I wonder what they would have done about Bill Clinton’s picture on a pink tee shirt saying; “It’s ok to blow me up. Ill just deny it happened.”? Im sure the ACLU would come to this person’s defense.
Something else you might want to keep in mind, **Diogenes, ** is that Michigan has one of the largest Arab populations outside of the Middle East, and they’re mostly in the Dearborn area.
And because of that, I personally hold the opinion that the school most likely would not allow a student to wear a pro-war shirt either. And I’m okay with that, even though I’m also more for this war than against.
Kids have rights, the right to speech does not end at the schoolhouse door, or something. I’m siding with the school on this one. A T-shirt that says “international terrorist” is about comparable to one that says “traitorous peaceniks.” Either one is bound to bring any education to a screeching halt.
Black armband case notwithstanding. Put “international terrorist” on the armband and it is a different case. I’ll concede, this is wading in a muddy area. My tendency is to allow speech. But, since anything can be scrawled on a tee the rules have changed somewhat.
I recall a kid in Ohio, wore a Steelers sweatshirt around the time the Browns were in the playoffs, and the school had a Browns day.
He was suspended.
Takes all kinds, I guess.
[sidenote]
When I turned 18, I immediatly started wearing my “Fuck me, thsi is an EMERGENCY!” button to school. It got confiscated. So I went a bought a second button that said “The US Constitution guarantees me the right to wear a button that says FUCK.”
Many teachers read it. None touched it. It wasn’t promininently placed, it wasn’t huge (slightly larger than a quarter).
I was informed at an early age that, while we may have rights as minors, we only have the rights that our parents (or the school, operating in loco parentis) choose to let us have.
Also, most districts seem to regard the right to an education unimpeeded by outside distractions as more important that the rights of free speech.
I’m torn. I’ll get back to you.
Like everything in the field of Con Law, this is a balancing test. Balance the free speech rights of the student against the right of safety and atmosphere conducive to learning that we’re paying our taxes for. Wearing a Tshirt that says “Bush – international terrorist” isn’t conducive to learning, it’s just braindead neoanarchist ignorant drivel. It’s protected, but it’s also balanced against the other interests involved, that’s the way it works. This is the flaw of public schooling. If it were all private schools, then there’s no conflict, each school could have the right to arbitrarily define what’s allowed and what ain’t. Since we have taxpayer money going to schools to educate the kids, we have two interests at play here.
And Blalron, leave the 14th Amendment outta this. I’m a libertarian, I’m all for civil liberties and due process, but that amendment has been twisted and corrupted over the 30 years since Roe by clever lawyers to mean whatever they feel like having it mean. It’s the most misused authority in federal law, IMO. Someday I’m gonna wake up from a nice nap, turn on the news, and suddenly the government is gonna decree that all Americans have a “right” to health care, housing, and a minimum $50,000/yr salary due to the 14th amendment, and those of us who still are interested in accurately applying law will be mystified and angered. It’s like an awning for the wacky, an umbrella for ridiculous constitutional challenges that should never have even made it to district court. 90% of the cases built on it oughtta be tossed out with 12(b)(6), and a handful of those probably deserve Rule 11 sanctions. The 14th Amendment quite simply doesn’t apply here, it isn’t the issue.
To back up just a bit here, the kid was not told to either remove the shirt or go home, he was told that he had three choices.
- Remove the shirt.
- Turn the shirt inside out.
- Go home.
He chose number three. Also, Dearborn has the largest population of people of middle eastern descent in America. The local religious leaders all agreed that it was probably for the best that the school handled it the way that they did. I’ve been trying to find the damn cite online but for some reason, our local newschannel’s website is screwed up.
I’ll dig up the paper and post the exact quote later.
Where do people get the idea that kids can’t learn if someone nearby is wearing a particular kind of clothing? Either the kids I went to school with were the most dedicated students in the country (that is, when they weren’t drinking, smoking pot, or going to strip clubs), or this “disruptive atmosphere” crap has been blown entirely out of proportion.
From The Flint Journal dated February 19, 2003:
Now I don’t see what the schools did that was wrong. Granted, I went to high school 25 years ago and we got away with wearing pretty much anything we wanted because the faculty were, for the most part, clueless tools. If the school is attempting to be even handed in it’s actions, i.e., if they were to not allow any article of clothing that depicted false information such as the shirt this boy wore, then there should be no problem.
Also, I understand that perhaps this boy really does believe that our President is an “International Terrorist” for reasons that don’t seem very clear, but to wear it emblazoned on his chest in a public school is nothing more than an incitement to others.
One more thing 
This boy’s freedom of speech was not curtailed in any way. He wanted to make an inflammatory statement about his perception of Bush and he did. According to the article, he wore the shirt for a presentation he made that morning in English class. The assignment was a “compare and contrast” essay, and he chose to compare Bush with Saddam Hussein.
Fine. He made his statement and then was asked to remove the shirt, turn it inside out or else go home. Again, where’s the problem?
I think the reverse is true; public education, and other public space preserves rights because the government isn’t allowed to interfere. I would hate the consequences for freedom of speech and religious expression were private schooling to become the norm. It’d be tough being a minority religion in a small town; if the school wanted you to pray, then you’d be praying because there would be no alternative schooling location.
Must’ve made for an interesting health class!
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37612-2003Feb20.html]More[/url} on “wartime” elimination of First Amendment rights, at least when Bush wants to feel adored: