Yeah, it would have been a different outcome. Essentially this decision can be summarized as follows. If a public school is going to permit students to express some message on a subject, then the school must likewise permit students to express a contrarian view on the subject, so long as the message is expressed in a particular manner.
I think the problem with the test is its inclusion of Fighting Words, which is, IMHO, a fundamentally flawed exclusion to protected speech. It also gives courts way too much ability to pick and choose. I have little doubt that while allowing a shirt saying “Be happy, not gay,” they would support a school in saying that a shirt which said “Bring back slavery” was Fighting Words.
So while this in theory covers racially motivated speech as well, I have little doubt schools refusing to allow such shirts would be supported.
Am I the only person who thought, “This is not going to end well.” even before the end of the OP?
The problem as I see it is when the school goes from passive acceptance to active encouragement. IANAL but I think the standard changes from hate speech because someone wears an offensive tshirt to promoting a personal view IF it is on a day the school sets aside to promote affirmative action or passage of the ERA. Is it fair for a school to permit pro-Obama tshirts but not anti-Obama tshirts and yes, I have seen other teachers where students could promote and were encouraged have a pro-Democrat (actually anti-Bush Jnr.) rhetoric but students on the other side were humiliated or punished.
I have no idea what your post means.
I always wonder if we had designated days to advocate for gay student rights at school if we would have all turned into homosexuals. That was the only barrier present between passive acceptance by the school, and active encouragement that kept me and all my friends from rogering each other senseless.
It wasn’t that we liked chicks or anything.
Yeah I concur, and the 7th Circuit’s justification is a more expansive view, where such a view would not be endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court outside of the public school setting, is permissible inside the public school setting.
I agree with your remark a shirt which reads, “Bring back slavery” would probably be construed as fighting words and if this failed, then they’d justify censoring the message under the Tinker standard of reasonably believe/reasonable belief a material and substantial disruption of the educational system would ensure.
I will say, however, according to this decision, students are permitted to express dislike of other races, so long as they do it in such a manner as to fall into one of those exceptions, or at least such a message can be expressed in such a manner in theory. The case itself cites other districts which have addressed this very issue. See, Defoe ex rel. Defoe v. Spiva, 625 F.3d 324, (6th Circuit Court of Appeals), Scott v. School Board of Alachua County, 324 F.3d 1246 (11th Circuit), and West v. Derby Unified School District, 206 F.3d 1358 (10th Circuit).
Question whether, however, the fighting words doctrine is consistent with the reasoning of Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker required a factual showing to support a reasonable belief the message would materially and substantially disrupt the educational process and stated a mere fear is not sufficient.
"There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners’ interference, actual or nascent, with the schools’ work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone…The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression…
In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” the prohibition cannot be sustained…In the present case, the District Court made no such finding, and our independent examination of the record fails to yield evidence that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the wearing of the armbands would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students..
It would allow you to identify some of your enemies.
What about a day for honoring Jewish students? A day for honoring Protestant students? A day for honoring wealthy students? A day for honoring poor students?
There’s nothing wrong particularly with honoring people in general, but establishing it as a day in a public school constitutes government support of that group, race, sexual orientation, religious belief, etc. I think the government should steer clear out of this stuff. If you honor fundamentalists, do you have to honor atheists to keep things balanced and fair? If not, why not?
This is nothing but a minefield of cowpies waiting to be stepped into!
I agree in general (certainly is a minefield).
But then isn’t school, at least in part, meant to socialize our children and prepare them for becoming full members of society?
If the schools just revert to crow-barring factoids into their heads isn’t something important being lost in their education?
It wasn’t about honoring, it was about advocating for the rights of gay students. Since when is it considered honoring someone to suggest they shouldn’t have the shit kicked out of them at recess?
“Now be careful with it, or it will put your eye out”.