Fifth Grader Will Phillips: Free Speech Microcosm
Will Phillips, a ten year old student in the West Fork Elementary School in Washington County, Arkansas, recently made a stand for gay rights and free speech in his school. Will is not gay, and neither are his parents. They do see themselves as straight allies of the gay community, though. His family is politically active and they seem to have taught their son well.
Referring to widespread gay rights opposition, the ten year old said, “I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer. I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.” He decided recently that he would refuse to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance that includes those claims. During the first week of his mini protest, the substitute teacher tried multiple times to force him to stand and he respectfully refused. As the week went on, she became angrier and angrier. Their clash on Thursday ended up with Will in the principal’s office. The fifth grader described the incident:
She got a lot more angry and raised her voice and brought my mom and my grandma up. I was fuming and was too furious to really pay attention to what she was saying. After a few minutes, I said, ‘With all due respect, ma’am, you can go jump off a bridge.’
When the principal called Will’s mother, they quickly came to an agreement over Will’s right to refuse to stand during the pledge. She then asked the principal when they could expect an apology from the teacher.
Some of Will’s friends support his decision, but since his protest was inspired by gay rights, others have been more cruel. They have called him names and accused him of being gay.
David Koon of the Arkansas Times interviewed Will about the incident. At one point, he asked what being an American means. “Freedom of speech,” he responded. “The freedom to disagree. That’s what I think pretty much being an American represents.”
Will’s story is a microcosm of the larger clashes in America over gay rights, free speech, and what it means to be patriotic. So much of the opposition to gay rights is rooted in bigotry and hatred, even if the opponents themselves are unable to recognize it. Free speech is one of our most treasured values, and it includes the right to protest observed injustice. Patriotism is more than supporting militarism, wearing flag lapel pins, and reciting the pledge of allegiance. With his example, this ten year old in Arkansas puts a lot of less mature adults to shame.
His family reminded me of mine in a lot of ways. Koon’s article said that “when his family goes for a drive, discussions are much more apt to be about Teddy Roosevelt and terraforming Mars than they are about Spongebob Squarepants and what’s playing on Radio Disney.”
I hope my kids someday are as awesome as this kid.
They will be.
“Some of Will’s friends support his decision, but since his protest was inspired by gay rights, others have been more cruel. They have called him names and accused him of being gay.”
Sounds to me like such individuals are exercising their freedom of speech as well.
So when should people expect to see a blog posting that praises such individuals, their patriotism, and their “awesome”-ness?
Or is such treatment only reserved for those individuals expressing an opinion that you find to be acceptable?
Immaturity may be protected speech, but its not speech we should praise. This 10 year old kid whether you agree with him or not, is taking up a mature stance on an issue, and that is something that should be praised, regardless of your political views
There is a free speech argument to be made for their bullying and verbal abuse, but that kind of thing is usually not approved of in schools. This is a ten year old, by the way.
I think that a kid standing up (or not, as the case may be) for the rights of others is something worth praising. I don’t personally think that kids mocking and attacking a peer are worth praising, but if you do, I am willing to listen to your argument.
Not all speech is equal just because it is spoken.
“. . . but that kind of thing is usually not approved of in schools.”
Nor is gay rights, typically.
“I think that a kid standing up (or not, as the case may be) for the rights of others is something worth praising.”
Sure, when you agree with the underlying “right.” Query whether you would feel the same way if an individual was standing up for a right that you personally find abhorrent.
Call my cynical, but I suspect that you find the student’s actions worthy of (laudatory) commentary because the underlying dispute in the instant case is gay rights and a student’s response thereto.
I’m merely asking if you would find a student’s similar actions worthy of the same type of commentary if the underlying dispute in such case was, for example, a pro-life rally or an action to allow for unfettered access to assault weapons.
“Not all speech is equal just because it is spoken.”
I’m not sure that I agree. All speech has the same right to be heard; whether all speech should be given the same deference is another matter.
I don’t know how you cannot agree with that last part. I’m not advocating censorship; but I cannot accept that all ideas or all speeches are equal in value, either. When you say “all speech has the same right to be heard,” you ignore my evaluative statement that some speech is more worthy of praise and protection than other speech.
