# 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:** 9
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/161 "2009-07-08T19:32:39Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > OMIGOD!!! TICKING TIME BOMB!!! KAPOW!!! > > You want to say it’s a more apt analogy because you realize that if we extend your argument outside the tee-shirt realm, your claim (which is, to recap, what if we follow the Constitution and something bad happens! Therefore, we do not have to follow the Constitution) starts to look pretty ridiculous. > > Wearing a KKK tee-shirt, so long as it does not advocate illegal activity nor use fighting words (_viz._, what is called the “N” word), the shirt would be permissible. Well, free speech jurisprudence gets kind of shaky when it comes to either race issues or sex. Speech codes do get upheld, despite what I see as very dubious constitutional grounds. That said, I’m all in favor of students who hold racist beliefs coming to school with KKK t shirts. Know thine enemy and all. ---
**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, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/162 "2009-07-08T19:33:01Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Wearing a KKK tee-shirt, so long as it does not advocate illegal activity nor use fighting words (_viz._, what is called the “N” word), the shirt would be permissible. You think any school is going to let a kid wear a KKK shirt? Yeah right. ---
**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, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/163 "2009-07-08T19:38:17Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > As has been noted a school is not your local park. The SCOTUS agrees with this. > > I feel pretty safe in saying some student wearing a KKK t-shirt would substantially interfere with appropriate discipline in the operation of a school. > > Does an anti-choice t-shirt rise to that level? I do not know. Not sure how we can know without testing to see what the reactions of other students are. > > Certainly the abortion debate is among the most emotionally charged debates that exist in our society. On the other hand not sure how worked-up a bunch of Elementary school kids would get about it. > > It is not unreasonable for an adult to see the anti-abortion t-shirt and think it is a politically charged topic with a possibility to cause real disruption (the converse would be true too with a pro-choice t-shirt). > > Hence my original question: As an administrator are you supposed to just kick back and see what happens because you do not know if it will cause some trouble or as the person charged with keeping discipline is it not incumbent upon you to err on the safe side and stop it before it (might) start? Remember you have a duty here to the students’ safety and school discipline, not a duty to protect free speech since as the courts agree free speech is not absolute in a school environment. There is an absolute right for the government to protect its citizens? This is news to me. You seem to think that these are binary conditions: protect free speech or protect safety. I reject your premise because, well, the shirt was worn and no got hurt. So, from that, there’s no reason to think that wearing the shirt tomorrow would cause a major upswing. Sometimes, they are competing interests, but such is the case with constitutional law. You have, on the one hand, the government who wants to curtail rights, and on the other (minus the religious right) who want to have freedom. That’s where the courts come in, and on this issue, they’ve unambiguously said that this is permissible speech. Also it would have to be the case that the school people would have to believe there is an imminent threat of danger. Some vague “what if someone got mad and hit a student” dog won’t hunt. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/164 "2009-07-08T19:39:57Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The more difficult question would be a t-shirt that says: “Vulva.” In that case, the kid has a decent argument for a constitutional right to wear the shirt. Really? What message or idea would a shirt which simply said “Vulva” attempt to convey? ---
**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 8, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/165 "2009-07-08T19:42:24Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Obscenity has always been subject to censorship under certain circumstances. While a picture of a vulva is likely not obscene for adults in most communities (especially not a scientific image), and thus cannot be censored, the court has crafted a standard of obscenity for children that is fairly broad and includes even speech that has artistic or scientific merit (e.g. NC-17 movies). The context of the school makes this question easy: there’s no risk of censoring adult speech by having a school rule of no pictures of genital nudity, therefore it can be censored if it is obscene for children. > > The more difficult question would be a t-shirt that says: “Vulva.” In that case, the kid has a decent argument for a constitutional right to wear the shirt. In that case, it would be reasonable to make the argument that the image is disruptive enough to interfere with the school’s ability to educate and innapropriate for the age of its audience (i.e., K-8 school). As for the obscenity of it, the image may be considered obscene by those who are afraid of the human body in all its glory (but then so is Michaelangelo’s _David_), but the message is, in no way, obscene. It’s factual (as someone described the abortion shirt) and a widely accepted position to teach children. Yet, it still happens to be unreasonably disruptive to the educational environment and inappropriate for the audience that is the subject of this debate. I don’t really see much of a difference, frankly. