunition in a public school board meeting to limit teachers' freedom to decorate their classrooms? Once this became grist for public officials using government power to try to ban speech, that's newsworthy. Certainly for the community in which this could happen, and in the broader national conversation about things being banned in classrooms.

I do believe there are carefully crafted stories being created out there that are being weaponized toward their desired audienced in order to force a response often under the guise of being virtuous.

How is a decoration considered a part of speech though? Unless its a picture of words maybe?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Because of years of hand wringing moral panic being foisted upon our school system by conservative agitators.

The administrator was being called out and couldn't give even a single good example for why the standards had to be changed.

It would be merely annoying if there weren't so many real and pressing issues to actually be discussed on a national stage and we're constantly bogged down in utter nonsense.

Given the current insanity why doesnt everyone stick with the ABC's and 123's and world maps as what should be on the walls?

I can see why people chose homeschooling

 

[Fireinfolding]

Did anyone post the actual picture in question?

They have pictures of gays having sex in childrens library and thats fine (no noted triggers) but a picture of diversely colored children holding hands is a threat (so no picture for you) could be dangerous.

 

[Truth7t7]

Because of years of hand wringing moral panic being foisted upon our school system by conservative agitators.

Who are these conservative agitators?

Would it be immorality being foisted upon innocent children by liberals?

 

[Pommer]

They have pictures of gays having sex in childrens library and thats fine (no noted triggers) but a picture of diversely colored children holding hands is a threat (so no picture for you) could be dangerous.

What?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Who are these conservative agitators?

The trustee in the OP for one.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Did anyone post the actual picture in question?

Short answer, no.

Long answer, I think the one I posted upthread matches the words that the trustee literally said pretty well. But I have no way of knowing if it was the actual poster in question.

 

[RDKirk]

IMO The hands of "Adults" showing affection above "Sexuality" have no place in a 1st grade classroom, it's that simple

That's not the poster under discussion. That's merely a Getty stock shot the editor pulled for interest.

 

[RDKirk]

Did anyone post the actual picture in question?

No.

 

[RDKirk]

I do believe there are carefully crafted stories being created out there that are being weaponized toward their desired audienced in order to force a response often under the guise of being virtuous.

How is a decoration considered a part of speech though? Unless its a picture of words maybe?

Art (including photography, drawing, and painting) has always been considered speech.

 

[RDKirk]

They have pictures of gays having sex in childrens library and thats fine (no noted triggers) but a picture of diversely colored children holding hands is a threat (so no picture for you) could be dangerous.

Well, actually it's the same people protesting both.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Art (including photography, drawing, and painting) has always been considered speech.

I honestly never knew that that was what is considred speech. I thought speech was actaully speech.

I looked up the definition of speech and it says,

1. The faculty or act of speaking.
2. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
3. What is spoken or expressed, as in conversation; uttered or written words.

Which is strange because can't say (or write out rather) the actual word PQRN here because the word itself which we use (in speech, whether uttered or written) which encompasses the sexually immoral theater it represents is found in Childrens books is considered okay.

 

[Truth7t7]

I honestly never knew that that was what is considred speech. I thought speech was actaully speech.

The Supreme Court recently ruled on artistic expression in creating web site designs in a Colorado case, this is speech and has been defined as such

The web designer didn't want to create designs depicting homosexulaity, and the court ruled in the designers favor "Freedom Of Speech", same would apply to the cake baker in Colorado, the long standing question has been settled regarding a protected class vs freedom of speech

 

[RDKirk]

The Supreme Court recently ruled on artistic expression in creating web site designs in a Colorado case, this is speech and has been defined as such

The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that artistic expression of all forms was considered speech under the First Amendment, and as such could not be suppressed or coerced by the government. This Court ruled that website design was artistic expression.

Note: "Artistic expression" would not include catalog and off-the-shelf items.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I understand very little on what is defined as free speech. Speech is speech and should be just that (at least to me) but it still makes sense that one could take it as far as what is written or uttered. Beyond that it doesnt make a lick of sense to me to include these other things (regardless of whether a court ruled on it or not).

Not that I can do anything about a ruling, it just doesnt make sense to me. Seems to be creating more problems than solving any.

 

[Truth7t7]

The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that artistic expression of all forms was considered speech under the First Amendment, and as such could not be suppressed or coerced by the government. This Court ruled that website design was artistic expression.

Note: "Artistic expression" would not include catalog and off-the-shelf items.

Example: Same would apply to a Christian restraunt, that refuses to rent their banquet facilities to a "same sex marriage reception"

You can't force a Christian to perform services against their beliefs, their services and facilities are their expression in religious free speech

 

[Pommer]

Example 1: Same would apply to a Christian restraunt, that refuses to rent their banquet facilities to a "same sex marriage reception"

You can't force a Christian to perform services against their beliefs, their services and facilities are their expression in religious free speech

Wait a moment, what is “a Christian restaurant”?