# Student banned from wearing somewhat graphic pro-life T shirt **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263 "2009-07-07T22:35:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/181 "2009-07-08T21:27:39Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Well, that’s your take on it. I can’t really argue with that now, can I? It’s not clever, but I’m sure there are others that would understand the reference right away. But that doesn’t really matter. “Growing, growing, gone” is a common phrase among children now? And how many five year olds do you know that have been exposed to the idea and images of fetuses? Guess the pun part of it escaped our intrepid reader here. > [@](#): > > No worries. I figured that if it’s NSFW then it’s probably also NSFS and that would have undermined my argument, you see. 😉 > > I’m not sure a kid is going to look at the abortion shirt and say, “Oh snap. I’m going to carry this child I’m pregnant with to term because fetuses ROCK!” That’s not the point: the point is that the shirt actually unambiguously states its claim from its imagery to its slogan. The vagina shirt is ambiguous at best. > [@](#): > > Lost me here. I’m just saying that if abortion shirt is okay, abstinence shirt should be as well. I get your point, but you seem to see no difference. I understand your point is that random pictures of vaginas with unrelated phrases is equal to the shirt in question. > [@](#): > > Really? 5 years olds think like that? I’m not even sure how you as an adult get that from the shirt. I can’t imagine a 5 year old would, but it’s not appropriate for 5 year olds anyway, and neither is the fetus shirt. Well, the difference between your position and mine is that one of them comports with the law. The other is yours. > [@](#): > > That is assuming they even recognize an adult vagina. If they do, no doubt there are other, more pressing, problems. So, ‘abstinence’ is a big word, but ‘abortion’ is not? Even my 10 year old doesn’t really understand abortion in great detail. Abstinence is a helluva lot easier to explain to a young person. Hence why it has pictures. Fetus, older fetus, no fetus. Hrm. What’s going on? > [@](#): > > If you’re going to continue to paraphrase the message incorrectly, it isn’t surprising at all that you don’t get it. Where does it say “know”? Ok. Then we’re left with, what? Abstinence is the only way to be sure . . . to get a well-used vagina? When it comes to vaginas, you’re right, I don’t get it, and I don’t want it. =P But that still doesn’t make the phrase on the shirt related to the picture. How about if I just make up some wild ass analogy too? Would it be okay to have a picture a nicely cooked chicken with the caption: Veganism is the only way to be sure? Or would a kid look at it and say, cool, chicken? The analogy you used is just as ambiguous as mine: to be sure of what? To get a nicely cooked chicken dinner? > [@](#): > > Bottom line, it’s inappropriate for its audience. That’s simply my point and you got it. IMHO, it equally applies to fetus shirt. > > Gotta go to work now. I understand your point; I just wish that you’d use analogies which are roughly, well, analogous. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/182 "2009-07-08T21:36:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Your whole post is a serious mischaracterization of what I said. No, it isn’t. > [@](#): > > Fine…don’t like the “illegal” aspect I’d say I would take issue with some anti-abortionist showing my 6-year-old pictures of aborted, mangled fetuses. > > Is it illegal for them to show those pictures? Nope. Clearly your first statement here doesn’t coincide with your second since you accept that my characterization of the porn showing is actually illegal. But now your argument is that, in the context of a school: is it okay to mention a topic of serious societal importance, which can be somewhat abridged because school children are young and certain things can be sanitized to the position that if this is true, then showing them completely age-inappropriate material is okay too? > [@](#): > > Am I trying to lock little Whack Jr. away from the world? Nope. Unfortunately for you, you have either 2 choices: lock him away, or accept that he’s going to find out about things whether you want him to or not. > [@](#): > > I simply think it is inappropriate to show children that young those pictures and tell them about a procedure they have probably no hope of comprehending at that age. Pictures of festuses were shown. Not mangled, aborted fetuses which seem to equate with regular, non-aborted, unmangled ones for the sake of (not)proving your point by taking it out of the context in which it must kept. > [@](#): > > Some day sure…I hope Whack Jr. gets that and a whole raft of other info on all sorts of topics. And he will unless you lock him away. Even if it’s not on your timescale. > [@](#): > > If you cannot see that certain information should not be imparted to young children and that there are appropriate ages when they are ready to process various new information then you are just arguing to argue. Yes, because I’m the one here who doesn’t understand the scale of it because I think that equating discussing a topic is the same as showing to children gratuitous pictures which would make many adults squeamish. I suppose when discussing not hitting people with a child, you’ll equate telling them it’s wrong to do with being exactly equal to breaking out photos of people who’ve been severely beaten and whose injuries make it difficult to identify that they’re barely human, let alone who they are. I say this because your argument about what you’d take issue with didn’t happen in this case. Indeed, in the shot for the picture of the aborted, mangled fetus, there’s merely a shaded in block. It’s almost like it was sanitized by the religious right to make it okay to use in schools to advocate a position within the confines of the law. Because, you know, aborted fetus pictures wouldn’t be allowed because they’re objectively inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/183 "2009-07-08T21:54:11Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > No, it isn’t. Yes it is. I am not on about what actually happened at the school in the OP. I am on about your response to **Dangerosa** saying it is ethically and morally wrong to introduce these topics outside of the family. I responded to your take on that post by saying I am partly with you and partly not with you. I agree completely kids will gather information on their own and not always in accordance with what a parent would deem an appropriate time or manner. Such is life. I disagree that it is therefore “ok” for people to take it upon themselves to educate my child about any thing they like regardless of the age of the child without my ok. It is not for you to decide, it is for the parent to decide. The porn was not the best example, the mangled fetus is a better example (i.e. legal) of this notion. It was merely to illustrate the point. Nowhere did I suggest locking away kids because they might find out something on their own. That said I think I should be able to reasonably expect the school I send my child to to keep things reasonably within the realm of age appropriate learning (play ground who knows what they will learn). ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/184 "2009-07-08T23:12:39Z")
Well, I’m shocked that so many of the people here are not in favor of the broadest possible protection for student free speech. And some are or have been teachers. (you know, the “government” also tries to restrict teacher’s speech, even outside of the school.) Freedom is a funny thing, and fragile too. Let the girl wear the shirt, and other kids can’t handle it, punish them, not her. Like others have said, it’s a teachable moment about tolerance, diversity of ideas, and the Constitution. All good topics for the classroom. Irrelevant note: I’m as pro-choice as they come. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/185 "2009-07-09T00:09:52Z")
So what if a kid wore a T-shirt that said “Fuck School”? Acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/186 "2009-07-09T00:17:54Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > So what if a kid wore a T-shirt that said “Fuck School”? Acceptable? It wouldn’t be totally outlandish to answer that question in the [affirmative](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California). ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/187 "2009-07-09T00:50:36Z")
People in free countries have rights. Kids are people too. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/188 "2009-07-09T02:06:32Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > I understand your point; I just wish that you’d use analogies which are roughly, well, analogous. As I said I think the sex education debate is analogous to the abortion debate from the context of what we should and should not allow children to willfully expose other children to in the setting of an educational environment. There is no place for abortion or sex education sloganeering in a K-8 public school. ---
**Author:** ![MarcinCiez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@MarcinCiez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcinCiez)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/189 "2009-07-09T02:42:39Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > People in free countries have rights. Kids are people too. Go on… exercise your right. (looking for good example.. oh well, this one will do) Walk to a police officer stand 1 foot away from him/her without saying anything and smile. If they step back, move a step closer. If he(or she) says anything, and that includes a direct order, just ignore them and quote your “silly” line. Kids at school have a right to “learn”… They MUST obide by rules. The same way as YOU have to obide rules. If a cop tells you to move… you move. If a school bans inapropriate clothing, the kid’s choice is to either remove that clothing, OR to leave the school - in the latter it will probably end up being the parent’s choice rather than the kid’s. You are free to exercise rights in the context of set rules. Thats life. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/190 "2009-07-09T07:29:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes it is. > > I am not on about what actually happened at the school in the OP. I am on about your response to **Dangerosa** saying it is ethically and morally wrong to introduce these topics outside of the family. > > I responded to your take on that post by saying I am partly with you and partly not with you. > > I agree completely kids will gather information on their own and not always in accordance with what a parent would deem an appropriate time or manner. Such is life. > > I disagree that it is therefore “ok” for people to take it upon themselves to educate my child about any thing they like regardless of the age of the child without my ok. It is not for you to decide, it is for the parent to decide. It’s unavoidable, unless you lock said child away. You know the remedy to the problem. That you choose not to use it implies that you’re okay with them hearing it from other people. Of course, the less obvious remedy is to beat some random person to the punch by actually preparing your child for big wide world out there. After all, we have rights in this country. And our rights to express our views don’t stop because someone wants his child to remain ignorant until some predetermined\* age. \*Usually an age beyond what the child is at the moment, ya know, because the parent was going to get around to it sometime in the future. > [@](#): > > The porn was not the best example, the mangled fetus is a better example (i.e. legal) of this notion. It was merely to illustrate the point. Here’s a suggestion for an example: pick one of many, many types of examples which are: \*not about illegal conduct \*not gratuitous \*are actually protected speech \*that you don’t like and want to see curtailed. What you’ve chosen so far as analogies: \*illegal conduct (which is never protected) \*gratuitous pictures, which are expressly not protected in schools \*speech that isn’t protected for students by the First Amendment \*that you don’t like and want curtailed. > [@](#): > > Nowhere did I suggest locking away kids because they might find out something on their own. That said I think I should be able to reasonably expect the school I send my child to to keep things reasonably within the realm of age appropriate learning (play ground who knows what they will learn). Sad for you then that our country has inconvenient laws which don’t give you the ability to make the other 300 million of us prance around your notion of what schools should be. The conduct in question is protected speech. It addresses this child’s perspective. It was done quietly. It was done peacefully. It was done in a non-gratuitous fashion. The school went awry of well-established law by abridging this child’s free speech. Shame on them. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/191 "2009-07-09T12:02:08Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > It wouldn’t be totally outlandish to answer that question in the [affirmative](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California). So there is no difference between an adult in a public place vs. a grade school student in school? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/192 "2009-07-09T12:03:34Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > People in free countries have rights. Kids are people too. But there are many, many ways in which the law treats kids and adults differently. If what you were saying is such a truism, then why can’t an 8 year old buy booze, vote, serve in the military, and drive a car? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/193 "2009-07-09T14:57:27Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > It’s unavoidable, unless you lock said child away. And so you keep misconstruing my position. Seems to me you are saying it is a big, mean world out there and kids are likely to be exposed to all sorts of things whether I like it or not. I agree that is true. I disagree that it makes it ok for you to then go ahead and expose my kid to whatever _you_ see fit. Hey, free speech, big mean nasty world, why not? The point was about ethics/morals in this case. Not what you can legally do. Nitpick the examples all you like to cloak your bankrupt argument. Sometimes a thing may be completely legal to do. That does not make it ok to do. I wish you understood that but I’m giving up trying to explain it to you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/194 "2009-07-09T15:28:52Z")
> [@MarcinCiez](#): > > If a school bans inapropriate clothing, the kid’s choice is to either remove that clothing, OR to leave the school - in the latter it will probably end up being the parent’s choice rather than the kid’s. > > You are free to exercise rights in the context of set rules. Thats life. You left out the “sue the school for violation of the student’s First Amendment rights.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/195 "2009-07-09T15:46:44Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But there are many, many ways in which the law treats kids and adults differently. If what you were saying is such a truism, then why can’t an 8 year old buy booze, vote, serve in the military, and drive a car? Because neither buying booze, serving in the military, nor driving a car is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Voting is, and the Constitution very explicitly says that an 8 year old cannot vote. A law which said an 8 year old **could** vote would be invalid, because the Constitution is the highest law of the land. Similarly, a policy which says that 13 year olds may not exercise a right to non-disruptive free speech is also invalid, for the same reason. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/196 "2009-07-09T16:09:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A law which said an 8 year old **could** vote would be invalid, because the Constitution is the highest law of the land. Similarly, a policy which says that 13 year olds may not exercise a right to non-disruptive free speech is also invalid, for the same reason. IANAL [nitpick] The 26th Amendment reads to me as you cannot deny voting rights to those 18 and older. Does not read to me that you _can’t_ grant voting rights to an 8 year-old…just that an 8-year-old cannot claim a constitutional right to do so. [/nitpick] IANAL IANAConstitutional Expert ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/197 "2009-07-09T16:09:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A law which said an 8 year old **could** vote would be invalid, because the Constitution is the highest law of the land. Similarly, a policy which says that 13 year olds may not exercise a right to non-disruptive free speech is also invalid, for the same reason. > > Regards, > Shodan I don’t think that this is accurate. The 26th amendment states that [QUOTE=the 26th Amendment] Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [/QUOTE] So, if a state wanted to create a lower voting age, then that would be okay, right? ---
**Author:** ![Backcountry\_Medic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Backcountry\_Medic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Backcountry_Medic)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/198 "2009-07-09T18:44:29Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Generally, my kids were in school, or with me or my husband at that age. With my husband or me, I can explain my values to my children. It isn’t like we don’t cover this material when it arises. The problem isn’t that I want to shield my kids from this material - its that I want to present it in a manner consistent with our values. I’m not sure that abortion can be discussed without value judgements being applied - even the langage being chosen (fetus, baby, life, choice) is value loaded. That makes me think that its probably not a topic that should be covered by your average second grade public school teacher in a classroom of average seven year olds. But perhaps I’m wrong and there is a “And Tango Makes Three” for abortion that can cover complex topics at an age appropriate level without setting off parents. Not that “And Tango Makes Three” was successful with it. > > ETA: I also don’t think its fair for a second grade teacher to even be put in the position where abortion might become a topic of conversation - its a no win for him or her. > Value conversations are appropriate in high school, when ethics and morals become interesting topics and when a kid starts to understand who they are. They aren’t appropriate conversations in elementary school - beyond the basic good citizenship values. This is it. Most of these types of questions are so loaded that no one should have try to simplify it down to the children who might question it. Parents on all sides of these issues should take concern with who might be influencing their children, especially those in elementary school. I can remember clearly, nearly twenty years after the fact, conversations or commentary from teachers that made a big impression on the way I understood or interpreted viewpoints for years (or permanently). First, I can remember my sixth grade teacher, a great guy, using casual -although very discreetly- “pot” slang and jokes at various times, nothing most kids would ever catch onto. I remember about halfway through the year I watched “Half-Baked” (not at school- friend’s house) and I suddenly ‘got it’. My parents had been strictly Just Say No supporters and after I thought about it all it substantially changed my viewpoint on drugs, ect. I knew better than to try to challenge my parents, but over the years it has had a deep impact on my personality, ect. Later, in high school I remember being pulled aside after a class in which I had given a report (something historical if I recall) and being the class clown I had said something was “gay” in a derogatory way. At the time I didn’t quite understand what the problem was, since my Christian father sometimes called things he disliked “gay”. I didn’t get in any formal trouble, but I was asked to stop using ‘gay’ in a derogatory way. I asked what the big deal was and the teacher explained to me how there may be gay students in the class who would be offended by that sort of usage. Just that explanation made me question what my parents had always told me about homosexuality. For whatever reasons these two encounters stick out in my mind clearly, and I always wonder what different type of person I would have been had these teachers not been there or said anything that changed my beliefs in some certain way. I remember quite clearly through junior and high school the ways that some teachers on all sides of certain issues colored the discussions in class. How are you supposed to make sure the teacher is going to give the students a viewpoint that you agree with? What if the teacher that gets asked about this t-shirt is pro-choice? Surely she would have the first amendment right to discuss the issue in her terms, and isn’t that going to put the authority figure in this case as singling out a certain students and saying “she’s wrong”? What are the other kids in the class supposed to take from this? Like it or not, kids spend hundreds of hours each year with their teachers and even teenagers can be very impressionable. Coming from any teacher’s viewpoint, this is going to put you in a catch-22 with someone’s parents coming in angry that you are proselytizing your moral viewpoints on their child. Better to avoid the liability, leave the morals to the parents and encourage discussions to gradually increase into core moral concepts. In high school we had very interesting class discussions on all sorts of hot button topics like race, gun control and roles of government; but we had built up to that by learning how to have less explosive discussions on less moral topics- land sharing between different groups, nations trading resources, ect. We didn’t start in 7th grade with “Abortion: Killing Babies or Not” witch is obviously the debate this shirt was made to answer. In which seventh grade subject would a discussion of this be appropriate- Health? Science? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/199 "2009-07-09T21:12:39Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > So there is no difference between an adult in a public place vs. a grade school student in school? Well, that _would_ be the natural import of my hedge “It wouldn’t be totally outlandish…”, no? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/200 "2009-07-09T21:42:37Z")
> [@Backcountry\_Medic](#): > > This is it… Your takeaway from this _Bildungspost_ is that speech rights of teachers and fellow peers should be more limited rather than extended? I think your story highlights precisely what I am getting at: the non-parentally-controlled interactions that school provides is essential to the socialization of children in our culture and serves as an important counterbalance to the potential dangers of a childhood filled with unopposed exposure to a parent’s anti-social belief system. As HRC might put it, _it takes a village_… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263.md?page=11)