RP?
It’s an interesting thought experiment that you propose. Let me think about it.
If the 5th grader had protested the pledge because he believed that the US didn’t provide “liberty and justice for all” the fetuses that are aborted and he felt strongly about pro-life legislation, what would my response be? Personally, I probably wouldn’t have blogged about it because I would find it much less interesting. What if he carried out that protest and then other students made fun of him for being a “dumb Christian” or used other personal attacks against him for standing up for his beliefs? There is no way that I would side with the cruel personal insults (what you call “free speech too” in the real life example). If that scenario happened, I hope that school officials would stop the bullying.
I don’t think there is any double standard there. It just so happens that liberals are more tolerant of dissenting free speech than conservatives and conservatives are more prone to personal attacks against minority positions. That has been true in my experience, anyway.
BTW, David, since you know that I mostly agree with you, I just wanted to make one quick point about wording in your post. You said that the other kids have “accused him of being gay.”
I think we should look at the way that’s phrased. I’ve tried really hard to not use the word “accuse” in the context as it runs along the lines of being “accused” of being a murderer or liar. If there’s nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality(and there isn’t), then accused is not the correct term. Don’t ya think?
I almost didn’t use that word for the same reason, but I was in between classes and couldn’t think of an easy substitute that fit. How would you word it?
It reminds me of when people “accused” Obama of being a Muslim. He and his supporters ran into the same sort of thing. In their case, they wanted to deny it, but not deny it so strongly that they seemed as anti-Muslim as their, uh, accusers.
Actually, when telling a story about someone(myself) being called gay, I typically use that opportunity to go into my little spiel about using the word “accused”. That way I have a good story and get to make a point, too. But I like to stir the pot so everyone may not prefer that method.
I’m gonna spread that rumor if your Sexy Word of the Week has a picture of a dude next time.
I missed it yesterday, by the way
Facebook appreciation group
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=179022586366
Yeah, sorry. I think in my quest to be a high-functioning alcoholic perhaps I should begin with the high-functioning part. Wednesday makes for a weird weekend.
Also, when it comes to being mistaken for a queer ;) I’ll take Russell Brand’s approach. The girls feel comfortable with me(since I’m no threat) so they come in close… then… BANG! pregnant. BANG! pregnant. BANG! pregnant.
This is Will’s father.
1st of all I would disagree that hate speech (here being defined as speech intended to marginalize or demean an entire group of people) as being the moral equivelant of other forms of expression.
2ndly, it seems that the thing people seem to find amazing about this is that a 10 year old would form a an opinion, make a decision & act upon it, all without being coached or being an equal rights version of the Balloon Boy.
finally, all I gotta say is that if you raise a child to think critically, love unconditionally, and stand firm in their beliefs, this is what you get. His mother and I are just reaping that which we have sown. : )
“Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”
Not if you consider the psychological effect hate speech and bullying have on people, especially younger children. This age-old adage always seemed suspect to me when I was younger. Now I see it as justification for some insecure playground bully to slander with impunity.
Let’s re-write it:
“Sticks and stones can break bones, but words can lead to emotional distress and possibly to suicide.”
Yeah, I like the new version better. Words, used to their maximum effect, can be like bombs.
5 days after the ArkTimes coverage and 4 days after this article, CNN is reporting on this controversy.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/11/16/am.boy.no.pledge.cnn
I haven’t seen the video yet, but a Facebook update from Will’s mother says “just got a call from will at school. Harassment is pretty bad post CNN.” That is a shame.
Will,
Your right not not recite the Pledge is enshrined, not just in the First Amendment, but in the Supreme Court ruling West Virginia v. Barnette. I encourage you to cite this ruling in addition to your first amendment rights when you state your right to not stand. You go, Little Dude!
Ten year old’s stance may be just another publicity stunt
I was in Las Vegas last week exercising my rights to double down on the blackjack table when all the news about William Phillips, the ten year old from West Fork that refuses to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, got all the national play.
