Shoreweird gag rule for minors
Chris Roth
KEEPING THE FIRST AMENDMENT INVISIBLE?
During the 23 November 1997 edition of WTMJ-TV's "Sunday
Insight," the host and commentators discussed the
Shorewood High School speech code mess. Not once did
anyone say any of these words:
First Amendment
freedom of speech
censorship
Scott Feldmeyer
Shit!, you're right, Chris. Ain't that a #$@&* bitch?
During the 23 November 1997 edition of WTMJ-TV's "Sunday
Insight," the host and commentators discussed the
Shorewood High School speech code mess. Not once did
anyone say any of these words:
First Amendment
freedom of speech
censorship
========================================
Steven Blackwood
ZSeriously, though it seems a bit ludicrous to talk about a topic such as this
without knowing the specifics of the case. Like branding Huck Finn as racist
without reading the book, as many have done.
Steve
In article <659ug2$s...@omnifest.uwm.edu>, sco...@omnifest.uwm.edu (Scott
James K Nelsen
Chris Roth (cr...@omnifest.uwm.edu) wrote:
: KEEPING THE FIRST AMENDMENT INVISIBLE?
:
: During the 23 November 1997 edition of WTMJ-TV's "Sunday
: Insight," the host and commentators discussed the
: Shorewood High School speech code mess. Not once did
: anyone say any of these words:
:
: First Amendment
: freedom of speech
: censorship
What about "quality learning environment?" One of my eighth grade students
was swearing in class yesterday. I decided to let him spend today in
in-house suspension. Maybe tomorrow he will be willing to allow me to
conduct class.
--
Jim Nelsen ___,
Secondary Education _.-'` __|__
Social Studies/History Major .' ,-:` \;',`'-,
University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee / .'-;_,; ':-;_,'.
/ /; '/ , _`.-\
| | '`. (` /` ` \`|
| |:. `\`-. \_ / |
Visit my web page to look at | | ( `, .`\ ;'|
my "Virtual Teaching Portfolio" \ \ | .' `-'/
and find some useful sites for \ `. ;/ .'
social studies teachers. '._ `'-._____.-'`
`-.____|
www.uwm.edu/~jnelsen _____|_____
/___________\
Chris Roth
question for J. Nelsen:
You must put up with a lot of uncivil speech and conduct when you
teach. You have my sympathy. Clearly, the social fabric is slowly
unraveling. Something needs to be done. But what's permitted, given
the Bill of Rights, and the fact that kids have rights, too?
My point is that the Shorewood rules may suffer from:
vagueness and overbreadth
presence of a "chilling effect" on protected content
(If those look familiar, then perhaps it's because those are two
tests that the High Court sometimes uses when deciding if a regulation
is or isn't constitutional.)
Suppose a polite, high-IQ minor uses one of the forbidden
words during a discussion of politics, or religion, or literature.
Doesn't the new rule have a "chilling effect" on such speech?
I think it does, though I haven't yet read the complete policy.
Tell me about the kid who was swearing in class.
I can imagine a teacher implementing a viewpoint-neutral rule
during such a situation. If you've told them all to be quiet, and
this uncivil kid speaks up, then he should be criticized or punished.
Nothing wrong with that. Bottom line: there may be a way to address
the problem you articulated WITHOUT a repressive speech code.
(One that suffers from vagueness, overbreadth, and a "chilling effect"
on protected speech.)
But I'd need more information about the incident to comment
with some authority.
I know a librarian who told me that s/he had to silence a patron
who was speaking too loudly. Silencing someone like that is
constitutional, even in a government facility.
But that same library professional
seemed to imply that because s/he has that authority
then s/he therefore has the authority to implement viewpoint-based
restrictions. Fact: s/he doesn't. Such conduct would be unconstitutional.
Too often, government professionals confuse viewpoint-neutral
rules (in general, constitutional) with viewpoint-based restrictions
(in general, unconstitutional).
Maybe the situation with your student is similar to the library
situation.
Chris Roth
James K Nelsen
Chris Roth (cr...@omnifest.uwm.edu) wrote:
: question for J. Nelsen:
:
: You must put up with a lot of uncivil speech and conduct when you
: teach. You have my sympathy. Clearly, the social fabric is slowly
: unraveling. Something needs to be done. But what's permitted, given
: the Bill of Rights, and the fact that kids have rights, too?
