theit57
I am THE Frodo Baggins.
+124|6836|6 feet under
One of my friends told me this afternoon, I thought that this was ridiculous. As of 31 Dec. 2007 or 1 Jan 2008, either way you look at it, it will be legal for homosexual persons going to school in the state of California to sue someone who uses the word gay or homo or homosexual in a speech or type. All they have to do is claim offense and they can sue you now. Also, as of that date, it will be illegal for teachers to talk only about Mother-father relations, without also having to also talk about Mother-Mother and Father-Father relations. So much for free speech, first God in anything at all now this, what is this world coming to? /rant

feel free to discuss

I'd tell you what it says, but it's too long, so I'll giv you the link and you can read it if you want:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil … ptered.pdf

Last edited by theit57 (2007-11-26 16:09:03)

Surgeons
U shud proabbly f off u fat prik
+3,097|6927|Gogledd Cymru

Political Correctness is far worse over here.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7248|Nårvei

Thats gay, but what did you expect from the people that came up with such gold plated papers like the Patriot Act ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Jibbles
Rifle Expert
+56|7067|Mexifornia, USA
Secular-progressivism and the ACLU are gaining too much power. Fight back.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6843|North Carolina

theit57 wrote:

One of my friends told me this afternoon, I thought that this was ridiculous. As of 31 Dec. 2007 or 1 Jan 2008, either way you look at it, it will be legal for homosexual persons going to school in the state of California to sue someone who uses the word gay or homo or homosexual in a speech or type. All they have to do is claim offense and they can sue you now. Also, as of that date, it will be illegal for teachers to talk only about Mother-father relations, without also having to also talk about Mother-Mother and Father-Father relations. So much for free speech, first God in anything at all now this, what is this world coming to? /rant

feel free to discuss
Please provide a source for this.  Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit.
theit57
I am THE Frodo Baggins.
+124|6836|6 feet under

Turquoise wrote:

theit57 wrote:

One of my friends told me this afternoon, I thought that this was ridiculous. As of 31 Dec. 2007 or 1 Jan 2008, either way you look at it, it will be legal for homosexual persons going to school in the state of California to sue someone who uses the word gay or homo or homosexual in a speech or type. All they have to do is claim offense and they can sue you now. Also, as of that date, it will be illegal for teachers to talk only about Mother-father relations, without also having to also talk about Mother-Mother and Father-Father relations. So much for free speech, first God in anything at all now this, what is this world coming to? /rant

feel free to discuss
Please provide a source for this.  Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil … ptered.pdf
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6843|North Carolina

theit57 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

theit57 wrote:

One of my friends told me this afternoon, I thought that this was ridiculous. As of 31 Dec. 2007 or 1 Jan 2008, either way you look at it, it will be legal for homosexual persons going to school in the state of California to sue someone who uses the word gay or homo or homosexual in a speech or type. All they have to do is claim offense and they can sue you now. Also, as of that date, it will be illegal for teachers to talk only about Mother-father relations, without also having to also talk about Mother-Mother and Father-Father relations. So much for free speech, first God in anything at all now this, what is this world coming to? /rant

feel free to discuss
Please provide a source for this.  Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil … ptered.pdf
Thank you...  Now that I've read this, I have to say...  the way this is worded is extremely vague.  Technically, it could work the way that you described it, but it resembles previous legislation against racial discrimination.

So, in other words, if this passes or has passed, it may leave the door open for ridiculous abuses, but on the other hand, will your system actually allow it to be abused?

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this: the only way this law could become as insidious as you imply is for the majority of your authorities to allow it to.  Should that happen, I suppose that means you'll need to elect a whole new slew of people to important offices.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

theit57 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Please provide a source for this.  Otherwise, I'm calling bullshit.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil … ptered.pdf
Thank you...  Now that I've read this, I have to say...  the way this is worded is extremely vague.  Technically, it could work the way that you described it, but it resembles previous legislation against racial discrimination.

So, in other words, if this passes or has passed, it may leave the door open for ridiculous abuses, but on the other hand, will your system actually allow it to be abused?

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this: the only way this law could become as insidious as you imply is for the majority of your authorities to allow it to.  Should that happen, I suppose that means you'll need to elect a whole new slew of people to important offices.
California. Do you really think the system there won't allow it to be abused? Just think of the implications in the San Fran area alone.

