Bush: International Terrorist?

[shemp]

Student Wins Anti-Bush Shirt Clash (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/13/national/main1123854.shtml)

A Pennsylvania student is off the hook after the American Civil Liberties Union defended his right to wear a political T-shirt to school.

Chris Schiano's T-shirt said "International Terrorist" and had a picture of President Bush.

A security guard at his high school north of Philadelphia told him to take it off. He refused.

Schiano says he's well versed in the First Amendment. He says he "knew right off they had no legal footing to stand on."

The principal says after hearing from the ACLU, school officials realized that the shirt, while potentially offensive, didn't violate the school's dress code. It had no references to sex, drugs, ethnic intimidation or explicit language.

[Perforatu]

They could just amend the dress code.

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you seriously suggesting that they should ammend the dress code to prohibit political statments?

[Perforatu]

Are you seriously suggesting that they should ammend the dress code to prohibit political statments?
No, not really. But what's stopping them? I mean if they're within their rights to prohibit references to sex, drugs or ethnicity by dress code, political statements seem like a small step.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, not really. But what's stopping them? I mean if they're within their rights to prohibit references to sex, drugs or ethnicity by dress code, political statements seem like a small step.

That's taking the loco parentis authority a bit far. If it's not disruptive to the learning envrionment, they have little reason to do so.

[RandFan]

That's taking the loco parentis authority a bit far. If it's not disruptive to the learning envrionment, they have little reason to do so.That is correct and as long as the schools are consistent in their policy and abide by court precedent then the dress code must stay as it is.

[rikzilla]

Are you seriously suggesting that they should ammend the dress code to prohibit political statments?

In some cases yes. Schools have established much precedent in crafting dress codes so that classes are not disrupted by a student's choice of clothing. Extremely divisive or incendiary political statements have the potential to disrupt the classroom and as such should not be allowed.

The current political climate involves such intense passions that they'd be incompatible with the highschool environment. My opinion changes when we talk about college level education. At that level heated political debate becomes more appropriate.

Now it's possible that this student's shirt may not be disruptive. It's a quality assessment for the school administration to make. It'd be well within their rights to do so.

-z

[ImaginalDisc]

Now it's possible that this student's shirt may not be disruptive. It's a quality assessment for the school administration to make. It'd be well within their rights to do so.

-z

So, sometimes, a dilligent, hard working sutdent who is quietly sitting in class, wearing a politcally themes t-shirt can be a disruption? What confidence do you have that teachers and administrators will not allow political messages they approve of to remain, and will censors those which they disagree with?

It seems safer and more just to avoid censoring political expression of this type all together.

[headscratcher4]

In some cases yes. Schools have established much precedent in crafting dress codes so that classes are not disrupted by a student's choice of clothing. Extremely divisive or incendiary political statements have the potential to disrupt the classroom and as such should not be allowed.

The current political climate involves such intense passions that they'd be incompatible with the highschool environment. My opinion changes when we talk about college level education. At that level heated political debate becomes more appropriate.

Now it's possible that this student's shirt may not be disruptive. It's a quality assessment for the school administration to make. It'd be well within their rights to do so.

-z

All fine and good and hard to argue with...however, in reality, do you think the school would stop someone wearing a "Support our Presidnet, Support our Troops" shirt...even if it violated the "dress code" ? In this climate, I don't. I'd like to think I'm wrong...

[rikzilla]

All fine and good and hard to argue with...however, in reality, do you think the school would stop someone wearing a "Support our Presidnet, Support our Troops" shirt...even if it violated the "dress code" ? In this climate, I don't. I'd like to think I'm wrong...

True...and quality assessment is by definition subjective and open to bias. If I were the administrator my own guideline would be to include any political statement period. But first I'd have allowed the shirt in question until it proved disruptive to class in the first place. I mean...if there is no problem; why create one?

It's obvious to me that in this case the shirt did not disrupt anything as the kid was turned away at the door. Hence the shirt must be allowed. But if I allowed such a shirt and the kid got beat up or incited a protest, etc...then I'd have stepped in and removed it citing the disruption of the learning environment.

My own opinion is that an adult's speech should never be curtailed by any government entity. But kids must be led and be subject to discipline...lest the public school descend into anarchy ala "Lord of the Flies"...

-z

[Jocko]

Are you seriously suggesting that they should ammend the dress code to prohibit political statments?

I would seriously suggest that the adults remember who the hell is in charge there.

[Regnad Kcin]

I would seriously suggest that the adults remember who the hell is in charge there.Meaning what, exactly?

[TragicMonkey]

Anybody else remember the kid who wore a Pepsi shirt to his school's "Coke In Education Day" (it was the soft drink, due to some donation or deal or something, not actual coke. Which would be hilarious. But wrong.) Or maybe it was a Coke shirt to Pepsi Day.

eta: Anyway, they punished him for it. I think there was a fuss over it.

[Jocko]

Meaning what, exactly?

Meaning that all sorts of civil rights are suspended in a classroom, just as they always have been. Children need order to learn, and like the military, individual rights are curtailed for the greater goal of actually getting an education.

There's plenty of time for pointless victimhood and feigned offense in college. No need to start that crap any earlier than necessary.

[ImaginalDisc]

Meaning that all sorts of civil rights are suspended in a classroom, just as they always have been. Children need order to learn, and like the military, individual rights are curtailed for the greater goal of actually getting an education.