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/166 "2009-07-08T19:45:21Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > This is two questions, in my mind. First, is there a real conceptual distinction between that which is political and what which is not. On this, I’m pretty agnostic. If there is a real distinction, it’s pretty fuzzy. > > The second is whether the distinction matters. I tend to agree that it shouldn’t be that important. But when we find ourselves in these multi-factor balancing situations (e.g. special contexts like schools), I think it is probably among the most relevant factors. I believe the framers intended speech to include self-expression other than political expression (and it has come to mean that anyway), but I also think political speech is at the core. But to get to the second question, which I think I agree with you on, we need to get to the first. To me, all speech is political. ---
**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, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/167 "2009-07-08T19:48:11Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > In that case, it would be reasonable to make the argument that the image is disruptive enough to interfere with the school’s ability to educate and innapropriate for the age of its audience (i.e., K-8 school). > > As for the obscenity of it, the image may be considered obscene by those who are afraid of the human body in all its glory (but then so is Michaelangelo’s _David_), but the message is, in no way, obscene. It’s factual (as someone described the abortion shirt) and a widely accepted position to teach children. Yet, it still happens to be unreasonably disruptive to the educational environment and inappropriate for the audience that is the subject of this debate. I don’t really see much of a difference, frankly. First, I have to say great choice of words in “widely accept position” when talking about a picture of that lady’s vagina, with her legs sprung wide. Fortunately, the courts spent a little more time in their analysis of this. David is a work of art. That picture isn’t a work of art. It’s a picture of some woman’s crotch with the words dare to enter or something. It’s also needlessly gratuitous for children, particularly when it has no pedagogical context to it. It’s just a picture of a vagina, for the sake of wearing a picture of a vagina. And what protected speech is being enforced there? Beware of pussy, a cautionary picture? I mean, honestly. ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/168 "2009-07-08T19:49:38Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Really? What message or idea would a shirt which simply said “Vulva” attempt to convey? It doesn’t really matter in the eyes of the law, since a word on a shirt is paradigm speech. But I can imagine quite a few. I suppose the likeliest would be something like, “I reject society’s taboo on mentioning genitals, even by their scientific names.” > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > In that case, it would be reasonable to make the argument that the image is disruptive enough to interfere with the school’s ability to educate and innapropriate for the age of its audience (i.e., K-8 school). Let’s be clear, substantial disruption is a legitimate ground for censorship in school. It isn’t settled (and it is unlikely to be the case) that inappropriateness is. And even that disruption has to be of a certain nature. That said, the cases we’ve discussed have mostly been in high schools. It stands to reason that K-8 can be more restrictive. ETA: But, what I was saying is we don’t even reach disruption because schools can censor non-disruptive obscenity. > [@Brown Eyed Girl](#): > > As for the obscenity of it, the image may be considered obscene by those who are afraid of the human body in all its glory (but then so is Michaelangelo’s _David_), but the message is, in no way, obscene. It’s factual (as someone described the abortion shirt) and a widely accepted position to teach children. Meh. It’s a matter of community standards. And in the case of obscenity for children, scientific or artistic merit isn’t necessarily redeeming. In my judgment, most jurisdictions would find a photo of a vulva obscene for children, but maybe not. ---
**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 8, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/169 "2009-07-08T19:51:12Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > The picture all by itself? No. Nor