The authorities you mentioned are the same ones that allowed this piece of corn-fed brown trout to be passed into law...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
.:ronin:.|Patton
Respekct dad i love u always
+946|7247|Marathon, Florida Keys

stryyker wrote:

Fuck those buttfucking flamer faggots.
couldn't have said it better myself
https://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g117/patton1337/stats.jpg
Jibbles
Rifle Expert
+56|7067|Mexifornia, USA

stryyker wrote:

Jibbles wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Fuck those buttfucking flamer faggots.
And California.
Them too!
Sucks for me, since I'm right in the middle of all of it. 8 more months....


David.P wrote:

Jibbles wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Fuck those buttfucking flamer faggots.
And California.
And liberal douche bags who are trying to bring about a new version of marxism into america by use of political correctness!
Hence my post about the ACLU. George Soros is probably the epitome of who you're thinking of.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7195|Argentina

David.P wrote:

Jibbles wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Fuck those buttfucking flamer faggots.
And California.
And liberal douche bags who are trying to bring about a new version of marxism into america by use of political correctness!
Let me say that I'm against that PC.  You can call a homo gay.  But wtf has marxism to do with liberals and how can marxism be brought using PC?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6843|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Thank you...  Now that I've read this, I have to say...  the way this is worded is extremely vague.  Technically, it could work the way that you described it, but it resembles previous legislation against racial discrimination.

So, in other words, if this passes or has passed, it may leave the door open for ridiculous abuses, but on the other hand, will your system actually allow it to be abused?

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this: the only way this law could become as insidious as you imply is for the majority of your authorities to allow it to.  Should that happen, I suppose that means you'll need to elect a whole new slew of people to important offices.
California. Do you really think the system there won't allow it to be abused? Just think of the implications in the San Fran area alone.

The authorities you mentioned are the same ones that allowed this piece of corn-fed brown trout to be passed into law...
Exactly, and you know what that means?  These people need to elect better leaders.  They can only blame themselves when they put people into power that abuse legislation, no matter how well-intended it might be.

Notice that I didn't say that I liked or supported the bill.  I was merely comparing it to previous legislation that is written similarly to protect against racial discrimination.

The law itself isn't such a bad thing, but the problem is its vagueness.  Logical authorities could reserve its use against truly bigoted individuals, but illogical ones will abuse it.  And again, who put said authorities in power?...
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6930|Connecticut
I have a feeling I'm getting banned for that.
Malloy must go
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|7064|Sea to globally-cooled sea

Varegg wrote:

Thats gay, but what did you expect from the people that came up with such gold plated papers like the Patriot Act ?
The Patriot act is brought to you by the opposite end of the American political spectrum.

and that sue me above is hilarious.  I think you should get promoted rather than banned
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6930|Connecticut
I cant get sued. Its art, not speech. My work is my life...*sighs*.
Malloy must go
General-Idea
Member
+5|6436|USA, Central.
When I become dictator, I will make sure all gays are killed.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

Exactly, and you know what that means?  These people need to elect better leaders.  They can only blame themselves when they put people into power that abuse legislation, no matter how well-intended it might be.

Notice that I didn't say that I liked or supported the bill.  I was merely comparing it to previous legislation that is written similarly to protect against racial discrimination.

The law itself isn't such a bad thing, but the problem is its vagueness.  Logical authorities could reserve its use against truly bigoted individuals, but illogical ones will abuse it.  And again, who put said authorities in power?...
No argument from me on any of those points. California finally got what it has been deserving for decades...worthless lawmakers to go along with their worthless judges.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6843|North Carolina

General-Idea wrote:

When I become dictator, I will make sure all gays are killed.
I thought you already did that, Ahmadinejad...
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|7068|Washington, DC

General-Idea wrote:

When I become dictator, I will make sure all gays are killed.
edit: This is funnier cause it's a gay guy being hitler

Last edited by Hurricane (2007-11-26 17:10:01)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6843|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Exactly, and you know what that means?  These people need to elect better leaders.  They can only blame themselves when they put people into power that abuse legislation, no matter how well-intended it might be.

Notice that I didn't say that I liked or supported the bill.  I was merely comparing it to previous legislation that is written similarly to protect against racial discrimination.