The personal goal of getting an education you mean. The purpose of a military is to accomplish a task as a group, through group effort. The purpose of public education is to educate each child. Curtailing expression wantonly doesn't serve that end.

[Melendwyr]

Meaning that all sorts of civil rights are suspended in a classroom, just as they always have been. Actually, no, they aren't. Children do not give up their civil rights when they enter school.

I guess you didn't have enough order in your high-school civics courses, eh? It's a shame we can't personally visit your residence in order to ensure the greater goal of your continuing education is met.

[Jocko]

Actually, no, they aren't. Children do not give up their civil rights when they enter school.

I guess you didn't have enough order in your high-school civics courses, eh? It's a shame we can't personally visit your residence in order to ensure the greater goal of your continuing education is met.


Okay, you go start a bunch of third-graders marching in protest or have them exercise their freedom to worship, and let me know how far you get with that. Freedom of assembly, right? Wrong.

Sorry, Mel, but there are a NUMBER of ways students aren't allowed to fully act on constitutional rights.

Civics lessons indeed... attitudes like yours are a big part of why such silliness is tolerated at all. It's doubly amusing that you would so snidely dismiss the goal of a school as having something to do with education.


Edited to add: Here's a little more civics education for you, Mel. It's from the 6th federal district.

The question in Fort Thomas was whether the dress code prevented Amanda from wearing clothing to convey a message. In pretrial statements, Amanda said she was not trying to express a particular message with her clothing. She simply wanted to wear clothes that "look nice," that she felt good in, and that "express her individuality."

In light of her statements, Judge Sutton found that the Free Speech Clause did not protect Amanda's freedom to wear clothing prohibited by the code. He wrote that the clause does not protect a student's "generalized and vague desire to express her middle-school individuality."

http://www.asbj.com/2005/08/0805schoollaw.html

Is it carte blanche to oppress the students? No. But it does establish the clear an prevailing right of a school to enforce a dress code:

As Sutton explained, the Supreme Court has ruled that a government regulation on expressive conduct is valid under the First Amendment if (1) it is not related to suppression of the content of expression, (2) it furthers a substantial government interest, and (3) it does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further that interest.

And that interest, Mel, is to have kids learn the friggin' ABCs. ;)

[RandFan]

Actually, no, they aren't. Children do not give up their civil rights when they enter school. But children don't have the same constitutional rights as adults, right?

My son at age 12 wanted to exercise his right of association (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/12.html#1) (see the First Amendment, Bill of Rights) by leaving school and going to the mall. He was apprehended by a police officer and given a ticket. He later pleaded guilty.

As an adult I can go to the mall anytime I want. Apparently children do not have that right. Yes? No?

Also, didn't the right of association grow out of the first amemndment due to "cases in the 1950's and 1960's in which certain States were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People."

It would seem to me that the right of association is a civil right and that children do not enjoy that right the same as adults.

[ImaginalDisc]

Okay, you go start a bunch of third-graders marching in protest or have them exercise their freedom to worship, and let me know how far you get with that. Freedom of assembly, right? Wrong.


What you are describing is an active disruption of the teaching environment. Wearing a politcally charged shirt is not. Next time you attempt reductio ad absurdum, keep it pertinent.

[Jocko]

The personal goal of getting an education you mean. The purpose of a military is to accomplish a task as a group, through group effort. The purpose of public education is to educate each child. Curtailing expression wantonly doesn't serve that end.

Fortunately, the 6th circuit disagrees.

Here's another obvious civil infraction: persecuting students for performing oral sex during class. How dare we restrict their freedoms!

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=48816

[Jocko]

What you are describing is an active disruption of the teaching environment. Wearing a politcally charged shirt is not. Next time you attempt reductio ad absurdum, keep it pertinent.

Like I said, tell it to the judge. And you'd better not wind up teaching my kids someday.

[ImaginalDisc]

Jocko, I said "curtailing expression wantonly" not "curtailing wanton expression". You're countering a point I didn't even make.

[Jocko]

Jocko, I said "curtailing expression wantonly" not "curtailing wanton expression". You're countering a point I didn't even make.

Which itself counters a point I didn't make. To wit:

Is it carte blanche to oppress the students? No. But it does establish the clear an prevailing right of a school to enforce a dress code.

Now, you either didn't read that, or you ignored it. In either case, your argument has already failed to pass constitutional muster, so as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant as a means of measuring civil rights.

[ImaginalDisc]

In either case, your argument has already failed to pass constitutional muster, so as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant as a means of measuring civil rights.

Jocko, you're declating your arguements as superior to arguements I didn't make.

Children do not have the constitutional right to freedom of exprssion. Explain how exactly prohibiting a student from wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt fits the following criteria:

"As Sutton explained, the Supreme Court has ruled that a government regulation on expressive conduct is valid under the First Amendment if (1) it is not related to suppression of the content of expression, (2) it furthers a substantial government interest, and (3) it does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further that interest."

Since the T-shirt is not obscene or distruptive, how does supressing it further a government interest? Are shirts themeselves disruptive? No, then it must be the content, which violates term (1) prohibiting supression of the content of expression.

[bob_kark]

Though Jocko takes his points to the extreme, he has a very valid point. Every school has a dress code. If a student wears an outfit that is disruptive or counter productive to learning, that student can and should be asked to change or be sent home. Which is more important, the right of a student to express his political opinion or the rights of the other students to be educated without undue distraction?

