Is it about parental rights?

[CJD]

(01-23-2024, 08:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't believe that the law prevents anyone from calling you anything.  As for the teacher themselves, they have a wide range of things they cannot say in class without repercussion.  Should a teacher be able to say they believe that Black people are inferior without consequence?  Can a teacher call a student a little A-hole without consequence?  Can a teacher describe their weekend sexual escapades in graphic detail to their class and face no discipline?

You'll note that I am not comparing any of these things to stating your preferred pronouns in terms of severity.  I am illustrating that the logic you are using as the foundation of your argument is faulty.

I am not familiar with the law that Pally is referencing regarding Floridians not being allowed to refer to people by their preferred pronouns or names.

With that said, if such a law exists where a person can be arrested or fined by the government if they refuse to refer to a person by their "birth" pronouns or name rather than their preferred pronouns or name, then that would indeed be a violation of freedom of speech.

Facing consequences for your speech and having your freedom of speech violated are two circles on a venn diagram but they do not always intersect.

As for your examples, if a teacher said they believed that black people were inferior to white people, the consequence they would suffer would be via their employer, not the government. In this case, there would likely be an outrage amongst the parents of the children and the school would make a decision on whether they would choose to fire this teacher based on their extremist views.

If the school chose to fire them, this would be a consequence of their speech, but it would not be a violation of their freedom of speech.

If they were then arrested and sent to jail, then that would be a violation of their freedom of speech.

Same with calling a student an A-hole or describing their sexual escapades. There may be some extent with that final example where, if they were explicit enough, that it would fall under some anti-lewd law, but I can't speak to those, as I am not familiar with their existence or extent of protection.

This is a topic that comes up a lot when people talk about "cancelling" people. If someone posts a heinous opinion online and a group of people find out where this person works and sends their boss screenshots of the person's heinous opinion, resulting in that person being fired, that is not a violation of their freedom of speech.

If the government comes and arrests them or otherwise restricts them based on said heinous opinion, then it is a violation of their freedom of speech.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2024, 04:36 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I am not familiar with the law that Pally is referencing regarding Floridians not being allowed to refer to people by their preferred pronouns or names.

With that said, if such a law exists where a person can be arrested or fined by the government if they refuse to refer to a person by their "birth" pronouns or name rather than their preferred pronouns or name, then that would indeed be a violation of freedom of speech.

Facing consequences for your speech and having your freedom of speech violated are two circles on a venn diagram but they do not always intersect.

As for your examples, if a teacher said they believed that black people were inferior to white people, the consequence they would suffer would be via their employer, not the government. In this case, there would likely be an outrage amongst the parents of the children and the school would make a decision on whether they would choose to fire this teacher based on their extremist views.

If the school chose to fire them, this would be a consequence of their speech, but it would not be a violation of their freedom of speech.

If they were then arrested and sent to jail, then that would be a violation of their freedom of speech.

Same with calling a student an A-hole or describing their sexual escapades. There may be some extent with that final example where, if they were explicit enough, that it would fall under some anti-lewd law, but I can't speak to those, as I am not familiar with their existence or extent of protection.

This is a topic that comes up a lot when people talk about "cancelling" people. If someone posts a heinous opinion online and a group of people find out where this person works and sends their boss screenshots of the person's heinous opinion, resulting in that person being fired, that is not a violation of their freedom of speech.

If the government comes and arrests them or otherwise restricts them based on said heinous opinion, then it is a violation of their freedom of speech.

I'm in the same boat as you as far as the fine details, but I do not believe the law carries any criminal penalties. If it does I'd completely agree with you.  If it does not then it's just another example among many of a employer, even a public sector one, restricting what you can, or can't say or do while on the job.  

[*Synric*]

That kid is going to have it rough in the long run. If things blew that way out of proportion from a teacher handling the situation as nicely as he could... Just wait until they get into a work environment where one trip to a HR rep means you are a troublemaker.


I'm not gonna put a shoe on my head and say it's a hat and not expect people to challenge it for the rest of my life.

[GMDino]

(01-23-2024, 02:22 PM)pally Wrote: But laws forbidding people, as in Florida and other places, from calling others by their preferred name take the choice out of the equation.  They actually force people to call other people by names and pronouns the government has decided are appropriate.  Isn't that the opposite of freedom?

It was a law looking for a problem to solve.  

"Small government" republicans should hate it, but it allows them to harass people who they don't like/understand.



You can't even ASK if they have a preferred name or pronoun.  

There are no penalties set forth in this so I don't know if it actually stops human being from caring about each other or not.  I don't know why they would pass it without determining want the punishment should be.  Well, other than they just wanted to make sure their base knows they don't like "different" people.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2024, 09:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: It was a law looking for a problem to solve.  

