Reply #30: No, provoking fights isn't a good idea, which was my point, and the one you argue against. [View All]

[jobycom]

My point was that the person starting the fight is the one starting the fight, not the one expressing their First Amendment rights by wearing a political statement on a tee shirt. If the shirt made some offensive racial or sexist statement, or challenged an individual to a fight, or in some way could be interpreted as being an attack, or at least an attempt to disrupt, then sure, the shirt is the problem at a school. But otherwise, the reaction to the shirt is the problem.

That's what I'd like to see our kids learn at school. I don't care if my child knows the capital of North Dakota and can blacken the right circle on a test to prove it. I'd like to think she's learning something other than how to blindly obey authority no matter what rights that authority violates. We have gone far enough down the road to teaching our kids that they are simply automatons in the system, to be controlled by whatever government agency orders them around, and to only exercise the rights the government "allows" them to exercise. Too many of our kids have grown into unquestioning adults in that system, and those are the adults we keep facing across the picket lines when we protest wars and other illegal actions. I'd rather see a bit of teaching about critical thinking, ethical protest, and questioning of authority. Work in the capital of North Dakota, too, if you must, but I'd like our kids--my kids--to learn more than the answers to a Trivial Pursuit game.

This is exactly the same argument Bush and the Republicans used against us to silence our dissent against the war, and to attempt to ban flag burning and other expressions. Our dissent caused disruptions, therefore it was the problem. I see the disruptions as the problem, and not the dissent. Those who caused the disruptions were those reacting violently to our dissent. If we allow the disruption to prove that the dissent is wrong, then all BushCo or the next equivalent has to do is get someone to start a fight over our dissent, and label our dissent as disruptive.

This is a clear case of supporting a person's right to say something, even though what he says is idiotic and wrong. If we can't support that, how can we argue that the other side should support our rights?