[Melendwyr]

But children don't have the same constitutional rights as adults, right? It's been established by previous court cases that children retain the right of free speech in schools. The most famous case involved students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

[TragicMonkey]

Which is more important, the right of a student to express his political opinion or the rights of the other students to be educated without undue distraction?

How does one measure "potential to be distracted"? It's generally the excuse given when a kid is sent home for wearing something the school admin dislikes, like pentagrams, pro-gay rights tshirts, or the like. "Well, it would have distracted the other students!" (Except that it doesn't distract the other students. The fuss by the panicky admins is the distraction--like the teachers who flip out and deliver a ten minute lecture on how showing up late is "wasting everyone's learning time"....only it's the teacher's ten minute lecture that's wasting time, not one student coming in three minutes late.)

[Melendwyr]

Which is more important, the right of a student to express his political opinion or the rights of the other students to be educated without undue distraction? The right of a student to express his political opinion.

Anything can potentially be distracting to someone. Schools are only given the power to regulate speech that is inherently distracting - they routinely permit students to wear things that are distracting but not controversial (see: cheerleading outfits, etc.).

[Skeptic]

So, sometimes, a dilligent, hard working sutdent who is quietly sitting in class, wearing a politcally themes t-shirt can be a disruption?

Yes. It depends on the context and the messege. Surely you would agree that a student, as dilligent and hardworking and quiet as he is, could create a disruption with a shirt that says "JESUS WAS A BASTARD" or "KILL ALL THE N***ERS"; so the same with some political messeges, even if not so crude as this example.

Incidentally, many schools have school uniforms, which means the prohibition of every sort of expression (political or otherwise). This is usually good both for discipline and prevents one-upmanship among the students in terms of who wears the most expensive and/or fashionable clothes, which is an annoying unnecessary expense to those parents who can afford it, and an unnecessary embarrasment to those students whose parents cannot.

[Melendwyr]

Yes. Just like those Jews, disrupting the fabric of society by being offensive. Better exclude them so that there's enough Lernensraum for the politically-acceptable students.

[Melendwyr]

Incidentally, many schools have school uniforms, which means the prohibition of every sort of expression (political or otherwise). No, it just means that students find other ways to symbolically represent "statements".

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes. It depends on the context and the messege. Surely you would agree that a student, as dilligent and hardworking and quiet as he is, could create a disruption with a shirt that says "JESUS WAS A BASTARD" or "KILL ALL THE N***ERS"; so the same with some political messeges, even if not so crude as this example.

Incidentally, many schools have school uniforms, which means the prohibition of every sort of expression (political or otherwise). This is usually good both for discipline and prevents one-upmanship among the students in terms of who wears the most expensive and/or fashionable clothes, which is an annoying unnecessary expense to those parents who can afford it, and an unnecessary embarrasment to those students whose parents cannot.

Skeptic, your examples are not politcally themed. One is an attack on a specific religious figure, the other contains a racial slur. A politcal statement which does not violate the existing dress code rules should not be banned.

If the school has a dress code proscibing uniforms, then yes, any articles of clothing which deviate from it are prohibited. This is not one such school.

[RandFan]

It's been established by previous court cases that children retain the right of free speech in schools. The most famous case involved students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Thank you but that wasn't my question. It wasn't even the subject of the example that I gave. That students enjoy some, many or most does not mean that they enjoy all of the same rights.

[TragicMonkey]

Yes. It depends on the context and the messege. Surely you would agree that a student, as dilligent and hardworking and quiet as he is, could create a disruption with a shirt that says "JESUS WAS A BASTARD" or "KILL ALL THE N***ERS"; so the same with some political messeges, even if not so crude as this example.

Both of those contain "bad words", and could be censored for that without invoking the political dimension.

Incidentally, many schools have school uniforms, which means the prohibition of every sort of expression (political or otherwise). This is usually good both for discipline and prevents one-upmanship among the students in terms of who wears the most expensive and/or fashionable clothes, which is an annoying unnecessary expense to those parents who can afford it, and an unnecessary embarrasment to those students whose parents cannot.

I've heard this argument a lot, but I can't believe it would actually work like that. If the students who want to show off their parents' money can't do it in clothes, they'll still talk about it. "Oh, we're going skiing again this weekend. Dad wants to see if the new Lexus SUV is as good as the Hummer in the mountains."

[Melendwyr]

I've heard this argument a lot, but I can't believe it would actually work like that. If the students who want to show off their parents' money can't do it in clothes, they'll still talk about it. "Oh, we're going skiing again this weekend. Dad wants to see if the new Lexus SUV is as good as the Hummer in the mountains." Clearly we need to ban things like braces, to ensure that children whose parents cannot afford orthodontistry aren't publically shamed.

Some of you people seem awfully fond of facism.

[ImaginalDisc]

Clearly we need to ban things like braces, to ensure that children whose parents cannot afford orthodontistry aren't publically shamed.

Some of you people seem awfully fond of facism.

That's not very fair. Fascists would force everyone to wear braces, whether they need them or not. A communist dictatorship would prohibit braces. :p

[TragicMonkey]

Clearly we need to ban things like braces, to ensure that children whose parents cannot afford orthodontistry aren't publically shamed.

Some of you people seem awfully fond of facism.

Zuh?

My point was, that if the snotty rich kids want to rub their money in the other students' faces, they won't be stopped by having to wear uniforms.

