Free speech or bullying?

This is a thread on free speech versus bullying, debate of aspects of homosexuality is not allowed on this forum. Please stick to the subject.


High School Newspaper Column Opposing Gay Adoption Censored As "Bullying" - HUMAN EVENTS

Had to search for a story on this rather then a blog. The author does not link to the entire piece due to age of the writers. But says the worst paragraph is quoted in this article.

The emotional arguement is that this "opposed to" side of the debate is bullying and offensive.

The paragraph he lists does not bully, it contains quotes from sited sources in print a very long time. (the Bible) The author states his opinion on the subject, quoted text does not show any name calling, belittling, or abuse that could equal bullying.

IMO the school/gay supporters are trying to link stating a personal opinion as being:

A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.

Click to expand...

bullying - definition of bullying by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

They take an emotion filled word, a serious problem in the spotlight, the cause of the day, and try to silence opposition or negitive opinions by equating the two.

Political correctness was used to intimidate people to a certain way of thinking, since that did not work, they will link bullying with any negitive
statement that happens to be against the PC way of thinking.

Instead of trying to silence ignorance, which makes it fester until it bursts, counter ignorance with facts and genuine debate. Try to win fairly the debate, rather then intimidate a person for daring to have an opinion not the same as "average America". (It is not belief that the average American believes one way or another on this issue, but the media trys to portray the PC ideas are the "common belief".)

We are guaranteed the right to free speech, as long as this article does not attack people directly, nor belittle people, or try to intimidate a group of people, then the school and those that disagree with the opinion are trying to bully the writer. Bullying an individual by mislabeling him as a bully.

If anyone can find a link to the whole article, please post it. I reviewed several blogs before I even found this article. One blog posted a picture of the article but my old eyes can not read the words when enlarged.

Again, debate on homosexuality is not allowed here, debate on the article based on "Bullying or free speech."

Exiledoomsayer said:

Calling somebody an abomination does not suddenly stop being name calling, belittling and abuse just because its from the bible. (I'm sure we could find some choice words about the jews in Mein kampf but it doesnt stop being offensive just because its in a book.)
That said, I do not think it should be censored.

Click to expand...

"Abomination" is the words of the cited source, the bible. Does this mean the person citing is name calling or are they just refering to a source that labels the lifesytle?
I might point out, Mein Kampf is not a respected book around for centuries that have guided good people for as long.

Maren said:

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. The cry of "bullying" is pretty weak here and shouldn't have been used. OTOH, the editorial should not have used the word "abomination", it wasn't necessary and does tend to create a negative emotion that doesn't belong in this type of editorial.

My biggest problem with the editorial is the logic. The writer using Christian beliefs is inappropriate for a school newspaper. I'm not saying that because the expression of faith is bad, merely because it isn't an appropriate argument. Would an editorial claiming Christians aren't good parents because the Koran says only believers in the Prophet can correctly parent (not saying the Koran says this, just making an example) be appropriate for a school newspaper? What about one that uses the Bible to claim that atheists should not be parents because, to borrow from the editorial, the child will be raised in a sin-filled environment?

So, while I find the bullying idea weak, it still doesn't seem appropriate to be printed in a school newspaper. There are arguments to be made for and against same-sex parenting, writing an article that merely uses ones own beliefs and preconceptions without any support, regardless of those beliefs, is inappropriate for any school activity.

Click to expand...

abomonation see above.
2nd p: Aossibly a weak arguement, but that does not mean it should be censored.
B: if the Koran actually said it, then it would be one arguement for the stated opinion, and if that subject was a deeply debated topic. It doesn't mean its right, just a source to support a view.
3rd: I believe this is the perfect place to debate the issue. It will spark healthy debate among the students. (as with any debate, if it goes to far, it must be dealt with.)
I would say that most opinion pieces use a persons preconceptions and beliefs, even those on the PC side.

KCfromNC said:

Would the paper print an article saying interracial couples shouldn't adopt or Jews shouldn't adopt? Both views have had religious proponents in the past using proof-texts from the Bible, just like anti-homosexuality views have now. Seems that if you're allowing one you should also be in favor of allowing student members of the KKK to write editorials about the inherent superiority of white students. Sure, their views are ignorant and a counter-point can show how in detail, but what's the most likely reaction to this kind of propaganda by a bunch of teenagers?

That may or may not be hate speech or bullying, but it will certainly get in the way of the school doing its primary job - providing a safe and orderly place for education to happen.

As for the bullying point of view, the two sides are "I'm want to force you to not be able to do something because I don't like it" and "leave me alone and let me live my life like every other citizen". In that context, I can see how the two viewpoints are not equal.

Click to expand...

P1: A: if the topic was a national issue, I believe it would.
B: I believe a student associated with the KKK should be able to write an article for a school, as long as he can do so without bullying or belittling.(I doubt they can do it) I think the majority of students would react like the majority of adults, realize the stupidity of the statements made. That is what debate is for.
p2; if true then the whole issue should not be brought up, one sided stories are not beneficial, and I bet the "pro" could spark as much disorder as the "anti". The school does not appologize for the article, just the one side.

Society must decide what moral and ethical standards are, and what goes far enough to be criminal or abusive. Our forefathers did not accept this lifestyle, and now we are more open to the idea. It is a change for society and there are positives and negitives for both sides.
Society has changed drastically since the founders of our nation built this country. When we started, it was moral and ethical to own another person and force them to do your work, to not allow women to own land, to vote, that goverment should provide for the impoverished.
Change brings turmoil and debate. Debate should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Maybe an edit should have been requested in this one part, but I believe both sides presenting their case is appropriate.