would a sketch of a black man hanging. Well, it’s not the picture all by itself. It’s the picture combined with the message. If your shirt of a black man being lynched was captioned, “America’s Shame” would you feel any differently? I don’t know why every debate has to come around to race (is there a term for this type of Godwinizing?), but it’s a lot less like the abortion debate than the sex education debate is. I’m not sure why you think it’s in any way similar. > [@](#): > > The picture isn’t the only consideration though. You’ve cherry picked a picture from an article and then excluded the article which was the context within which the picture appeared. I’m sorry, but your choice of words just slays me. I’m not sure why you think I cherrypicked the picture. Actually, I cherrypicked the supplier, so as not to run afoul of the porn debate. Would it make any difference if it was a scientific drawing of the same region? > [@](#): > > I don’t see how it matters that that picture might appear in a text book, or is in an article. You’ve eliminated the context. I’m not sure how that matters. I’ve injected commentary. Just like the abortion shirt has. Those images of the fetuses on that shirt were not taken for the purposes of illustrating abortion, so what’s the context of those photos? > [@](#): > > So, to ask in response: would it be okay for a teacher to hand out that picture contained between the end-covers of something on which the front cover had the words “Science Text Book”? I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/170 "2009-07-08T19:55:05Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > There is an absolute right for the government to protect its citizens? This is news to me. > > You seem to think that these are binary conditions: protect free speech or protect safety. I reject your premise because, well, the shirt was worn and no got hurt. So, from that, there’s no reason to think that wearing the shirt tomorrow would cause a major upswing. > > Sometimes, they are competing interests, but such is the case with constitutional law. You have, on the one hand, the government who wants to curtail rights, and on the other (minus the religious right) who want to have freedom. That’s where the courts come in, and on this issue, they’ve unambiguously said that this is permissible speech. > > Also it would have to be the case that the school people would have to believe there is an imminent threat of danger. Some vague “what if someone got mad and hit a student” dog won’t hunt. While the public school may be a government run thing I would hardly call the teachers and school administrators as the government trying to protect its citizens. This is a school with kids. Not a local park where you hold a rally. As noted the SCOTUS felt there was some appropriate restrictions to be had on free speech in a school. You can wear your KKK t-shirt in a park. Willing to bet no public school will let you wear it on their grounds and I seriously doubt you will find a court to make the school let you wear that on their property. The t-shirt, IIRC, was removed very early on in the school day before classes even started. As such neither of us know if anyone would get hurt or if it would disrupt classes or affect discipline. Also note that for the school it need not be about actual safety but just school discipline. Not only might (note I said "might) such a shirt cause immediate problems it could cause lasting ones. Suppose some kids squared off over it, tempers flared and so on. Even if handled that day those kids may have formed a new enmity for each other that previously did not exist and can carry on for who knows how long. Again, you are the school principal. Is is your _job_ to see to the smooth operation of the school. This is not a court. You are not a legislator. This is not a park. A student is wearing a t-shirt you know full well is an exceptionally emotionally charged issue and tends to divide people. Are you saying it is unreasonable for you, as the principal charged with discipline in the school, to just ignore it? Personally I’d say you would be negligent in your duties if you did that. I use the KKK shirt to show this in sharp relief. I am willing to bet if you were found to have let a student wear that in school and problems did break out you’d find yourself in hot water to say the least. ---
**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 8, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/171 "2009-07-08T19:58:03Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > First, I have to say great choice of words in “widely accept position” when talking about a picture of that lady’s vagina, with her legs sprung wide. You said “cherry picked” first. 