My high school was full of rich kids (no, I wasn't one of them), and they didn't actually dress any more expensively than the other students. Jeans and tshirts are fairly universal across income brackets, for teenagers. Their cars, however, were a different story. Some kids drove their parent's hand-me down beat up Pinto. Others had their own sportscars, or could borrow Mom's BMW or Dad's Mercedes. And they were always talking about where they were going for vacation ("Greece, again. How boring!") or what they got for their birthdays ("It's two carats, which is smaller than Mom's necklace, but it matches the earrings."). The rich kids also could afford cocaine, which was pricey back then, whereas the poor ones only did pot.

[Melendwyr]

Thank you but that wasn't my question. It wasn't even the subject of the example that I gave. That students enjoy some, many or most does not mean that they enjoy all of the same rights. Since you insist that I deal solely with the example you brought up:

1) Shopping malls are private property, not belonging to the boy in question. No one has any right to be there except the property owners.
2) The Right of Association gives people the freedom to meet in groups to communicate with other people. That's not what was going on.
3) It is precisely because students are forced to attend public schools that the schools cannot curtail their freedom of speech at will.

If you have any more stupid questions, I'm sure someone will be happy to assist you.

[Melendwyr]

That's not very fair. Fascists would force everyone to wear braces, whether they need them or not. A communist dictatorship would prohibit braces. :p No, Fascists would determine whether each citizen needed braces according to the judgment of authority figures, then force them on people whether they wanted them or not.

[Melendwyr]

My point was, that if the snotty rich kids want to rub their money in the other students' faces, they won't be stopped by having to wear uniforms. Exactly. Therefore, we must ban everything that might be used to display or suggest SES from schools. Discipline must be maintained!

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, your examples are not politcally themed. One is an attack on a specific religious figure, the other contains a racial slur. A politcal statement which does not violate the existing dress code rules should not be banned.

I'm not saying it should be banned, but that's not what you asked: you asked if a messege on a shirt can cause a disturbance. Well, it can. My examples were not political, but I can give you half a dozen political messege who could create a disturbance just as well.

I've heard this argument a lot, but I can't believe it would actually work like that. If the students who want to show off their parents' money can't do it in clothes, they'll still talk about it.

That's quite true, but this hardly means the school should encourage yet another way of the rich kids rubbing it in.

Just like those Jews, disrupting the fabric of society by being offensive. Better exclude them so that there's enough Lernensraum for the politically-acceptable students.

Why, yes, you're right: it's excatly the same thing.

[bob_kark]

How does one measure "potential to be distracted"? It's generally the excuse given when a kid is sent home for wearing something the school admin dislikes, like pentagrams, pro-gay rights tshirts, or the like. "Well, it would have distracted the other students!" (Except that it doesn't distract the other students. The fuss by the panicky admins is the distraction--like the teachers who flip out and deliver a ten minute lecture on how showing up late is "wasting everyone's learning time"....only it's the teacher's ten minute lecture that's wasting time, not one student coming in three minutes late.)

As someone who listens to his girlfriend, who is a teacher, complain about just this subject in addition to how difficult it can be to keep a student's attention focused, I would have to disagree with your statement. You assume that there is a tendency for faculty to disapprove of something they don't like, do you have any factual basis to support your claim? From what I hear first hand, teachers need no additional distractions from students, therefore anything potentially disruptive to a class is not allowed. As far as your example of a teacher giving a 10 minute lecture on being prompt to class, did you consider the fact that 10 minutes of this teacher's, as well as the class', time could save hours over a school year? A teacher's job is not only to teach, but to maintain control of a classroom. Allowing students to wear whatever they want is counter productive to this goal.

[bob_kark]

The right of a student to express his political opinion.

Anything can potentially be distracting to someone. Schools are only given the power to regulate speech that is inherently distracting - they routinely permit students to wear things that are distracting but not controversial (see: cheerleading outfits, etc.).

Unless you're watching a movie, or you live somewhere that has a very strange policy in place, you're very unlikely to see someone wearing a cheerleading outfit in a classroom.

[Ryokan]

What a strange discussion this is for a Norwegian! Clothing!

When I was in school, we never had a dress code of any sort. In my classroom in high school there were goths, punks, socialists and communists(who often wear very distinctive clothing, including a million buttons with different political statements), conservatives, bare bellies (often with piercings), skimpy bikinis, shorts and t-shirts, etc etc. Although I always dressed pretty 'normal', I sometimes wore t-shirts with anti-Christian, pro-conservative or pro-liberal messages. I never heard anyone argue that this was in any way 'disruptive to the teaching environment'.

I'm pretty sure that if anyone had worn clothing filled with the dirtiest words the Norwegian language has, no one would've cared. Not a single Norwegian (or from any other languages, for that matter) word was banned from the school and the classroom.

I mean... it's clothing!

ETA : I thought of one thing that might cause trouble, and that's clothing with racist messages. (Although it wasn't forbidden specifically by school regulations, it's forbidden by Norwegian law.)

[TragicMonkey]

Unless you're watching a movie, or you live somewhere that has a very strange policy in place, you're very unlikely to see someone wearing a cheerleading outfit in a classroom.

Um, both high schools I went to let cheerleaders wear their cheer outfits to class. It was required of them on certain days. Same for my junior high.

[bob_kark]

Um, both high schools I went to let cheerleaders wear their cheer outfits to class. It was required of them on certain days. Same for my junior high.

Lucky you!