Reportedly, this ten year old decided on his own around the first of October that he no longer wanted to stand for the Pledge because the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the right to marry somehow violates the stated mandate of “liberty and justice for all”.
I’m not as concerned with young master Phillips’ message as I am with the methodology of the delivery. Whatever your feelings on this highly volatile subject, you have to wonder about the genuineness of a ten year-old kid in this situation and whether or not someone has put him up to standing up by refusing to stand up.
From John and Kate Plus Eight to the Octo-Mom to the Duggars’ to Balloon Boy and his crazy parents, I have come to be immediately suspect of anything that smells of publicity stunt.
A reality show can’t be far behind.
Don’t get me wrong. The kid seems articulate and much more studious than a normal ten year old. He reportedly skipped the fifth grade and from all reports is a bright and somewhat precocious pre-teen who has spurred a debate about Constitutional rights and opened up discussion on a number of levels about a number of social issues.
Here’s my concern.
Immediately after all of this news broke, Laura Phillips started touting in newscasts, internet blogs and various public pronouncements a group called the NWA Center For Equality. Supposedly formed in 2006 by “concerned citizens who saw a need in Northwest Arkansas” the organization is a “not-for-profit organization and donations (monetary and in-kind) are fully tax deductible in accordance with its 501(c)3 status”.
The website for the organization didn’t exists until October 9, 2008 and the name of the registrant has been blocked by a company that allows you to start a website without anyone knowing who you are.
The organization didn’t adopt its’ bylaws until June 7, 2009 and there is no mention of the group in any news source I can find before June 27, 2009 when Fayetteville mayor Lioneld Jordan proclaimed a “LGBT Pride Day” in his town.
The group had a splash of localized publicity over the summer, mainly on NPR radio, and a “Kiss In” organized by the group in August garnered a mention on CNN.
That’s pretty much it.
The by-laws (from their own website) states that members have to sign an application and pay their dues for a year, and says the board has the right to set the dues for different individuals, families, groups, organizations, etc.
Let’s see.
Out of nowhere, a ten year old boy in Arkansas take a radical stand against something as innocuous as the Pledge of Allegiance and mom is out there touting this organization and their website on the back of the comments.
The family gets interviewed by various national outlets (and are paid an honorarium by a number of them), the traffic on the website booms and the donations start pouring in in support of the “brave and wise stance” that the ten year old has taken.
Reports are that a college scholarship fund has already been started in William’s name.
The NWA Center For Equality has all their donors listed on their website. Since their “2006” formation, the organization has taken in a total of $22,250, not a whole lot considering $10,000 of that came from one source and another $5000 was apparently a start-up donation from an “anonymous Corporate Donor in 2006.
Being the suspicious type, I begin to smell a rat. I wonder who is behind the NWA Center For Equality and if their lifestyle is about to drastically change?
Has young William taken a good stance, whether he came up with it on his own or not?
Absolutely. Freedom of speech should be protected at all cost and even young Will’s rights to exercise the same should be wrapped in the very flag he refuses to acknowledge.
Regardless of where you stand on same gender marriage, the right to stand up for what you believe in should never be compromised. It is the tenet of a free society, but it comes with knowledge that you accept both the good and the bad in the process.
Those that choose to burn the flag in protest have the right to do so as long as they realize that their actions are going to spur others that feel differently to knock a knot on their head. And those head knockers have just as much a right to their opinion and their freedom of speech as the guy burning the flag. And in the end, their right to knock a knot on your head should also be protected as well.
I take freedom of speech very seriously, as we all should. Too many have died protecting that freedom for any of us to take it for granted.
However, this isn’t about freedom of speech. And it’s not about “equality” either. This is about someone using a child to publicly push their own personal and political agenda and should be treated as such.
Ironically, the original Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist, Francis Bellamy, in 1892.
Like others, I have always pondered that irony because the Pledge is held to be a solemn and patriotic oath, yet true Socialists are probably the least patriotic of s;; Americans.
In addition to despising America’s independence, Socialists have never been willing to fight for this country unless it advanced the cause of socialism.