😛 > [@](#): > > Fortunately, the courts spent a little more time in their analysis of this. David is a work of art. That picture isn’t a work of art. It’s a picture of some woman’s crotch with the words dare to enter or something. It’s also needlessly gratuitous for children, particularly when it has no pedagogical context to it. It’s just a picture of a vagina, for the sake of wearing a picture of a vagina. No, it’s a commentary on premarital sex. You didn’t really get it, did you? The picture is obviously there to elicit a reaction. To make you look at the message. Just like the pictures of the fetuses on the abortion shirt. > [@](#): > > And what protected speech is being enforced there? Beware of pussy, a cautionary picture? I mean, honestly. Really? Try reading it again. Disclaimer: I should note that the abstinence position really isn’t my bag, so maybe I’m not a great spokesperson for it. ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/172 "2009-07-08T19:59:36Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Well, it’s not the picture all by itself. It’s the picture combined with the message. Do you not see that you’ve taken a picture from a discussion about a vulva and pulled it out? > [@](#): > > If your shirt of a black man being lynched was captioned, “America’s Shame” would you feel any differently? I don’t know why every debate has to come around to race (is there a term for this type of Godwinizing?), but it’s a lot less like the abortion debate than the sex education debate is. I’m not sure why you think it’s in any way similar. > > I’m sorry, but your choice of words just slays me. I’m not sure why you think I cherrypicked the picture. Actually, I cherrypicked the supplier, so as not to run afoul of the porn debate. Would it make any difference if it was a scientific drawing of the same region? Oh, my mistake. When you said “this” picture taken from wikipedia, I thought you meant what you said. I did mention a drawing of something. The drawing, all by itself, isn’t saying much except “look, it’s a vagina!” or “it’s a dead black man!”. That’s gratuitous. I’m not sure what you mean by a “scientific” drawing. The drawing might be anatomically correct, but that’s hardly science. Science isn’t a novelty; it’s used for a purpose. So, what’s the purpose of a picture/drawing of a vagina on a shirt? I mean, other than to say “hey, look, pussy!” > [@](#): > > I’m not sure how that matters. I’ve injected commentary. Just like the abortion shirt has. Those images of the fetuses on that shirt were not taken for the purposes of illustrating abortion, so what’s the context of those photos? > > I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. The pictures are of cute little humans who shouldn’t be killed because they’re so weak and helpless. How dare you murder them? It’s a fallacy to draw on the emotion of the reader to persuade. The constitution doesn’t just protect good, sound arguments. It also protects cheap, retarded arguments. The picture of a vagina on a t-shirt isn’t meant to persuade, it doesn’t really say anything. It’s just a vagina on a t-shirt. Or are you trying to show that the note at the bottom of the picture is a warning that vaginas are evil? I’m a gay guy and I somewhat agree with that. (tongue-in-cheek there) I’ve read the caption. Abadonhope is on there. Abstinence is the only way to be sure. What meaning does that picture have for a child? It’s essentially a vagina that says abstinence is the only way to be sure. Are they supposed to think that abstinence won’t give them a vagina? (Might work on boys). Or that vaginas can sometimes talk? Having a vagina makes one lose hope because of a big word at the bottom they can’t read yet? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/173 "2009-07-08T20:02:20Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I still don’t see why you believe your desire (or even the desire of most parents) to defer having a conversation about abortion with your children authorizes limiting the speech rights of others, others who plainly disagree with your age-appropriateness assessment. … Did I say it does? Ethically and morally, I think its wrong to introduce these topics outside the family structure to young children. Moreover, I think that particularly in elementary school, kids should spend time learning to read and write - they aren’t there to make political statements - but that has little to do with the legal aspect of free speech. ---
**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, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/174 "2009-07-08T20:06:19Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Did I say it does? > > Ethically and morally, I think its wrong to introduce these topics outside the family structure to young children. Moreover, I think that particularly in elementary school, kids should spend time learning to read and write - they aren’t there to make political statements - but that has little to do with the legal aspect of free speech. So it’s ethically wrong for someone to mention something you’ve not yet bothered to tell your kids about because you haven’t yet told them? Why learn to read and write if you have nothing to read or write about? Kids have politics simply because they have a social structure. That you don’t want your kids to have information doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to know it. It sounds more like you want schools to just parrot you to exclusion of everyone else. One hopes a news break never comes on when you aren’t paying attention because, _gasp_, your kids might hear about something