[TragicMonkey]

As someone who listens to his girlfriend, who is a teacher, complain about just this subject in addition to how difficult it can be to keep a student's attention focused, I would have to disagree with your statement. You assume that there is a tendency for faculty to disapprove of something they don't like, do you have any factual basis to support your claim?

I was merely pointing out that the "distraction" excuse is the one raised in cases when school admins want to censor speech they don't care for.

Here's a link about two such cases:

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12219prs20050406.html

In Missouri, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court against a high school that twice punished a student for wearing t-shirts expressing her support for gay rights. LaStaysha Myers, a heterosexual 15-year-old student at Webb City High School in Missouri, was twice sent home from school last November for wearing homemade t-shirts; first, one bearing several handwritten slogans such as "I support the gay rights!" and "Who are we to judge?" and the next day one that bore a rainbow and the Webster's dictionary definition of "gay": "M[e]rry, happy."

Also today, in Ohio, the ACLU sent a letter to school officials demanding that they stop censoring a group of students who want to wear t-shirts supporting marriage for same-sex couples. Two weeks ago, a student at Dublin Jerome High School was told to take off a t-shirt that read "I support gay marriage" after administrators claimed that a student had been offended by it. The next day, about 20 students protested the action by coming to school in similar t-shirts. They were required to change their t-shirts, turn them inside-out, or go home. In both schools, administrators routinely allowed students to wear shirts expressing other messages, including endorsements of the Bush and Kerry presidential campaigns, students' views on abortion, and religious messages.


Emphasis mine. It's only "disruptive" when the admins disagree with the message.

"Because the Supreme Court has held that students have a First Amendment right to free speech at school unless that speech disrupts the educational process, many administrators try to justify illegal censorship by claiming a student's speech is disruptive without any evidence or proof that it really is," said Jeff Gamso, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio. "But for the censorship to be legal, the speech itself must be genuinely disruptive -- it can't just be censored because someone finds it offensive or it generates discussion or the administration is worried that it might cause controversy."


From what I hear first hand, teachers need no additional distractions from students, therefore anything potentially disruptive to a class is not allowed.

A foreign student from some exotic country, and a handicapped kid might be distracting, as well. Perhaps the students could learn to pay attention? It's not like the real world is going to be void of "distractions".

As far as your example of a teacher giving a 10 minute lecture on being prompt to class, did you consider the fact that 10 minutes of this teacher's, as well as the class', time could save hours over a school year? A teacher's job is not only to teach, but to maintain control of a classroom. Allowing students to wear whatever they want is counter productive to this goal.

Yet it's funny how in college, they don't make you get a pass to go to the bathroom, or yell at you for being late, or even for skipping class. And colleges seem to work pretty well. Oh, I know, the students are older and more mature. It's amazing they are, considering how they're treated like ten-year-olds when they're seventeen. Perhaps if children are treated like responsible, mature people, they'll turn into responsible, mature people?

[ImaginalDisc]

[B]
I'm not saying it should be banned, but that's not what you asked: you asked if a messege on a shirt can cause a disturbance. Well, it can. My examples were not political, but I can give you half a dozen political messege who could create a disturbance just as well.


Skeptic, I asked how a politcally themed shirt could be disruptive, I did not ask how a shirt with a message could be disruptive.

[bob_kark]

I was merely pointing out that the "distraction" excuse is the one raised in cases when school admins want to censor speech they don't care for.

Well, I'm sure it can happen, but I don't see this as a problem running rampant across the country.

Here's a link about two such cases:

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/12219prs20050406.html



Emphasis mine. It's only "disruptive" when the admins disagree with the message.[/Qoute]

I'll conceed that you've found a factual basis for claiming that some schools may have been hypocritical in their enforcement of a dress code. However, I would still contend that the majority of schools do not do so. In the cases you cited specifically, I am curious as to whether the shirts they were allowed to wear were only worn during certain special days the school allowed them to or not.


[QUOTE=TragicMonkey;1325424]A foreign student from some exotic country, and a handicapped kid might be distracting, as well. Perhaps the students could learn to pay attention? It's not like the real world is going to be void of "distractions".

True, but that doesn't mean that there should not be limitations.

Yet it's funny how in college, they don't make you get a pass to go to the bathroom, or yell at you for being late, or even for skipping class. And colleges seem to work pretty well. Oh, I know, the students are older and more mature. It's amazing they are, considering how they're treated like ten-year-olds when they're seventeen. Perhaps if children are treated like responsible, mature people, they'll turn into responsible, mature people?

Well, there are quite a few differences. First of all, when you attend college, you're paying for your education. Secondly, if you disrupt a class and refuse to control yourself, you can be escorted by security out of the classroom and off of the campus. Thirdly, even as an adult, I can't wear a "Bush is an international terrorist" T-shirt wherever I want to. I can be sure that I would not have a job by the end of the day if I wore it to work. I would also be kicked off the local golf course pretty quickly. Just because I'm an adult, doesn't mean I can do whatever I want to. There are still standards in society and if I'm on someone else's property, I can be ejected if I do not comply with their rules and regulations within reason and defined by the law. Wearing a shirt that someone finds offensive, would be one of those rules or regulations.

[Tony]

Um, both high schools I went to let cheerleaders wear their cheer outfits to class. It was required of them on certain days. Same for my junior high.

Same here. But in my school the cheerleaders and the drill-team wore (it was required) their uniforms on game days. The football players wore their jerseys.

