Fourth Circuit says school cannot ban NRA Shooting Sports Camp T-shirt...

[KingRat]

...at least without evidence that the T-shirt caused some disruption (evidence that seemed to be quite absent), or that it was "violent, threatening, lewd, vulgar, indecent, or plainly offensive" (for instance, profanity or sexual innuendo, as in the Bethel School District v. Fraser case; I take it that the supposed offensiveness of the underlying viewpoint wouldn't count, unless it's disruptive).

[Tony]

A victory for free-speech against the leftist police state politics.

[patoco12]

The court of course made the right decision.

But this brings up a more important issue. Each school needs to make their own decision on school clothes. Ad-hoc censorship is a BAD policy because it wastes time and money using teachers to enforce it.

Schools need to do one of the following:

A. Assign standard school uniforms and make them available for purchase at local stores. (best solution)

B. Write up a dress code policy that is cut and dry and easilty enforcable.

C. No dress code, no censorship. (weak, but better than ad hoc censorship).

[corplinx]

A simple plain shirts rule shoudl suffice to head off these things before they occur.

Its sorta like determining whats acceptable for internet usage at the office.

Instead of saying "nothing offensive, lewd, blah blah blah" and making yourselves the arbiters of what is decent you make a rule like "no non-business internet usage".

[Tony]

Originally posted by patoco12


A. Assign standard school uniforms and make them available for purchase at local stores. (best solution)

B. Write up a dress code policy that is cut and dry and easilty enforcable.

C. No dress code, no censorship. (weak, but better than ad hoc censorship).

If kids are going to be forced to attend school at gunpoint, I am against any kind of dress code. What right does the government have to tell American citizens what they should wear?

[Tmy]

I feel bad for schools. They are at the mercy of kooky parents from both sides of the spectrum. No matter what they do they offend someone. And parents are irrational zealots when it comes to their bratty kids.

Just once Id like to see a strong willed school administrator tell scewball parents to f-off.

[patoco12]

Originally posted by Tony


If kids are going to be forced to attend school at gunpoint, I am against any kind of dress code. What right does the government have to tell American citizens what they should wear?

1. The rights of children are sevely limited
2. The local taxpayers (who elect a school board) can enforce a dress code; they pay for the school, after all.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony


What right does the government have to tell American citizens what they should wear?

Thats what I toldd the cops when they busted me for DWP........driving without pants. FACISTS!!!!!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by patoco12


1. The rights of children are sevely limited
2. The local taxpayers (who elect a school board) can enforce a dress code; they pay for the school, after all.

Some kids do work so they are local taxpayers as well. Also, what happens when somebody turns 18 and is still in school? Does that mean they can wear anything they want?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tmy


Thats what I toldd the cops when they busted me for DWP........driving without pants. FACISTS!!!!! Don't you hate pants?

http://www.krjc.com/_borders/homer.gif

[patoco12]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Some kids do work so they are local taxpayers as well.

You don't even have to work to be a taxpayer (sales tax). And the income tax that most kids pay is minor. But you do have a point.

Originally posted by Grammatron
Also, what happens when somebody turns 18 and is still in school? Does that mean they can wear anything they want?
No, but it means they can vote and/or run for a school board position. But 18 year olds have zero power thanks to weak turnout. It is ridiculous that the drinking age is 21, but it stays there because 18-21 year olds don't vote in large enough numbers to be cared about.

Look, I'm for a hands off government, but I don't think the right to free speech extends to the choice of clothing in a publicly funded school system.

I think that the benefit of school uniforms is much greater than the need for students to "express themselves."

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by patoco12

You don't even have to work to be a taxpayer (sales tax). And the income tax that most kids pay is minor. But you do have a point.


No, but it means they can vote and/or run for a school board position. But 18 year olds have zero power thanks to weak turnout. It is ridiculous that the drinking age is 21, but it stays there because 18-21 year olds don't vote in large enough numbers to be cared about.

Look, I'm for a hands off government, but I don't think the right to free speech extends to the choice of clothing in a publicly funded school system.

I think that the benefit of school uniforms is much greater than the need for students to "express themselves."

Lots of things are publicly funded should we limit freedoms on those properties because of that?

I am not aware of benefits to school uniforms or the cost/save to the parents. Would you happen to have a link to that info?

[LFTKBS]

I don't get it. I consider myself a leftist, yet I'm happy to see this decision. Why to some people think that LFTKBS - or any leftist - is against freedom and free speech?

Good gravy - who's upset by the court's decision?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
I don't get it. I consider myself a leftist, yet I'm happy to see this decision. Why to some people think that LFTKBS - or any leftist - is against freedom and free speech?