from “outside the family”. ---
**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 8, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/175 "2009-07-08T20:17:27Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Do you not see that you’ve taken a picture from a discussion about a vulva and pulled it out? Um, okay? How is that different than the images on the abortion shirt? > [@](#): > > Oh, my mistake. When you said “this” picture taken from wikipedia, I thought you meant what you said. Yeah, I was describing the picture so people would know whether they wanted to click through; as an afterthought, perhaps I should have broken the link as well. I didn’t want anyone to get in trouble at work, you see. > [@](#): > > I did mention a drawing of something. The drawing, all by itself, isn’t saying much except “look, it’s a vagina!” or “it’s a dead black man!”. That’s gratuitous. I’m not sure what you mean by a “scientific” drawing. The drawing might be anatomically correct, but that’s hardly science. Science isn’t a novelty; it’s used for a purpose. So, what’s the purpose of a picture/drawing of a vagina on a shirt? I mean, other than to say “hey, look, pussy!” You do know you can refer to the female anatomy in context of subjects tangentially related to the female anatomy, right? In this case, sex education (or lack thereof, as the case may be). > [@](#): > > The pictures are of cute little humans who shouldn’t be killed because they’re so weak and helpless. How dare you murder them? It’s a fallacy to draw on the emotion of the reader to persuade. The constitution doesn’t just protect good, sound arguments. It also protects cheap, retarded arguments. Well, all I’m saying is that it should protect my cheap, retarded argument equally. Or not. > [@](#): > > The picture of a vagina on a t-shirt isn’t meant to persuade, it doesn’t really say anything. It’s just a vagina on a t-shirt. Or are you trying to show that the note at the bottom of the picture is a warning that vaginas are evil? I’m a gay guy and I somewhat agree with that. (tongue-in-cheek there) Well, yeah if you’re distracted sufficiently by the vagina (which you curiously seem to be), you may miss the message that hoping for sex without the risk of pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease is playing the odds, so to speak. > [@](#): > > I’ve read the caption. Abadonhope is on there. Abstinence is the only way to be sure. What meaning does that picture have for a child? It’s essentially a vagina that says abstinence is the only way to be sure. Are they supposed to think that abstinence won’t give them a vagina? (Might work on boys). Or that vaginas can sometimes talk? Having a vagina makes one lose hope because of a big word at the bottom they can’t read yet? I know I’m not the pithiest of sloganwriters by any stretch of the imagine, but you really think the message might be that vaginas can talk? Or are you just being willfully obtuse? ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/176 "2009-07-08T20:32:32Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Um, okay? How is that different than the images on the abortion shirt? It takes a common phrase among children, attaches to it a picture of the growth of a fetus (an idea to which they’ve hopefully been exposed) to make a not-so-clever pun of it with the aims of preying (praying? for a laugh) on their emotions to persuade them to the wearer’s political view. It’s direct, slightly artistic and actual speech on a political issue. The other is a vagina with some vague reference to abstinence as though a vagina is somehow necessary to having sex. Or abstaining. It’s obtuse. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I was describing the picture so people would know whether they wanted to click through; as an afterthought, perhaps I should have broken the link as well. I didn’t want anyone to get in trouble at work, you see. Oh, okay. I kind of work under the premise that people choose their analogies on purpose and mean what they say and say what they mean (excepting the _obvious_ typo). I suppose I’ve fallen into the habit of expecting the “NSFW” tag when one is concerned about such a thing. > [@](#): > > You do know you can refer to the female anatomy in context of subjects tangentially related to the female anatomy, right? In this case, sex education (or lack thereof, as the case may be). Maybe I’m missing something, but what about a picture of some vagina with the phrase abstinence is the only way would necessarily indicate to the kid that the object (end goal) of the message is necessarily related to the picture? I just don’t get a kid looking at that, or an adult for that matter, and saying, “Oh snap. I’m never going to fuck again because a vagina had the worlds abstinence is the only to know slammed under it.” > [@](#): > > Well, all I’m saying is that it should protect my cheap, retarded argument equally. Or not. As it does for mine as well. But we aren’t the issue. You and I surely have more freedoms than children, about whose rights this thread is created. I think we should avoiding equating the two since they aren’t actually equal. Granted, I have all of their