One is protected speech. The other is suppression of protected speech by a government employee, which is not in and of itself speech. That is not a hard line to see.
Perchance you’re not from the US? Here’s a crash course: Freedom of speech in schools in the United States - Wikipedia
To be clear, were the “clothing and quotes about Trump” that he removed pro-Trump, anti-Trump, or both?
From the OP:
Agreed. It will be important when future students ask “what were they thinking in 2016?”. I mean assuming there will even be schools and students in the future. Or a future, for that matter.
According to the CNN report, the only quotes he removed were pro-Trump: Tshirts and one girl’s senior quote, attributed to Trump.
Fair enough - in that case, I think the line is clear. Silencing opposing expressions is not, in itself an ‘expression’. Shouting them down might be, but not shutting them down.
What’s the thought process behind doing things like this?
“I’m gonna edit out those Trump supporting T-shirts, and no ones gonna stop me!”
or
“I’m gonna edit out those Trump supporting T-shirts, and no one will find out it was me!”
or
“I’m gonna edit out those Trump supporting T-shirts, and I don’t care of the ramifications. Even though they will probably reissue the yearbook with them in, and I will get in trouble, possibly fired, I’m still gonna do it!”
I just don’t understand what people are thinking when they do stuff like this.
“I’m gonna edit out those Trump supporting T-shirts, and there may be some grumbling, but all correctly-thinking people will be okay with it, because it’s Trump. We must resist! The normal rules are out the window and I think most people will see that.”
(post shortened)
I believe it’s a clear cut case of Trump derangement syndrome. Doing anything to hurt Trump/Republicans/conservatives/anyone-who-doesn’t-think-like-them. There was no thought process behind it, only hurt feelings. This person has proven that they should not be, can not be, trusted to teach young minds. They will do the same thing, or something similar, over and over again. Fire this teacher and maybe the rest will learn a lesson. Keep this teacher and others will believe they can do the same thing with impunity.
Maybe he foolishly thought that as the editor of the yearbook, he was allowed to edit its contents.
No, that was not established by the CNN report. The report said that two families complained about their children’s political messages being edited out. And the father of one of those families said “we haven’t seen” any other changes. Obviously he probably wouldn’t know what children other than his own might have been wearing in their original pictures. It might be that dozens of political messages were removed.
Are you alleging that the students were told they couldn’t wear shirts with political messages? What do you base this allegation on? Nobody else has said this.
Up to now, the only allegation has been about the contents of the yearbook.
Then I’m sure that I could have a KKK supporting shirt and the same thing would happen, right? One that says “death to all Jews?”
No, the guy rightfully understands what Trump support actually means, and removed it because he is anti-racism. People don’t generally wear political shirts for picture day, so he knows it’s not about their political beliefs. They wanted to troll.
I wouldn’t have guessed the law would get involved, either, since schools have this thing where they can just say something is distracting, and it can’t be worn. I would have assumed that, if anyone had caught these guys wearing these shirts, they would have been sent home to change, since it would distract from the learning environment.
I’ve definitely known people who were made to change. I know a couple guys who never got new pictures in the yearbook because he kept doing outrageous things in subsequent years. They just kept using their old photos.
The way a school can violate students’ freedom of speech all the time, I never would have guessed there was any issue here. Assuming that the person knew the rules is dubious. They are not clear.
Like, in my state, there is now a law against discriminating based on hairstyle at school. That’s not something I would have considered, seeing as they are still somehow able to say that certain colors aren’t allowed. And don’t get me started on the dress code, and how it differs between boys and girls.
So its “I’m the editor of this yearbook, and if I want to edit out T-shirt content that I don’t like, then I am allowed to do that” ?
And actually, while thinking about this, why shouldn’t he be allowed to do that? Why isn’t this a case of “Yeah, you can wear whatever T-shirt you want, but that doesn’t mean I have to let it in the yearbook”?
Neither has he.
See first amendment and subsequent caselaw, already discussed.
Oh right. Forgot about the “only deleted one viewpoint” aspect.
Back to my original question then “What are people in this situation thinking?” Should be a standard question that reporters or whoever ask people who do dumb stuff like this.
But just to be clear, if the editor removed ALL writings from ALL shirts, then it would be okay?
I think you are saying this only because the editor’s political views jibe with yours. The logic/rationale is no different than if a pro-life yearbook editor, in a district that voted 66% Hillary, edited out the Planned Parenthood or pro-choice logos on T-shirts, saying, “These messages endorse the murder of unborn life and I’m having none of that.” It’s simply imposing one’s views on others.
This isn’t “expressing his opinion” in a legit way any more than Kim Davis’ refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses was expressing her opinion in a legit way. If the yearbook editor wanted to write a pro-Hillary blog, for instance, great, but this yearbook editing was analogous to going into *other *people’s pro-Trump blogs and editing or deleting their content.
[QUOTE=BigT]
Then I’m sure that I could have a KKK supporting shirt and the same thing would happen, right? One that says “death to all Jews?”
No, the guy rightfully understands what Trump support actually means, and removed it because he is anti-racism. People don’t generally wear political shirts for picture day, so he knows it’s not about their political beliefs. They wanted to troll.
I wouldn’t have guessed the law would get involved, either, since schools have this thing where they can just say something is distracting, and it can’t be worn. I would have assumed that, if anyone had caught these guys wearing these shirts, they would have been sent home to change, since it would distract from the learning environment.
I’ve definitely known people who were made to change. I know a couple guys who never got new pictures in the yearbook because he kept doing outrageous things in subsequent years. They just kept using their old photos.
The way a school can violate students’ freedom of speech all the time, I never would have guessed there was any issue here. Assuming that the person knew the rules is dubious. They are not clear.
Like, in my state, there is now a law against discriminating based on hairstyle at school. That’s not something I would have considered, seeing as they are still somehow able to say that certain colors aren’t allowed. And don’t get me started on the dress code, and how it differs between boys and girls.
[/QUOTE]
No, it was not a rightful action by the teacher. He took it on his own to edit the photos against school policy that allowed students to wear clothing expressing their political views.
Did you even read the article?