[RandFan]

Since you insist that I deal solely with the example you brought up:

1) Shopping malls are private property, not belonging to the boy in
question. No one has any right to be there except the property owners.
Their arrest had nothing to do with the mall. It had to do with not being in school. The law my son broke had to do with failing to go to school.

2) The Right of Association gives people the freedom to meet in groups to communicate with other people. That's not what was going on. Oh really, you know this for a fact? How about the forced association of a student? Can an adult be forced to go to associate with people he or she doesn't want to? No.

3) It is precisely because students are forced to attend public schools that the schools cannot curtail their freedom of speech at will. But they can take away their freedom to come and go at will and force them to associate with people they would not like to associate with. Again my point is NOT about freedom of speech but the loss of constitutional rights they would otherwise enjoy.

Constitutional rights are not ONLY about free speech.

If you have any more stupid questions, I'm sure someone will be happy to assist you. Well it's rather obvious you can't even grasp the situation so it's clear you can't help.

[WildCat]

The obvious solution for the school is to have a uniform, as is done in many places.

[RandFan]

2) The Right of Association gives people the freedom to meet in groups to communicate with other people. That's not what was going on. Have you ever been to a mall? Young people go there to hang out and talk. The mall is the modern day equivelant of the market place. To conclude that no one would go to the mall to communicate is to be ignorant of modern social situations at the mall and the history of the marketplace in general.

[Melendwyr]

I'll conceed that you've found a factual basis for claiming that some schools may have been hypocritical in their enforcement of a dress code. However, I would still contend that the majority of schools do not do so. What differences would that make? My experiences suggest that the vast majority of school adminstrations are hypocritical - but what does the proportion of hypocracy have to do with the argument at hand?

True, but that doesn't mean that there should not be limitations. No one is arguing that position, and it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Non sequitur.

Thirdly, even as an adult, I can't wear a "Bush is an international terrorist" T-shirt wherever I want to. I can be sure that I would not have a job by the end of the day if I wore it to work. I would also be kicked off the local golf course pretty quickly. Private property. School is not private property - it's a government organization. Private entities can restrict your right to speech however much they like on their own turf.

Wearing a shirt that someone finds offensive, would be one of those rules or regulations. Yes? So? What is your point?

[Melendwyr]

Young people go there to hang out and talk. Big deal. The right of association simply does not apply. Your son was not being restrained from speaking with his peers - although I doubt there were any peers there in the first place.

[bob_kark]

What differences would that make? My experiences suggest that the vast majority of school adminstrations are hypocritical - but what does the proportion of hypocracy have to do with the argument at hand?

It was directly related to the statement TragicMonkey made:

How does one measure "potential to be distracted"? It's generally the excuse given when a kid is sent home for wearing something the school admin dislikes, like pentagrams, pro-gay rights tshirts, or the like. "Well, it would have distracted the other students!" (Except that it doesn't distract the other students. The fuss by the panicky admins is the distraction--like the teachers who flip out and deliver a ten minute lecture on how showing up late is "wasting everyone's learning time"....only it's the teacher's ten minute lecture that's wasting time, not one student coming in three minutes late.)

As well as:

...It's only "disruptive" when the admins disagree with the message.

He was making a blanket statement about school administrations. I was asserting that he may have found specific examples that imply that this is true, but that this was not proof that it was the case with all. As far as an answer to what the proportion of hypocrisy has to do with the argument at hand is concerned, you may want to ask him.

No one is arguing that position, and it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Non sequitur.

Actually, TrajicMonkey is:

A foreign student from some exotic country, and a handicapped kid might be distracting, as well. Perhaps the students could learn to pay attention? It's not like the real world is going to be void of "distractions".

Private property. School is not private property - it's a government organization. Private entities can restrict your right to speech however much they like on their own turf.

Ok, then, I couldn't wear this T-Shirt if I worked at Fort Dix, or if I worked on the Senate floor, or at the Pentagon. Does that help?


Yes? So? What is your point?

My point is, even as an adult, you still have restrictions in your life. You can exercise your right to free speech as often as you like, but there may be repercussions if you are not cautious of where and how you do so. Perhaps if you'd chosen to read the entire post you would realize that.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, I asked how a politcally themed shirt could be disruptive, I did not ask how a shirt with a message could be disruptive.

(Shrug)

Consider a shirt saying, "FREE MUMIA!", or "HO HO HO CHI MIN", or "AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT", or "DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS", etc.

[TragicMonkey]

(Shrug)

Consider a shirt saying, "FREE MUMIA!", or "HO HO HO CHI MIN", or "AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT", or "DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS", etc.

The first two would go unremarked in high school, at least by the students, because they wouldn't know what either meant.

[RandFan]

Big deal. The right of association simply does not apply. Your son was not being restrained from speaking with his peers What about being arrested, detained and then given to the custody of ones parents do you not get?

- although I doubt there were any peers there in the first place.He was there with his FREINDS!!!! 4 OF THEM! {sheesh}

And none of the friends were in his classes. He is forced by the state to associate with people he doesn't want to associate with and he is prevented from associating with people he does want to associate with.

I can hear it now, "Big deal judge, I doubt the plaintif has any 'peers' at the mall. Minorities don't hang out at the mall. Perhaps he should stay with his own kind, or at least avoid the mall at certain times."

The right of association doesn't address your doubts nor your arrogant and pompus attitude. It's not up to you when freedom of association is appropriate or not.