Exiledoomsayer said:

If the best you can do is point out that the bible has been around longer then I rest my case.

Click to expand...

I said it was an old book to reference, I didn't say it was the perfect tool for debate. The bible is meaningless to non-Christians, or at best a philosophy to study.

Maren said:

But it isn't being "censored", the school paper has no requirement to print everything submitted. Rather, their obligation is for what they print to have educational purposes - largely to teach these students how to write, what makes a good article and how to create a good editorial.

As for abomination, it has no place in the article. It has all the relevance of an argument quoting the first couple of the 10 Commandments and then claiming that atheists should not be allowed to parent. Whether a person is a sinner (especially since the Bible says we are all sinners) has no bearing on a person's ability to parent. Instead, it is easy to make the argument that use of the word "abomination" was nothing more than an attempt to bully.

And I believe I said that the debate is fine, the problem is that quoting the Bible does not promote debate -- in fact, typically when a Christian is quoting the Bible it is to end debate. The problem is, not all people believe in the Bible -- and even those that believe in the Bible do not all agree on how it should be interpreted. As such, the Bible quote was not only off topic but adds nothing to the debate. In fact, it detracts from the debate as these types of arguments tend to devolve into a debate on religion more than on the original topic.

Sure, editorials are opinions (by definition) but they don't merely state their opinion, they provide support and show why others should support that opinion. This editorial was a complete failure at that and, as such, should have been given back to the student to rewrite or not printed at all.

Click to expand...

p1;It would be censored because the school didn't like his source, nor his quotes. If he was writing to a Chritian audience, his arguements would be a grand slam. (Like I said above, the bible is meaningless to someone that does not believe)
p2:Abomination: something horrible: an object of intense disapproval or dislike. (per Encarta). By definition is an opinion.
It in of itself is not a "bullying" word. It applies because the writer via his quote supports the quote. (Leviticus 20;13) Again one word, does not a bully make.
p3; I disagree, quoting the bible is just like quoting anything obscure, until someone checks on it, they don't know if the quote was correct or used correctly. again, I agree the bible is not a great source when trying to convince non-believers, but I think it is a source, and the single quote is not a form of bullying.
p4; In the writers mind, he supported his opinions, until I read the entire article, I don't know if he did it well or not. I also wonder how you can determine that this was a "complete failure", unless you have read the entire submission, if you have please link to it, otherwise you are saying because he used one source that you do not agree with that there is no way he could redeem the article, which would be very telling.

Grace51 said:

well i guess one the factor that will determine whether it is bullying or free speech, from a Christians perspective, is whether the statement is in accordance with scripture.

if a Christian is trying to express a statement that does not root in the bible and against others right, then yes it is bullying. if not, then well, technically speaking , it is not.

and i don't recall there are scriptural passages against gay adoption, only against gay sins ie sodomy.

Also as Christians, we are still called to love the sinners, hate the sins.

hence if we remember the above, we'll be better at knowing whether we are merely expressing free speech, or whether we have crossed into hate speech.

i mean as a christian, i don't agree with gay lifestyle at all. but do i walk up to my gay friends ( yes i have gay friends) and tell them they abominations, no, that is down right rude and insulting and not mention unloving.

Do i make it clear i dont agree with their choices, yes, but i still show them the diginity and respect they deserves as human beings. Most of all, i cared about them deeply, and my number 1 focus with has always been how can i get them to repent and come to God. and a big part of that is to showing them Christ's love through me.

"As for abomination, it has no place in the article. It has all the relevance of an argument quoting the first couple of the 10 Commandments and then claiming that atheists should not be allowed to parent. Whether a person is a sinner (especially since the Bible says we are all sinners) has no bearing on a person's ability to parent. Instead, it is easy to make the argument that use of the word "abomination" was nothing more than an attempt to bully."

i also agree with above, i mean since when do only born again Christians are allowed to become parents, or can do a good job raising kids or provide a loving stable enviroment for a kids to thrive in? i mean strictly speaking, all non believer parents, even those heterosexual married couples are not living in accordance with God's words, should they be banned from adopting kids also?

Click to expand...

p1; it is, (lev.20;13 makes it pretty clear.)
p2;I do not agree, because by your definition, any opinion not supported by the bible would be bullying, and reverse any opinion supported would not. Both can be bullying, and both can be legitimate debates.
p3; I agree, I do not know of any either, if a child is loved, then it is better then being without love.

the rest; I can not support nor oppose his views without reading them, as I said I believe a loving home is better then a group home or passed on foster parent to foster parent.

Cabal said:

If that wasn't bullying then nor was telling the student author to knock it off. Can't complain about emotive language and then use it in just as dodgy a context.

That said, depends what the atmosphere at the school is like for gay kids. If this is just the tip of the iceberg in amidst frequent taunts and abuse that occurs at many other schools then yes, the article is bullying, as it is part of the systematic abuse. And if it's in a school-sanctioned publication, then that's pretty serious.

Click to expand...

p1;One word can't bully someone, because bullying is harassment, stating one opinion when asked is not bullying. It can be inflamitory, but not bullying. But silencing the non-PC view is ongoing, uses intimidation and redicule to weaken the victim, which is bullying. To a child, the school administration is mighty, and they are weak.
p2;That would be true, if it is part of an on going campaign, it would be bullying, but with the facts given this one incident cannot be bullying.


So, I repeat, the use of the bible is not a great reference if trying to sway a non-Christian's view. But it does not automatically destroy their arguement either.
Bullying is as I posted the definition before. Offering one word in reply to being asked thier opinion does not meet bullying. It would be bullying if he repeated it, attaked the group repeatedly in the article, or if it is an on-going barage attack.
Saying abomonation is not bullying.