Given the bend of the current administration, and their tendency to stifle freedom of speech when it doesn’t agree with their stated agenda, the liberals who are applauding the “heroic stand” by Will are contradicting themselves on this issue.
Your President wants to control how and what news outlets report with the full support of his flock, and the same special interest groups are making young Will out to be a hero and proclaiming him so because he’s exercising his freedom of speech.
It’s another one of those deals where you don’t get to have it both ways.
Unless it suits your agenda.
I realize I come from a different generation, but if I had ever told a teacher to “jump off a bridge” I would have gladly stood for the Pledge the next day, because my butt would have been too sore to sit down.
The kid needs to apologize. The school needs to acknowledge he had the right not to stand and the teacher was wrong to push the issue, so maybe she needs to apologize as well.
And everyone can live happily ever after.
Without the reality show.
I really have to take issue with this paragraph from dmacattack:
“Those that choose to burn the flag in protest have the right to do so as long as they realize that their actions are going to spur others that feel differently to knock a knot on their head. And those head knockers have just as much a right to their opinion and their freedom of speech as the guy burning the flag. And in the end, their right to knock a knot on your head should also be protected as well.”
Will these others be wearing a cone hat and a sheet perhaps?
My first observation is that assault is not speech.
Second, haven’t we learned anything about suggesting violence as a means of dealing with those in favor of the rights of homosexuals? Some people actually believe it is perfectly acceptable to put a knot in a gay’s head before dragging them behind a truck until dead or tying them on a fence and leaving them to die of exposure. There’s a big down side though. Homosexuals work out a lot and there is nothing more embarrasing than getting your butt kicked by a homosexual. That’s pretty hard to live down at the next klan rally.
Perhaps I misunderstood though and the writer is suggesting someone assault the ten year old instead.
I do agree with dmacattack that we need a constitutional amendment to protect the right of adults to assault effiminate men and children up to 4′8″ and 70 pounds.
Personally, I always thought the pledge of allegiance was pretty inane. It wasn’t as inane as the pledge to the christian flag I had to say in second and third grade. That always made me think it was time to saddle up and invade the middle east to rid it of the infidels. Years later I know better and I recognize that I am one of the infidels.
I said this:
“Those that choose to burn the flag in protest have the right to do so as long as they realize that their actions are going to spur others that feel differently to knock a knot on their head. And those head knockers have just as much a right to their opinion and their freedom of speech as the guy burning the flag. And in the end, their right to knock a knot on your head should also be protected as well.”
Yopu said this:
“Second, haven’t we learned anything about suggesting violence as a means of dealing with those in favor of the rights of homosexuals? Some people actually believe it is perfectly acceptable to put a knot in a gay’s head before dragging them behind a truck until dead or tying them on a fence and leaving them to die of exposure. There’s a big down side though. Homosexuals work out a lot and there is nothing more embarrasing than getting your butt kicked by a homosexual. That’s pretty hard to live down at the next klan rally.”
Perhaps I misunderstood though and the writer is suggesting someone assault the ten year old instead. ”
That’s a highly selective intepretation of my words. I never once infurred (or would I condone) violance against anyone based on race, gender or sexual prefereance. I also do not see how what I worte could be consistent with me suggesting an assualt of a ten year old.
My point is, was and continues to be that you can’t puff out your chest and soapbox the cause of free speech, then turn around and deny someone else that baisc right because they don’t agree with your point of view.
Here’s another perfect example…
Adam Lambert had every right in the world to prance around on the stage, dry hump his dancers and kiss his wash tub player, but him and his followers just can’t fathom the backlash because, after all, he was just expressing his artistic freedom. (Forget the choreography. If tnat’s the best song he could come up with after almost a year in the studio, his career is in serious trouible.)
But his antics also offended the 90% of the viewing population that isn’t gay and the Lambert fans act like those so offended shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinon about how crappy his performance was on the AMA’s.
Again, freedom of speech is a big deal as long as the exercising of same promotes YOUR agenda. When referning the flag burners, I firmly believe that anyone who wants to burn a flag has the right to do so under the auspices of free speech. The flip side is that a person who decides the way to stop the flag burning they don’t agree with is to slap somebody up side their head should be afforded the same guarantees of free speech.