The law itself isn't such a bad thing, but the problem is its vagueness.  Logical authorities could reserve its use against truly bigoted individuals, but illogical ones will abuse it.  And again, who put said authorities in power?...
No argument from me on any of those points. California finally got what it has been deserving for decades...worthless lawmakers to go along with their worthless judges.
Agreed...  although there are a number of states that would fit the bill on the other extreme as well.  California represents the extreme left, while states like Utah and South Dakota represent the extreme right.
theit57
I am THE Frodo Baggins.
+124|6836|6 feet under
I partially understand the logic behind this bill/soon to be law, but doesn't it encroach upon freedom of speech? according to Wiki these are the only restrictions there are:
Defamation (slander and libel)
Product defamation (criticism of commercial products; sometimes called product libel or product disparagement; for example, the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act)
Obscenity
Lying in court (perjury)
Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
Speaking about a trial outside the court room after the judge forbids it (subjudicy).
Speaking publicly without a permit
Speaking publicly outside of a free speech zone
Limits on the size of public demonstrations
Profanity on television
Hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence
Noise pollution
Speech that contains a copyright infringement
Company secrets (trade secrets), such as how a product is made or company strategy (Example: Seven herbs and spices of KFC chicken)
Political secrets: campaign strategies, dirty past/deeds of a politician, etc.
Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.[2]
Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as Shouting fire in a crowded theater
Fighting words doctrine:(U.S. 1942) "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"
Sedition: speech or organization (vs Freedom of Assembly) that is deemed as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
Treason: to talk publicly of the death of all countrymen or the overthrow of the government
Blasphemy is illegal in several Western countries (freedom of religion as well as speech could be given here)

to me, even some of these are a bit extreme. saying gay, should not be restricted by free speech
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6843|North Carolina
It is a blurry area definitely.  Previous laws applied to race basically prevent firing people for solely racial reasons and harassing people with racism.

When used correctly, this law would minimize harassment against gays.  When abused, it would infringe on the 1st Amendment.

Think of it like this...  It's perfectly legal to call someone a nigger or fag -- it's not legal to persistently harass someone with racism or anti-homosexual abuse.

The way I see it, if used correctly, it would rein in bigots, but again...  authorities have a habit of going overboard with political correctness.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,992|7069|949

I read that whole bill and only once were "gays" referenced -
(2) Many school districts are not effectively addressing discrimination
and harassment on campus. Less than half of grade 9 pupils express feeling
safe at school, while 46 percent of pupils said their schools were not safe
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) pupils.
Almost half of pupils felt their school wasn't safe for LGBTs.  The legislators seem to be acting according to what the people in schools see as dangerous.

This bill is called the Safe Place to Learn Act.  It sets up reviews, discussions, and oversight committees to deal with the increasing violence and discrimination in California schools.  Nowhere does it allow for someone to get sued for using the word "gay" "fag" or "homosexual".  I suggest all the dumb asses who voiced their displeasure for reasons that are not even relevant to actually read the link.  Starting with the OP.

Here it is for you people too attention deficient to click a link before you post:
Article 5.5. Safe Place to Learn Act
234. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the Safe Place
to Learn Act.
(b) It is the policy of the State of California to ensure that all local
educational agencies continue to work to reduce discrimination, harassment,
and violence. It is further the policy of the state to improve pupil safety at
schools and the connections between pupils and supportive adults, schools,
and communities.
234.1. The department, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 64001,
shall monitor adherence to the requirements of Chapter 5.3 (commencing
with Section 4900) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California Code of
Regulations and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) as part of its
regular monitoring and review of local educational agencies, commonly
known as the Categorical Program Monitoring process. The department
shall assess whether local educational agencies have done all of the
following:
(a) Adopted a policy that prohibits discrimination and harassment based
on the characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and
Section 220.
(b) Adopted a process for receiving and investigating complaints of
discrimination and harassment based on the characteristics set forth in
Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and Section 220.
(c) Publicized antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies, including
information about the manner in which to file a complaint, to pupils, parents,
employees, agents of the governing board, and the general public. The
information shall be translated pursuant to Section 48985.
(d) Posted antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies in all schools
and offices, including staff lounges and pupil government meeting rooms.
(e) Maintained documentation of complaints and their resolution for a
minimum of one review cycle.
(f) Ensured that complainants are protected from retaliation and that the
identity of a complainant alleging discrimination or harassment remains
confidential, as appropriate.
(g) Identified a responsible local educational agency officer for ensuring
district or office compliance with the requirements of Chapter 5.3
94
Ch. 566 — 3 —
(commencing with Section 4900) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California
Code of Regulations and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200).
234.2. The department shall display information on curricula and other
resources that specifically address bias-related discrimination and harassment
based on the characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code
and Section 220 on the California Healthy Kids Resource Center Internet
Web site and other appropriate department Internet Web sites where
information about discrimination and harassment is posted.
234.3. The department shall develop a model handout describing the
rights and obligations set forth in Sections 200, 201, and 220 and the policies
addressing bias-related discrimination and harassment in schools. This
model handout shall be posted on appropriate department Internet Web
sites.
Please tell me how any of those are PC or negatively impacting the state of California.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-11-27 12:09:05)

GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7081

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I read that whole bill and only once were "gays" referenced -
(2) Many school districts are not effectively addressing discrimination
and harassment on campus. Less than half of grade 9 pupils express feeling
safe at school, while 46 percent of pupils said their schools were not safe
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) pupils.
Almost half of pupils felt their school wasn't safe for LGBTs.  The legislators seem to be acting according to what the people in schools see as dangerous.

This bill is called the Safe Place to Learn Act.  It sets up reviews, discussions, and oversight committees to deal with the increasing violence and discrimination in California schools.  Nowhere does it allow for someone to get sued for using the word "gay" "fag" or "homosexual".  I suggest all the dumb asses who voiced their displeasure for reasons that are not even relevant to actually read the link.  Starting with the OP.

Here it is for you people too attention deficient to click a link before you post:
Article 5.5. Safe Place to Learn Act
234. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the Safe Place
to Learn Act.
(b) It is the policy of the State of California to ensure that all local
educational agencies continue to work to reduce discrimination, harassment,
and violence. It is further the policy of the state to improve pupil safety at
schools and the connections between pupils and supportive adults, schools,
and communities.
234.1. The department, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 64001,
shall monitor adherence to the requirements of Chapter 5.3 (commencing
with Section 4900) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California Code of
Regulations and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) as part of its
regular monitoring and review of local educational agencies, commonly
known as the Categorical Program Monitoring process. The department
shall assess whether local educational agencies have done all of the
following:
(a) Adopted a policy that prohibits discrimination and harassment based
on the characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and
Section 220.
(b) Adopted a process for receiving and investigating complaints of
discrimination and harassment based on the characteristics set forth in
Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and Section 220.
(c) Publicized antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies, including
information about the manner in which to file a complaint, to pupils, parents,
employees, agents of the governing board, and the general public. The
information shall be translated pursuant to Section 48985.
(d) Posted antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies in all schools
and offices, including staff lounges and pupil government meeting rooms.
(e) Maintained documentation of complaints and their resolution for a
minimum of one review cycle.
(f) Ensured that complainants are protected from retaliation and that the
identity of a complainant alleging discrimination or harassment remains
confidential, as appropriate.
(g) Identified a responsible local educational agency officer for ensuring
district or office compliance with the requirements of Chapter 5.3
94
Ch. 566 — 3 —
(commencing with Section 4900) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California
Code of Regulations and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200).
234.2. The department shall display information on curricula and other
resources that specifically address bias-related discrimination and harassment
based on the characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code
and Section 220 on the California Healthy Kids Resource Center Internet
Web site and other appropriate department Internet Web sites where
information about discrimination and harassment is posted.
234.3. The department shall develop a model handout describing the
rights and obligations set forth in Sections 200, 201, and 220 and the policies
addressing bias-related discrimination and harassment in schools. This
model handout shall be posted on appropriate department Internet Web
sites.
Please tell me how any of those are PC or negatively impacting the state of California.
dont you know, civil rights are wrong.   Was waiting for somebody to actually read it and say what i was expecting it to say.  So far, Ive heard a lot of different things from different threads on this same forum all saying how its gonna turn every child gay.   Everyone making such a stupid noise about this is just going off of what the next guy is telling em.   But its a waste of time KJ, because the only thing anyone is going to read is the opening post.
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6824
Damnit, when is San Fransisco gonna fall into the ocean already....


In other thoughts.....lock and load?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard