# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/81 "2009-07-08T15:11:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Distracting as in prone to cause arguments and disrupt the goddamn algebra class. > > These are stupid examples and it’s ridiculous to say they have the potential to cause the disruption that something as polarizing as abortion causes, but if does cause a disruption, then the school would have a duty to put an end to it. > > What about books with gay couples in them? That’s ‘distracting’. Should we ban those from the classroom as well? Yes. It’s not about what parents want to explain. I’m speaking from the perspective as a former teacher, not a parent. The issue is simply preventing distractions in the classroom. Clothing with strident political messages is like a cell phone going off. It’s disruptive and obnoxious. As to what gets restricted – it’s all up to the judgement of the school. If it’s disruptive or has the strong potential to be disruptive then take it off. [/QUOTE] Did I miss a headline that announced your appointment to the Supreme Court and the simultaneous death or resignation of the nine current justices? You keep announcing your opinion of how things should be as though it were settled law. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/82 "2009-07-08T15:11:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Less that 1/10th of 1% of all abortions in the US are performed in the 3rd trimester, and those are only done for urgent health reasons. Please provide a reliable cite showing that third trimester abortions are only performed for urgent health reasons. > [@Mr Bus Guy](#): > > The school administrators, regardless of your faith in their ability, are the ones there, on the ground watching the reactions and needing to make that determination. Nope, 'fraid not - the Supreme Court makes that determination. Indeed, they already have. They have ruled that schools may not restrict political speech unless it can be shown that this speech disrupts the educational mission of the school. Not “may” disrupt, _does_ disrupt. Thus the burden of proof is on the school, to show how this T-shirt disrupted their educational mission. I have seen no such proof, although I am open to evidence. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/83 "2009-07-08T15:14:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You keep announcing your opinion of how things should be as though it were settled law. It IS settled law. Schools have a right to restrict speech which disrupts their mission. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/84 "2009-07-08T15:15:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Please provide a reliable cite showing that third trimester abortions are only performed for urgent health reasons. Want to see all the statutes? Why don’t you show me a single example of a 3rd tri abortion being performed for NON-urgent health reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/85 "2009-07-08T15:17:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The fact that you’re getting drawn into this digression just proves the point that this subject is distracting and better left out of the classroom. > > 3rd trimester abortions are illegal in most states unless the health of the woman is in danger. Even then, the availability is very scarce. There are, I believe, only three doctors in the country which perform them, and the pro-lifers just killed one. > > Less that 1/10th of 1% of all abortions in the US are performed in the 3rd trimester, and those are only done for urgent health reasons. Often, the fetus is already dead or dying. > > It is, in point of fact, a commonplace deception for anti-abortion crusaders to depict abortion as something that happens to healthy, 3rd trimester fetuses. The reality is that 90% of them are performed in the 1st trimester, and almost all the rest in the 2nd. > > See, now I’ve gotten all distracted from the classroom too. This is not a classroom, so I can do grown-up digressions. You’re right about the 3rt trimester stuff and the percentages. It’s still a sort of “Ad” stretching it a bit. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > If that’s the sort of abortion it is supposed to portray, it should show a severely deformed or dead fetus then. How do you know it didn’t have genetic problems o was dead? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/86 "2009-07-08T15:19:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > These are stupid examples and it’s ridiculous to say they have the potential to cause the disruption that something as polarizing as abortion causes, but if does cause a disruption, then the school would have a duty to put an end to it. Abortion is a polarizing issue for adults. I double anyone pre-adolescence really cares about, much less understands, the issue. Kids care a heck of a lot more about sports, music, gaming consoles, my dad vs your dad, etc than about political issues. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/87 "2009-07-08T15:20:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It IS settled law. Schools have a right to restrict speech which disrupts their mission. This is a radically oversimplified statement of the doctrine. Look, free speech law is notoriously indeterminate. There are a half-dozen factors: political vs. non-political speech, forum analysis, “low-value speech,” content-based vs. content-neutral, etc. When you put that complex, indeterminate body of law into the context of the schoolhouse, where the justices have significant disagreement over the application of individual rights, you’re bound to get a lot of disagreement about what the law is. But there are a few principles which are pretty well-established. As even Roberts concedes in _Morse_: > [@](#): > > The only interest the Court discerned underlying the school’s actions [in Tinker] was the “mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” or **“an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression.” Tinker, 393 U. S., at 509, 510. That interest was not enough** to justify banning “a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance.” Id., at 508." Avoiding controversy, discomfort, or unpleasentness is insufficient. This actually derives from a longstanding rule in free speech called Heckler’s Veto. In short, you can’t alter the speech rights of a speaker because of how his audience might (often irrationally or improperly) react. Restricting political speech because its content is disruptive is content-based discrimination, which is presumed to be unconstitutional and there are only narrow exceptions even in school. As **Shodan** correctly states, the school has to prove there will be disruption to its mission beyond mere controversy or discomfort. And, though not stated in Morse, I think the rest of the doctrine compels the conclusion that the disruption cannot be because of the content of the message unless the content runs counter to some aspect of the school’s educational mission aside from the likelihood of disruption. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/88 "2009-07-08T15:27:05Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Abortion is a polarizing issue for adults. I double anyone pre-adolescence really cares about, much less understands, the issue. Kids care a heck of a lot more about sports, music, gaming consoles, my dad vs your dad, etc than about political issues. A lot of parents politicize their kids early over the abortion issue. They don’t _really_ know what they’re taking about, but that doesn’t stop them from running their mouths anyway. I had to squelch arguments about it in 5th and 6th grade classrooms. I know for a fact that 7th grade is not too early for a shirt like that to be disruptive. Having said that, I would not tell the kid to change the shirt that day. I would just quietly talk to her after class and tell her not to wear it again. I wouldn’t want to call any public attention to her. It’s not her fault her parents are using her in such a gross and boorish manner. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/89 "2009-07-08T15:33:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why don’t you show me a single example of a 3rd tri abortion being performed for NON-urgent health reasons. Why don’t you provide a reliable cite showing that third trimester abortions are only performed for urgent health reasons and stop trying to shift the burden of proof? You’ve made an assertion - let’s see you back it up. > [@](#): > > Schools have a right to restrict speech which disrupts their mission. OK, then again - please show how this T-shirt actually disrupted the educational mission of the school. > [@](#): > > I know for a fact that 7th grade is not too early for a shirt like that to be disruptive. What facts can you provide that show that this T-shirt actually disrupted the educational mission of the school? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/90 "2009-07-08T15:39:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Please provide a reliable cite showing that third trimester abortions are only performed for urgent health reasons. I’m going to regret this, I really don’t know why I’m even bothering. Yes, you don’t know me. Yes, therefore, to you I’m not a reliable cite. I used to work for one of the two remaining doctors in America who perform third-trimester abortions, and in my time there, we never performed a third-trimester abortion without having the patient referred to us by her (outside) attending physician who had diagnosed a life-threatening condition or a severe and/or lethal genetic or physical abnormality in the fetus. We required diagnostic proof, from the diagnosing/referring physician (not the mother), and there WERE referrals that we refused because we did not feel the conditions were lethal or damaging enough to warrant an abortion. Obviously, I cannot speak for every single third-trimester abortion in America, or the third-trimester abortions performed outside our office. But that was my personal experience, and these cases in our office were incredibly rare. I just wanted to offer a personal story to counteract the myth that women are waiting until the 39th week of their pregnancy to blithely say “oh, I changed my mind, I don’t want this baby” and finding doctors who are gleefully performing an abortion for them. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/91 "2009-07-08T15:42:38Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Avoiding controversy, discomfort, or unpleasentness is insufficient. This actually derives from a longstanding rule in free speech called Heckler’s Veto. In short, you can’t alter the speech rights of a speaker because of how his audience might (often irrationally or improperly) react. I am not sure if I fully agree with you here. _Chaplinsky_ and the “fighting words” doctrine is essentially an endorsement of the Heckler’s Veto. It listed categories of speech that everyone agreed could be banned, including… > [@](#): > > the insulting or “fighting” words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It’s the audience reaction here that makes the speech not protected. It’s a crappy decision, but I don’t think it has ever been overturned. There hasn’t been a fighting words case upheld since, though… ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/92 "2009-07-08T15:45:55Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I am not sure if I fully agree with you here. _Chaplinsky_ and the “fighting words” doctrine is essentially an endorsement of the Heckler’s Veto. But I think it’s pretty much universally agreed that _Chaplinsky_ is dead. It hasn’t been applied since it was decided over 60 years ago. ETA: just noticed your last line, in which you acknowledge this. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/93 "2009-07-08T15:51:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Why don’t you provide a reliable cite showing that third trimester abortions are only performed for urgent health reasons and stop trying to shift the burden of proof? The state laws are my cite. Want to see them? There are only three clinics which even perform them, and patients have to meet stringent guidelines to receive abortions at them. If you want to assert that these clinics are secretly performing 3rd trimester without medical cuase, you have the burden to prove it. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/94 "2009-07-08T16:04:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > without medical cuase,. You are back pedaling. First it was that the mother was in danger. Then it was just urgent medical reasons, now it’s just medical cause? But the truth of it is that neither of you will ever have actual cites, because every effort to actual track abortion numbers and reasons gets shot down by pro-choicers. ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/95 "2009-07-08T16:08:17Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > But the truth of it is that neither of you will ever have actual cites, because every effort to actual track abortion numbers and reasons gets shot down by pro-choicers. When I worked at the above-mentioned abortion clinic, we voluntarily participated in a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the NAF to track abortion numbers and reasons in certain demographic segments of our patients. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/96 "2009-07-08T16:08:59Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > But the truth of it is that neither of you will ever have actual cites, because every effort to actual track abortion numbers and reasons gets shot down by pro-choicers. Clever. I await the use this argument in gun control threads. Gun control advocate: I would love to tell you how many ex-cons own guns if only you gun owners would allow me to track you in a database. ---
**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, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/97 "2009-07-08T16:10:32Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > I’m very confused about how one is connected to the other. **Dio** is right, schools have always aserted that free speech (in the form of clothing or other forms of protest) is a privilege and not a right. Comparing it to your bullhorn situation doesn’t make any sense as you would be arrested, whereas the students are just being asked to remove the offending article of clothing. It doesn’t much matter what schools claim the law is. The fact is they claim something the people who actually make those decisions (the deciders?) say is otherwise. When confronted with the school’s assertion of what the constitution says versus that which the courts say it is, the former always must yield to the latter. General observation: One may say that there isn’t an absolute right to free speech school. One would be correct. So too is there not an absolute right to free speech in the United States-at-large. And the test isn’t whether it could cause _some_ disruption, but that it likely _will_ cause _substantial_ disruption. The argument that some people might be distracted doesn’t somehow mean that it will materially affect the teaching in that school, or substantially disrupt the ends of the school, unless the ends of the school, of course, are at odds with the constitution. If that be the case, then it’s completely irrelevant what the school wants as it’s acting outside the law. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/98 "2009-07-08T16:14:19Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I await the use this argument in gun control threads. Sure. Be my guest. ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/99 "2009-07-08T16:15:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A lot of parents politicize their kids early over the abortion issue. They don’t _really_ know what they’re taking about, but that doesn’t stop them from running their mouths anyway. I had to squelch arguments about it in 5th and 6th grade classrooms. I know for a fact that 7th grade is not too early for a shirt like that to be disruptive. So, what you’re saying is that you, as the person in charge in the classroom, had the ability to steer the class back on task? That you were able to maintain order and get back to the teaching material? Why do you presume that the teachers in this other school here are less competent to do so than you? That must be the assumption because you’ve surely not provided a modicum of evidence that this shirt in this school _substantially_ disrupted teaching, caused fights or anything of the like. So, either we’re in the presence of the most persuasive teacher ever, or you just want to conflate the problem instead of analyzing what actually happened. > [@](#): > > Having said that, I would not tell the kid to change the shirt that day. I would just quietly talk to her after class and tell her not to wear it again. I wouldn’t want to call any public attention to her. It’s not her fault her parents are using her in such a gross and boorish manner. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/100 "2009-07-08T16:21:34Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > It doesn’t much matter what schools claim the law is. The fact is they claim something the people who actually make those decisions (the deciders?) say is otherwise. > > When confronted with the school’s assertion of what the constitution says versus that which the courts say it is, the former always must yield to the latter. That’s true. What I’m saying is that the idea that a pre-teen student would fight for their “right to free speech” over a t-shirt all the way to the Supreme Court is laughable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263.md?page=6)