"Small government" republicans should hate it, but it allows them to harass people who they don't like/understand.



You can't even ASK if they have a preferred name or pronoun.  

There are no penalties set forth in this so I don't know if it actually stops human being from caring about each other or not.  I don't know why they would pass it without determining want the punishment should be.  Well, other than they just wanted to make sure their base knows they don't like "different" people.

The punishment does not have to be specified as the actions detailed are now a violation of policy.  Violation of policy carries inherent penalties specifically spelled out in your contract.  I can see disagreeing with the law, but the reaction to it has been hyperbolic.  At its basic level it's just another restriction on what you can, or cannot say, as a school employee.  Lord know my job has more than a few examples.  I had a friend receive discipline for telling a suspect to, "Drop the "effing" gun!".  Because God forbid you use profanity when confronting an armed suspect in a gang related shooting.

[GMDino]

(01-26-2024, 01:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The punishment does not have to be specified as the actions detailed are now a violation of policy.  Violation of policy carries inherent penalties specifically spelled out in your contract.  I can see disagreeing with the law, but the reaction to it has been hyperbolic.  At its basic level it's just another restriction on what you can, or cannot say, as a school employee.  Lord know my job has more than a few examples.  I had a friend receive discipline for telling a suspect to, "Drop the "effing" gun!".  Because God forbid you use profanity when confronting an armed suspect in a gang related shooting.

Oh. 

Anyway it was still a bad law that wasn't needed.  We have enough of those.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-26-2024, 01:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh. 

Anyway it was still a bad law that wasn't needed.  We have enough of those.

Yeah, I can understand that.  It's clearly a cheap culture war law to score points with the base.  Acknowledging that, the response to it has been rather ridiculous.  I can't imagine not telling students what your pronouns are, or asking students theirs, is to onerous a burden to bear.

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-23-2024, 08:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, we have all seen the movements across the country where the astroturf movements have been getting school boards to ban books and implement policies under the guise of "parents' rights." This situation is one that I think of a lot because it was one big components of Youngkin's win in 2021 and it was what he and the state GOP really ran on last year. While the statewide GOP lost in November in their efforts use the Koch money to push them into office, the county in which I live did succumb to this movement on the local school board (that and one of the longtime board members who is a moderate Democrat retired over exhaustion from death threats and other abuses from local conservatives).

Not only has this effort been aimed at the dystopian move to ban books that would possibly be concerning to more parents if they read the books they challenged, but they have also taken aim at trans rights. Again claiming it is about parental rights, policies have been enacting calling for educators to report any names not a common nickname for a student's given name. There has been a lot of conversation about all of this and many educators I know have stated that they will not comply. In a state and local area where teachers are not compensated very well, they would not be able to lose all of those they would if they really took action. However, the movement has shown their true colors in a way they don't realize, maybe it was the whole reading issue again.

In December, the Virginia Supreme Court issued an opinion on Vlaming v. West Point School Board ruling in favor of a teacher who had been disciplined for refusing to use a student's preferred name/pronouns. You can imagine the celebrations that have occurred in the "parents' rights" camp over this decision. They have thwarted the liberal educated establishment and won one for the parents! Well, not exactly. An overlooked part of this case is that the parents of the student in question were aware of their child's situation and had given permission for them to go by their preferred name/pronouns. With the celebration of this win by an educator in the courts over this issue it exposes the "parents' rights" movement for what it is, and that is seeking approval for assholish behavior.

I say this because calling someone by their preferred name is really just respectful. I work in academia. I interact with many professors on a peer level and sometimes have to chastise them for doing things wrong (faculty not following the rules!?). I am on a first-name basis with many, but not all. I start every conversation, whether work related, as a grad student, or out in the community with the polite way of addressing them using their title because that is respect. I think professors who insist on using their titles are pretentious twats, but I show them respect based on what they want to be called. I do the same with everyone, whether it be titles, names, what have you. "Why?" you might ask. Well, simply put, because as much as I like to play one on television, I am not an asshole.

Now, I am choosing to say asshole here instead of bigot, homophobe, transphobe, or any of the other options available in this scenario. You can place whatever descriptor you would like in its place. The point here is that by celebrating Vlaming v. West Point School Board, this movement has shown their true colors. It isn't about parental rights at all, it is about imposing their views on others.

Yea. Parental rights.

https://news.yahoo.com/florida-house-passes-bill-banning-071915024.html
"The Florida House passed a bill Wednesday banning children under the age of 16 from creating accounts on social media platforms – even with parental approval – in efforts to keep children from growing up "hooked" on social media."