Good gravy - who's upset by the court's decision?

I guess whoever the court decided against.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
A victory for free-speech against the leftist police state politics.

Which is nice to see, alongside all of the victories for free speech against the rightist police state politics. Freedom is winning out against the tyrants in both parties!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Just once Id like to see a strong willed school administrator tell scewball parents to f-off.

Unfortinately, there are as many screwball administrators as there are screwball parents.

[shanek]

Originally posted by patoco12
Look, I'm for a hands off government, but I don't think the right to free speech extends to the choice of clothing in a publicly funded school system.

I would agree, were the government running schools like a real business with a real choice; which means giving parents their tax money for schools back if they choose to send their kids somewhere else. Until then, it's the tyrant pointing a gun.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Lots of things are publicly funded should we limit freedoms on those properties because of that?

I am not aware of benefits to school uniforms or the cost/save to the parents. Would you happen to have a link to that info?

Actually you could cut through the whole "who paid for this" stuff as legally it matters not one wet slap. Either a law is constitutional or it is not. A state has what is called the "police power" which means it can pass laws to ensure public morality in general (as well as safety, welfare and so on). As long as such a ban does not run afoul of 1st amendment concerns (or the state equivilent), the states (not the federal government unless an interstate commerce connection were somehow found) could legally regulate clothing.

As a ban on all clothing messages would be a "manner" as opposed to "content" regulation, such a ban would need to simply be connected to an important state interest, and that could be that orderly classrooms promote the important goal of education of children.

This doesn't mean that a ban is a good idea, or in the best spirit of a free people in any way. What it does mean is that a state government likely rightfully has the power to enforce such a ban.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
I don't get it. I consider myself a leftist, yet I'm happy to see this decision. Why to some people think that LFTKBS - or any leftist - is against freedom and free speech?

Good gravy - who's upset by the court's decision?

Ann Coultier said so. So it must be true.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Actually you could cut through the whole "who paid for this" stuff as legally it matters not one wet slap. Either a law is constitutional or it is not.

True, but it's also true that just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it should be done.

I also think the concept of state ownership plays a role. Clearly, the state has greater power to enact rules that cover its own schools than it does power to enact rules covering private schools. I'm just taking that to its logical conclusion.

As a ban on all clothing

Yeah! LET'S GO TO SCHOOL NAKED!!!

messages

Oh.... :(

:D

This doesn't mean that a ban is a good idea, or in the best spirit of a free people in any way. What it does mean is that a state government likely rightfully has the power to enforce such a ban.

As I said above. See? We do think alike sometimes! :eek:

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
I don't get it. I consider myself a leftist, yet I'm happy to see this decision. Why to some people think that LFTKBS - or any leftist - is against freedom and free speech?

Good gravy - who's upset by the court's decision?

Some folks on this board have created this evil leftist enemy that in all likelihood doesn't even exist.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Some folks on this board have created this evil leftist enemy that in all likelihood doesn't even exist.

Ok, next time a leftist, on this website or in the media, advocates more taxes, more government control, less gun rights and restrictions on constitutional rights, I'll remember that person really doesn't exist.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


Ok, next time a leftist, on this website or in the media, advocates more taxes, more government control, less gun rights and restrictions on constitutional rights, I'll remember that person really doesn't exist.

Tony, you'll create such enemies from relatively benign topics because you are consistently paranoid and intolerant.
Aren't you the guy who thinks that you should be allowed to exceed the speed limit in a vehicle just because you want to? Aren't you also the guy who praised the death of a politician who was a gun control advocate?

You'll forgive me if I have difficulty taking your rants seriously anymore. You're political stances seem to be based more on your selfish wants than the greater good of society. Hence, all your so called "enemies" are leftists and fascists. Or least you would have us believe that.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG

Tony, you'll create such enemies from relatively benign topics because you are consistently paranoid and intolerant.


Vigilance, the word is vigilance, although I wouldn't expect you to understand that concept. And yes, I am intolerant of people stealing my money and usurping my rights, you should be too.

You're political stances seem to be based more on your selfish wants than the greater good of society.

Wrong. My political stances are based on expanding and preserving the freedoms of every American and myself. Again, something I wouldn’t expect you to understand. Freedoms should never be sacrificed for the "greater good" of "society", therein lies the road to fascism.

Hence, all your so called "enemies" are leftists and fascists. Or least you would have us believe that.

What do you believe?

[xouper]

KelvinG: You're political stances seem to be based more on your selfish wants than the greater good of society.Ironically, advocating collectivism (the "greater good") is also a selfish want.