You don’t get to have it both ways. What I do and what I say is protected by the constituion, but since I don’t agree with YOU, you don’t get the same treatment. That’s my point entirely.
How you stretched that into I was advocating violance against gays and children is beyond me.
Oh, wait. I get it. I don’t agree with you, so my point of view is moot.
Typical liberal crap.
I take issue with your “Typical Liberal Crap” comment. The ACLU for example has historically been tagged as guised liberal institution. In fact, the ACLU has a long history of supporting civil rights across the spectrum. Here in Pittsburgh, one of the first events was representing KKK members who could not get a permit to march. We’ll the ACLU got them a permit. Then they ended up representing protesters to the KKK. At any rate, saying “typical liberal crap” is wholly misguided. Sorry to pick a small line out of the entire statement, I just have a reaction to that particular statement.
Also, this “90%” of people should be allowed to express their views. It would fall to the job of the media to intellectually explain why this is a bigoted belief.
“Also, this “90%” of people should be allowed to express their views. It would fall to the job of the media to intellectually explain why this is a bigoted belief.”
If 90% of the people believe something THAT is a bigoted belief, they still have the RIGHT to believe that way and exercise their freedom of speech when expousing those beliefs.
I took the 90% road because “they” tell us that 10% of the population is gay. I’ve had gay people tell me they were offended by Lambert’s performance. Take away all of the “imprompteau moments” and it was still not a performance worthy of inclusion aired on network television.
You’re barking up the wrong tree here. I have a daughter that is in a committed same sex relationship and she and her partner have 100% of my backing and approval. This issue NEVER WAS about homosexuality..it’s about trotting out a ten year old boy using “freedom of speech” to promote an agenda that his parents are probably benefitting financially from.
The “typical liberal crap” comes from people taking a point of view and twisiting the context to fit their argument and agenda. That’s the way it always is. If you can’t refute the point being made with a valid argument, then head it off at the pass by changing the subject.
That’s the only tyipcal “liberal crap” I’m talking about.
When you say, “The “typical liberal crap” comes from people taking a point of view and twisting the context to fit their argument and agenda” it illustrates what I am getting at exactly. Adding the term “liberal” is unnecessary as typical crap works fine.
Yes unfortunately if 90% of people did believe this way, they get the right to express it. Whatever the percentage is, its just some people kissing, in context of all the crazy stuff that gets on TV its rather lite.
You always have to wonder when someone does an act that achieves them fame. This kid seems genuinely intelligent and ready to talk at length about this topic.
http://politicalcartel.org/2009/11/25/gay-rights-destroying-the-term-faggot/
Wait, Dmac, I don’t understand your original clarification of the issue. You did say “their right to knock a knot on your head should also be protected as well,” equating protection of assault with protection of speech. Then when that fact was pointed out to you, you just assumed that liberals generally (and we specifically) have some sort of speech double standard. When do we ever want to censor someone’s speech? If there is some liberal censorship movement, I don’t know about it. Enlighten me (use actual examples).
I think your problem might be that you mistakenly believe that “What [you] do and what [you] say is protected by the Constitution.” There is that first amendment that protects most speech, but I’m not familiar with the right to do anything. Extending that nonexistent right to protect unwanted physical on another person is really pretty shocking. I know this is just a discussion, but if you don’t understand why free speech is valuable and protectable while assault is not, then you will never see why making a statement is worth applauding while attacking someone who is making a statement is not.
David, there were times during debate tournaments when I wanted to reach across the podium and strangle a few of our opponents.
Think about it. We could have ran some sort of plan that extended constitutional protection to freedom of assault. Then when the questions came, we could have demonstrated exactly what type of new freedom was being protected. What would those judges have done? Seeing as most of them were pretty unfit for any type of physical activity, I venture to say not much.
Man alive, we would have dominated. You disagree?! Don’t make me go Thrasymachus on your ass! Now that’s an Argumentum ad baculum. I’ve always wanted to use that phrase. It’s totally verbose to do so, but it works so well in this situation. Sorry.
