Student Sues L.A. City College Over Prop 8 Speech
A student who was stopped from giving a speech in support of Proposition 8 during a public speaking class and threatened with expulsion at L.A. City College is suing the school, the L.A. Times reports:
"Student Jonathan Lopez says his professor called him a 'fascist bastard' and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions. When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to 'ask God what your grade is,' the suit says. Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to higher-ups. In addition to financial damages, the suit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, seeks to strike down a sexual harassment code barring students from uttering 'offensive' statements...Lopez, a Los Angeles resident working toward an associate of arts degree, is described in the suit as a Christian who considers it a religious duty to share his beliefs, particularly with other students. He declined to comment. Matteson could not be reached...The suit names the Los Angeles Community College District, which operates nine campuses including L.A. City College; its board of trustees; Matteson; and various administrators. Lopez is asking for a jury trial."
Student sues L.A. City College district over gay-marriage speech [la times]
Jerzeemike: I couldn't agree more. I find it sadly amusing that many postings, even postings regarding celebrities and entertainment news, start immediately with bitchy and sarcastic comments, then move quickly into personal attacks and insults. Any one can disagree, but maturely disagreeing seems to be a lost art-form.
Posted by: CJ | Feb 16, 2009 9:22:01 PM
Militant atheists? Listen, you sad little man, you haven't the first clue as to which religions I do, in fact, criticize. I am far better versed in the atrocities attributed to islamofascist regimes against lgbt people AND women than you could fathom, and cut them no slack.
Posted by: TANK | Feb 16, 2009 9:29:05 PM
I don't feel the need to qualify my critiques of one specific religion relevant to criticism in this topic and those lending support to that religion by including islam; nor, when I do, in fact, criticize islam, do I need to qualify it by bringing up christianity. SO instead of trying to point out so-called ommissions that literally don't exist, why don't you stick to what's been written.
Posted by: TANK | Feb 16, 2009 9:34:09 PM
When you are doing a debate speech it must be presented in a professional manner and not spouting personal religious beliefs if you are going to get a good grade.
My guess is this kid was stopped with his speech because his sources were from the Bible, which is NOT factual reference material. Also, there are no facts that support denying same-sex couples from getting married, there is only speculation and fear.
Posted by: Aiden Raccoon | Feb 17, 2009 8:40:18 AM
Tank, don't you just love it when you call people out directly on their shit, they become the victim and you the 'militant?'
As someone mentioned before, Mr. Lopez is described in the law suit as a "Christian who considers it a religious duty to share his beliefs, particularly with other students." This guy was probably proselytizing. Definitely NOT ok in the class room.
JERZEEMIKE, that is what you were doing. And that is what is arrogant.
Posted by: Mr. E | Feb 17, 2009 1:51:54 PM
This case illustrates how badly we Americans need to get over our foolish notion that everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions about things. We should start following Canada's practice of having a Human Rights Commission that establishes the acceptable opinions on major public issues. In Canada, anyone having an improper opinion can be found guilty of a hate crime. The professor in this case should be regarded as a hero for not allowing hate speech in his class. Such speech should be regarded as mental pollution and outlawed just as smoking is outlawed in the classroom. The U.S. Supreme Court should reinterpret the constitutional right of "free speech" to mean "speech that makes us more free," meaning free from racism, social injustice, poverty, and right-wing tyranny. Only speech that promotes these goals should be constitutionally protected. Hopefully, Obama's forthcoming appointments to the Supreme Court will see this come to pass in the near future.
Posted by: AriannaHuffingPuff | Feb 17, 2009 3:40:21 PM
People who dream of Obamas wonderful new Supreme Court need to wake up. In the next 8 years there are only two justices likely to retire, John Paul Stevens, 88. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, but they are both 'liberal' justices so not much of a change there, really. Kennedy and Scalia, both Reagan appointees, are only 72. Barring some catastrophic death or illness they're not going anywhere. Obama will not have much of an impact on the supreme court.
Posted by: Mr. E | Feb 17, 2009 7:20:57 PM
I would like to share a couple thoughts distilled from other websites: free speech is not necessarily applicable to the classroom in all situations.
And "sharing your faith" in an overwhelmingly Christian country can and should be seen as proselytizing. Most everyone knows who Jesus is and why we have off Christmas & Easter from school. If this person wants to share how "God" in general made him a better person, fine, maybe, but not what I can certainly guess what he really "shared."
After all this time, we still don't know what he actually said, and that is what I want to know!
Posted by: Jaroslaw | Mar 3, 2009 5:06:43 PM
sorry I meant to say almost everyone knows about Jesus & what certain holidays mean even if you're not Christian yourself!
Posted by: Jaroslaw | Mar 3, 2009 5:08:14 PM
I knew Luke was gay too, I just had a feeling. He's rather cute, as well. :) Now I just need to learn sign language
Posted by: penis büyütücü | Dec 18, 2010 6:48:42 AM