Look, you can push this thing if you want but the facts are the facts.

1.) My son wants to associate with one group of people.
2.) The state won't allow him to associate with these people (at certain times).
3.) My son doesn't want to associate with a different group of people.
4.) The state forces my son to associate with these people.

[ImaginalDisc]

(Shrug)

Consider a shirt saying, "FREE MUMIA!", or "HO HO HO CHI MIN", or "AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT", or "DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS", etc.

Let's see. No racial slurs, no booze, drugs or anything else prohibited. Let 'em wear them.

Honestly.

If that last one said, "Deport all Wetbacks" then it'd be a problem.

[Jocko]

Let's see. No racial slurs, no booze, drugs or anything else prohibited. Let 'em wear them.

Honestly.

If that last one said, "Deport all Wetbacks" then it'd be a problem.

Why do you equate "illegal immigrants" with "wetbacks"?

[zenith-nadir]

This is the part that frikkin kills me.

From the link:

He said he wore the shirt to express his anti-war position and for a class assignment in which he wrote a compare-contrast essay on Mr. Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Well if Bush is the "International Terrorist" I wonder what his compare-contrast essay said about Saddam. ;)

[Melendwyr]

My point is, even as an adult, you still have restrictions in your life. Yes? So what?!

You can exercise your right to free speech as often as you like, but there may be repercussions if you are not cautious of where and how you do so. School is not one of those places; students have a guaranteed right to political speech of specific forms, which were curtailed in the given examples.

[Jocko]

School is not one of those places; students have a guaranteed right to political speech of specific forms, which were curtailed in the given examples.

Actually, it is one of those places. Federal courts all the way up to SCOTUS have affirmed that school is one of those places. You can rage against the facts, call them unfair, whatever, but you really should acknowledge the realities first.

[Melendwyr]

Actually, it is one of those places. Federal courts all the way up to SCOTUS have affirmed that school is one of those places. You can rage against the facts, call them unfair, whatever, but you really should acknowledge the realities first. The reality is that schools cannot call political speech disruptive merely because they find it to be distasteful. Only actively disruptive speech may be curtailed, and there's nothing in that t-shirt that falls within the limits of what may be restrained.

Your position is both logically and legally incompatible with established principles.

[Snide]

Why do you equate "illegal immigrants" with "wetbacks"?Sorry to butt in...no I'm not.

What a ridiculous assumption you just made.

[Jocko]

Sorry to butt in...no I'm not.

What a ridiculous assumption you just made.

I'm assuming nothing. A word was changed in a particular statement, and I found the choice of substitution interesting.

Rest assured, Snide, when I find something you say interesting, I'll let you know. But I don't think it's gonna be today.

[Jocko]

The reality is that schools cannot call political speech disruptive merely because they find it to be distasteful.

No one's saying that they can. What has been said by federal courts is that they can indeed restrict full and free exercise of constitutional rights.

This is an obvious fact.

Only actively disruptive speech may be curtailed, and there's nothing in that t-shirt that falls within the limits of what may be restrained.

Look at the court decisions again. The school disagrees with your assessment of the content, and in similar cases the federal circuits have ruled on the side of the schools. There is every reason to believe that will be upheld yet again.

Your position is both logically and legally incompatible with established principles.

Your position is incompatible with the reality we all must share. Complain all you like; the only conclusion you can arrive at is that you don't make the rules.

[Melendwyr]

No one's saying that they can. What has been said by federal courts is that they can indeed restrict full and free exercise of constitutional rights. But they cannot do so without cause or arbitrarily. Students do not lose their rights merely because they walk into a school building.

Similar political speech has been found to be protected. The mere fact that a thing is political speech is not enough to make it disruptive. Nor does the controversial nature of that speech suffice.

School administrators do not make the rules.

[bob_kark]

The first two would go unremarked in high school, at least by the students, because they wouldn't know what either meant.

Actually, if this website (http://razedfist.blogspot.com/) is true, this person does claim to be Crhis Schiano AND has a link to Mumia Abu-Jamal's Freedom Journal. Who knows if its true or not, but its kind of funny.

[ImaginalDisc]

Why do you equate "illegal immigrants" with "wetbacks"?

I do not. How dare you. I was pointing out that a political statement free of slurs should not be prohibted. A poorly stated one full of bigoted rhetoric would be. Jocko, some people are sophisticated enough to discren the difference.

[bob_kark]

Yes? So what?!

:hb:

Did you only read the part of the post where I responded to TragicMonkey?

Yet it's funny how in college, they don't make you get a pass to go to the bathroom, or yell at you for being late, or even for skipping class. And colleges seem to work pretty well. Oh, I know, the students are older and more mature. It's amazing they are, considering how they're treated like ten-year-olds when they're seventeen. Perhaps if children are treated like responsible, mature people, they'll turn into responsible, mature people?

I was responding by stating that even adults face censorship in everyday life. Does that make it any easier to understand?

School is not one of those places; students have a guaranteed right to political speech of specific forms, which were curtailed in the given examples.

It is not an unlimited right to free speech. If the shirt could be considered offensive or disruptive, it should be banned from school. In fact, the only fault I can find with the school is that they did not have this in their dress code to begin with.

[fishbob]

Why do you equate "illegal immigrants" with "wetbacks"?
You are a bit late with today's first 'have you stopped beating your wife' question.