Ok DmacAttack I’m going to put the issue in the form of a multiple choice question because you seem to have missed a course in logic at some point (or all points).
I, DmacAttack, support an individuals right to:
(A) Free speech
(B) assault someone for speaking
(C) Neither A nor B
(D) Both A and B
Answer Key
(A) Excellent, that’s the right answer.
(B) Great job. This too is a correct answer if you say so.
(C) Another excellent answer and if you support neither free speech nor the right to assault someone for speaking it too is 100% correct.
(D) I’m sorry. This answer is definitely wrong but I was afraid you would select it because you previously wrote the following:
“And those head knockers have just as much a right to their opinion and their freedom of speech as the guy burning the flag. And in the end, their right to knock a knot on your head should also be protected as well. (paragraph break) I take freedom of speech very seriously, as we all should.”
You see, in this passage you support free speech, assaulting one who speaks and then free speech. What you don’t seem to understand is that freedom of speech and freedom of assualt are mutually exclusive. If you have freedom of speech and I have freedom to assault you then you don’t have free speech.
You reiterated this point in your next post:
“When referning the flag burners, I firmly believe that anyone who wants to burn a flag has the right to do so under the auspices of free speech. The flip side is that a person who decides the way to stop the flag burning they don’t agree with is to slap somebody up side their head should be afforded the same guarantees of free speech.”
So there it is again: A juxtaposition of supprt for free speech with the assertion that violence against the speaker is to be reasonably expected. Taken together, these quotes make it clear that you think assaulting someone for engaging in offensive speech either is or should be a right protected under the first amendment.
You asked how your original message could be construed as condoning assault on a child. Let me show you how anyone could reach the same conclusion. You wrote:
“…Will’s rights to exercise the same should be wrapped in the very flag he refuses to acknowledge. Regardless of where you stand on same gender marriage, the right to stand up for what you believe in should never be compromised. It is the tenet of a free society, but it comes with knowledge that you accept both the good and the bad in the process.” (end of paragraph)
What is this “bad” of which you speak? Let’s read the next sentence and see if we learn more about the “bad”.
“Those that choose to burn the flag in protest have the right to do so as long as they realize that their actions are going to spur others that feel differently to knock a knot on their head.”
You say that Will should be willing to accept the good and the bad that comes as a result of his protest but you don’t define the “bad”. In the very next sentence you draw a parallel between Will’s protest and flag burning. In the case of Will, you indicate that “bad” should be expected. In the case of flag burning you indicate that the “bad” that results from such a protest is violence against the protester.
If I misunderstand you, answer the obvious question: What is the “bad” Will should expect as a result of his protest it it is not a knot on his head?
I know you will say I’m misrepresenting what you said but there is a basic fact here. The discussion is about a ten year old protesting for rights to be extended to homosexuals. You raised the possibility of violence and said it should be protected speech and then repeated that claim. If you are not suggesting assault on a ten year old or a homosexual, who are the intended victims of the assaults you say should be constitutionally protected?
Let’s continue:
In your second post you wrote:
“My point is, was and continues to be that you can’t puff out your chest and soapbox the cause of free speech, then turn around and deny someone else that baisc right because they don’t agree with your point of view.”
I agree and yet that is exactly what you are doing. You are supporting free speech and then stating that people who object to speech have a right to use violence to stop the speech.
If you condone violence against someone engaging in objectionable speech or say violence is a right that should be protected (as you have repeatedly) you don’t believe in free speech at all. It’s the exact opposite of free speech.
I think we both agree that free speech should be protected but you and I define free speech differently so supporting free speech means very different things to each of us. I define it the way the constitution and the courts define it. You seem to define it the way Timothy McVay does.
You suggest that I am spewing typical liberal crap. I don’t know how you define liberal or conservative. The only opinions I have espoused here is support for free speech and a condemnation of discussing violence in the context of a 10 year old and homosexuals. Does that make me a liberal in your book? You must have a very interesting definition of liberal and conservative.
Please write more. I really enjoy it.
Sometimes they do hit back.