:
: My point is that the Shorewood rules may suffer from:
:
: vagueness and overbreadth
: presence of a "chilling effect" on protected content
:
: (If those look familiar, then perhaps it's because those are two
: tests that the High Court sometimes uses when deciding if a regulation
: is or isn't constitutional.)
:
: Suppose a polite, high-IQ minor uses one of the forbidden
: words during a discussion of politics, or religion, or literature.
: Doesn't the new rule have a "chilling effect" on such speech?
Shorewood's policy is vague because it is designed to deal with those
situations. The assistant principal in charge of discipline said that if
a student gets a bad grade on a test and curses when he sees the grade.
The teacher can deal with it. The students in my class know they are not
supposed to use vulgar language, yet many do it anyway. I give them ample
warnings before issuing a referral. There have also been times, where a
student had sworn while having a private conversation with me. Since this
is not disruptive, I usually just give them "the look" and they apologize.
: I think it does, though I haven't yet read the complete policy.
:
Neither have I, though it would be interesting to see.
: Tell me about the kid who was swearing in class.
: I can imagine a teacher implementing a viewpoint-neutral rule
: during such a situation. If you've told them all to be quiet, and
: this uncivil kid speaks up, then he should be criticized or punished.
: Nothing wrong with that. Bottom line: there may be a way to address
: the problem you articulated WITHOUT a repressive speech code.
: (One that suffers from vagueness, overbreadth, and a "chilling effect"
: on protected speech.)
:
: But I'd need more information about the incident to comment
: with some authority.
:
Most school districts have codes similar to Shorewood's, but they are not
enforced. Yes, the whole class was told to be quiet. Three students were
still talking, and all were given warnings. When, one started to swear, I
issued a referral. It was the only way I could conduct class. I also
called his mother on one occasion prior to this incident, so I can at least
say I have tried other means.
[snip]
The bottom line is that when student behavior become so outrageous that it
is no longer possible to create a quality learning environment, swift
action has to be taken. I don't know how many people in this group have
been in an MPS school lately, but let me assure you it is not a pretty
sight.
K.A. Brooks
On 26 Nov 1997, James K Nelsen wrote:
> Shorewood's policy is vague because it is designed to deal with those
> situations. The assistant principal in charge of discipline said that if
> a student gets a bad grade on a test and curses when he sees the grade.
> The teacher can deal with it. The students in my class know they are not
> supposed to use vulgar language, yet many do it anyway. I give them ample
> warnings before issuing a referral. There have also been times, where a
> student had sworn while having a private conversation with me. Since this
> is not disruptive, I usually just give them "the look" and they apologize.
IRS:
Seems like a few other Milwaukee county High Schools are doing the same.
One School is offering a 5 days suspension for the use of foul language.
Apuleius
jne...@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu (James K Nelsen) wrote to and
milw.general:
Is the Linwood water plant there? They're going to be installing a
plant for ozonating water.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
That's all, folks.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
chris mclaughlin
cr...@omnifest.uwm.edu (Chris Roth) wrote:
>Suppose a polite, high-IQ minor uses one of the forbidden
>words during a discussion of politics, or religion, or literature.
>Doesn't the new rule have a "chilling effect" on such speech?
I'm curious about how using those words advances the polite,
intelligent minor's discussion of politics, religion, or
literature.
I'm trying to imagine what important idea about politics I
might want to express that would require me to use the word
"fuck," say. It might be easier for me to say that one group
is fucking another group over, but I will not have expressed
any important content but only a judgment. If I am forced to
use my brain and my vocabulary to identify specific ways
in which one group is exploiting, injuring, supressing, or
otherwise diminishing another, my argument will be better and
might even have the ability to persuade someone who has
not already made up his mind.
If the student is quoting the words in question
from a book, she is probably exempt unless the adults involved
are incapable of judgment and reason themselves. And if she
is quoting the words for the purpose of shocking, that will
probably merely be pointed out to her.
The fact is that "the words" stop conversation and draw attention
to themselves or their speaker, not to the idea at hand. It's much
harder to discuss from fact, from the brain and the spirit, than
it is to discuss from anger, contentiousness, and bad habits. I'd be
willing to bet that these automatic, knee-jerk words interfere
with free expression of ideas more than they advance it.
Fuckin' A? Shit I'm right!
Chris
Bop Tista
Offering a better solution, a better partnership, and the best way to buy arms online.
Phone N0: +15156614951
https://380guns.com/shop/