[Melendwyr]

I was responding by stating that even adults face censorship in everyday life. Does that make it any easier to understand? No - your point is just as obscure as it was before you spoke. Possibly more.

It is not an unlimited right to free speech. If the shirt could be considered offensive or disruptive, it should be banned from school. Past court cases have established this is not sufficient. The t-shirt in question has not gone beyond the limits the courts have already established.

[Jocko]

You are a bit late with today's first 'have you stopped beating your wife' question.

So, have you?

[Jocko]

But they cannot do so without cause or arbitrarily. Students do not lose their rights merely because they walk into a school building.

And who, precisely, is saying that they do? No one! Don't you ever tire of thrashing your own straw? The point is that SOME rights are restricted SOME of the time, based on what SOME administrators decide is necessary to not disrupt class and allow education to continue unmolested.

You, on the other hand, seem to think every Kindegarten is Berkeley, 1968, where rights trump education whenever, wherever, and however kids decide to exercise them. This is demonstrably false.

Similar political speech has been found to be protected. The mere fact that a thing is political speech is not enough to make it disruptive. Nor does the controversial nature of that speech suffice.

Apparently it can, as per the 6th circuit decision that you keep ignoring.

School administrators do not make the rules.

Actually, yes they do. As it should be. Sometimes you have to hear it from a federal judge to believe it, but that's the way it is.

[bob_kark]

No - your point is just as obscure as it was before you spoke. Possibly more.

Look, I could sit here and belittle you, I could pull my hair out, I could even try to explain a simple statement for the 3rd time. I choose however to assume that you're intentionally being dense, which is your problem.

Past court cases have established this is not sufficient. The t-shirt in question has not gone beyond the limits the courts have already established.

Past court cases have ruled in favor of each side of the debate. I'm sure you can reference Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Where I can reference Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education. Either way, there's a great deal of confusion as to where the line is drawn and where it should be drawn.

[bob_kark]

Damn itchy trigger finger, sorry for the double post...

[Snide]

I'm assuming nothing.
Really?

Let's look back:

Skeptic:(Shrug)

Consider a shirt saying, "FREE MUMIA!", or "HO HO HO CHI MIN", or "AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT", or "DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS", etc.

ImaginalDisc: Let's see. No racial slurs, no booze, drugs or anything else prohibited. Let 'em wear them.

Honestly.

If that last one said, "Deport all Wetbacks" then it'd be a problem.

Jocko: Why do you equate "illegal immigrants" with "wetbacks"?

Snide: Sorry to butt in...no I'm not.

What a ridiculous assumption you just made.

Jocko: I'm assuming nothing. A word was changed in a particular statement, and I found the choice of substitution interesting.I was going to comment more at length about this, but ImaginalDisc already responded quite well, and the above exchange speaks volumes by itself. Unless you truly, innocently did not mean that ID was "equating" the two words, and you were not asking an accusatory question. I doubt that.

Jocko, your advertising experience seems to give you a style of posting that is often entertaining, humorous and intelligent, but, unfortunately, sometimes less than completely honest.

Rest assured, Snide, when I find something you say interesting, I'll let you know. But I don't think it's gonna be today.

Sorry if my honesty is so boring. :p As long as it wasn't so uninteresting as to keep you from responding yesterday, I can sleep well. :)

edited grammar

[Melendwyr]

Jocko, your advertising experience seems to give you a style of posting that is often entertaining, humorous and intelligent, but, unfortunately, sometimes less than completely honest. And usually less than intelligent. Sound bites are often witty, but rarely profound. Or even particularly intelligible.

[Melendwyr]

Look, I could sit here and belittle you, I could pull my hair out, I could even try to explain a simple statement for the 3rd time. I choose however to assume that you're intentionally being dense, which is your problem. You seem to be implying that children need to learn to deal with mindless censorship because adults often need to deal with mindless censorship in their places of employment.

You won't confirm that's what you're saying, however. Since the point has absolutely nothing to do with free speech in government-run organizations, assuming that is indeed your point is potentially putting a non sequitur in your mouth, which is insulting.

IS that your point? ARE you actually being as stupid as I think you're being? If not, this would be a perfect time to correct me.

[bob_kark]

You seem to be implying that children need to learn to deal with mindless censorship because adults often need to deal with mindless censorship in their places of employment.

You won't confirm that's what you're saying, however. Since the point has absolutely nothing to do with free speech in government-run organizations, assuming that is indeed your point is potentially putting a non sequitur in your mouth, which is insulting.

IS that your point? ARE you actually being as stupid as I think you're being? If not, this would be a perfect time to correct me.

Ok, now I think I understand a bit better what you meant by:

Yes? So? What is your point?

Yes? So what?!

and

No - your point is just as obscure as it was before you spoke. Possibly more.

Thank you for finally explaining your objection. My point was a response to TragicMonkey's claim that adults have additional rights not granted to children in school, at least that was my interpretation of what he wrote. I was responding by stating that even adults have restrictions in their life that are similar to restrictions that children in school have, such as not being able to wear the "International Terrorist" T-shirt wherever you want to. However, this was never used or implied as a reason why this child should not have been able to wear this T-shirt to school.

My argument has been that any clothing or speech that could be considered offensive or disruptive within reason should not be allowed in school. In this case, I believe that it would be reasonable for school officials to determine that the T-shirt was potentially offensive and disruptive. The only thing I would add to that is an exception if the clothing or speech has been deemed appropriate for a school sponsered event.