I agree, but from a different perspective. There was a double standard at work here: the girl was being teased about her religion, yet those students doing the teasing didn't get in trouble. To single her out and not punish the others seems hypocritical to me.

I simply cannot stand the term "That's so gay." I think, however, this was an opportunity for the educator to address discrimination and hurtful words from both a religious and sexual point of view. Too bad they failed to handle it properly.

If they win this lawsuit, then this ruling will be used against gay students, gays in the workplace, you name it.

This will just further more anti-gay beliefs.

Schools have long had the authority to control the speech of its students, and while this is a rather tired argument, had the girls comment been race-based, we would not be having this discussion at all--no one would even question the school's authority to discipline her. Hate speech is hate speech, and if you look for ways to make it okay, then you are going to continue to have it. She knew the rules, and broke them. I hope she loses.

Quick story: a couple of years back we were at the Indian Wells (pro) tennis tournament and this smallish boy about 13 years old was standing next to me and my partner watching the match. I am about 6' 1", 225 lbs, so I towered over him. A line judge made a bad call while we were watching the match, and from this small boy fell the phrase, "that's so gay." I stepped up to him and looked down on him and asked "that was so what?" That sent him running (literally), but I suspect he hasn't used that phrase so casually since.

I really admire the stand that Dennis is taking here, but there are also some interesesting comments in these "comments." As a former HS teacher, I can say that it is, at times, absolutely necessary to "control" students' speech--no one in an actual school would ever argue otherwise.

But I agree that there's something creeping about disciplining speech, even hate-ish speech (this isn't *actual* "hate" speech, because it's not inciting violence, which is the key compenent, right?)

So Kyle, you think if the girl had said, "That's so black!" the school would have unquestionable authority to discipline her? I don't think so. Look, I agree if she had made derogatory, hateful comments to a particular person (as in "You're a f***ot") or inciting comments such as "all gays should be shot" , then the situation would merit disciplinary action. "That's so gay" may be stupid and implicitly insulting to gay people, but I don't think it is sufficiently serious to try and institute speech restrictions to cover it. Doing so infringes on free speech.

Denis- there is no such thing as free speech in the school system like there is in other parts of society. That's been true forever regardless of this issue. In other to understand these things need to know the legal standeards. It's the same reason why although lockers are technically private the SCt has ruled that a student can not claim a 4th Amendment right to privacy or 14th. I'm not sure of the spcifics of this case, but the real issue isn't gay or straight-b ut what is the prevailing standard by which such cases are judgeds under law , and what impact if any on the ability of schools to regulate activities such long as they do not violate existing standards. I dont know what the answer here is but I do know that the standard is not the same as if you were in a public square and I think your statement doesnt reflect this reality.

I'm also a teacher, and I don't think speech control work.
We can always reprimand a student for using slurs or whatever,
but we can't be censors, that won't stop kids using expressions we don't like.

I think we should throw the brat in jail.:)

As a teacher, I completely disagree with you. "That's so gay" needs to be eliminated from the schools, and that is wide spread does not make it right. You should see that faces of the gay kid that have to hear other students use "that's so gay" to to mean stupid or ridiculous, a hundred times a day. I think both sides in this case should be punish, religious taunt is unacceptable , but it does not a make right a homophobic response.

Yes, Dennis, I do think the school would have the unquestioned authority to discipline the girl who says "that's so black." While you might not be offended by the phrase "that's so gay," it is hate speech, especially to that 15 year-old sissy who each morning has to screw up more courage than you and I could muster in a whole week just to face the taunts and possible physical violence that greets him at school each morning. If you allow folks to express their bigotry, then you allow that bigotry to spread--it's really that simple.

And Craig is absolutely correct. Free speech is not an absolute right; it must be balanced against the state's other interests. Those interests include maintaining a safe place for the children who are REQUIRED to attend the school. The courts have long-established precedents that allows schools to limit speech and, yes, search lockers.

I guess I'm going to have to defer here to people who have actually taught in public schools and who point out that typical notions of First Amendment rights don't really apply within that context. (Still not all that comfortable with the way the speech restrictions in this case seem to have been selectively applied to the plaintiff (and not, say, the other kids who taunted her for being a Mormon.)

If nothing else comes of this case, at least it has raised the general issue about casual use of gay as a pejorative. It gets people thinking about it.

Do we know that the kids taunting her about her religion were not punished? Maybe they were. The news reports veers off to discuss what happened to the girl who used the homophobic language. I believe the teachers have a right and should correct students who use the term "that's so gay" even if the children used it innocently. It is, after all, a teacher's job to educate, so bugger freedom of speech in that regard. Freedom of speech shouldn't trump other freedoms that we should be able to enjoy, like not being the subjects of hate-speech. But, of course, using that term innocently doesn't warrant huge disciplinary action, but hey, it was the girl's parents that launched legal action.

I know I am getting in on this late...but here is my queer two cents worth anyway...

Free speech?

It's not so much a right as it is a responsibility.

Both students should have been reprimanded.

Making fun of other people's religion, culture or sexual orientation is wrong and should NOT be encouraged.

Saying "that's so gay" does not need to be aimed at a particular person to be considered hateful - it is a derogatory term and needs to be added to the list of words or expressions that one does not say in polite society.

QTC