rights, but they have only a fraction of mine. > [@](#): > > Well, yeah if you’re distracted sufficiently by the vagina (which you curiously seem to be), you may miss the message that hoping for sex without the risk of pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease is playing the odds, so to speak. > I know I’m not the pithiest of sloganwriters by any stretch of the imagine, but you really think the message might be that vaginas can talk? Or are you just being willfully obtuse? I’m pointing out there are 5 year olds in the school who might see it. You think they’re going to see that and say “hey, lots of sex might make my junk look like roast beef!” I was pointing out that in that picture, there’s no real idea being conveyed to the younger children, assuming they can even read the slogan. So, in essence, they see a vagina with some hard to read fancy writing on the top, and a big word on the bottom they can’t pronounce. That leaves us with the picture and abstinence is the only way to know. What would a seven or eight year get from that? A vagina and abstinence is the only way to know . . . to know what?! I’m at all focused on the vagina for my own sake; but again, this isn’t about _ **ADULT** _ speech and what an _ **ADULT** _ might take it to be. It’s about what a child, in a school would. Maybe some of the other kids might notice something awry with that vagina, and read the captions and understand it. But I’m not sure many of them have seen a lot of vaginas. Also, there’s no pedagogical context to it. It’s a vagina with some obtuse meaning attached to it. ---
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/177 "2009-07-08T20:53:09Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > So it’s ethically wrong for someone to mention something you’ve not yet bothered to tell your kids about because you haven’t yet told them? > > Why learn to read and write if you have nothing to read or write about? Kids have politics simply because they have a social structure. That you don’t want your kids to have information doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to know it. It sounds more like you want schools to just parrot you to exclusion of everyone else. > > One hopes a news break never comes on when you aren’t paying attention because, _gasp_, your kids might hear about something from “outside the family”. I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand I am all for kids getting info. All the info they can. I really dislike it when I see parents who want to keep them from learning about evolution or appropriate sex education or some historical incident they have issue with or what have you. I never see ignorance as a better option than knowledge. On the other hand I think there is a time and place for certain info to be imparted to children and I think a parent absolutely has some say, to a point, as to when and how that should occur. Is it ok if some 8th grader shows your kindergartner a Hustler magazine to teach them about sex? There are better times and places and better and worse ways to impart certain information to children. Any info at all at any given time imparted in any random fashion does not make sense. For younger children this is more an issue. As they grow to be young adults I think “protecting” them becomes less and less an issue and indeed not a good thing. By the time they are well into high school I think kids can generally handle most anything thrown at them and need less protecting. I would say an anti-abortion t-shirt in an elementary school is pushing things. I’m not sure even the oldest children there, who are barely into puberty themselves, can have a good handle on the abortion debate. But remember there are much younger kids zooming about that school and this stuff almost certainly is beyond them. I think it is appropriate for parents to have issue with their kids being exposed to that at that age. ---
**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, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/178 "2009-07-08T21:05:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’m of two minds on this. > > On the one hand I am all for kids getting info. All the info they can. I really dislike it when I see parents who want to keep them from learning about evolution or appropriate sex education or some historical incident they have issue with or what have you. I never see ignorance as a better option than knowledge. > > On the other hand I think there is a time and place for certain info to be imparted to children and I think a parent absolutely has some say, to a point, as to when and how that should occur. Is it ok if some 8th grader shows your kindergartner a Hustler magazine to teach them about sex? So, your argument is: is it okay when discussing the constitutional rights of some people, which might impart on other people hitherto unknown information to analogize that with the illegal actions? No, it’s not okay. Nor is it okay for me to show my children pornography to teach them about sex. For that matter, it’s not okay for the same eighth grader to have sex with my children to teach about sex. Or anyone else for that matter. Nor should I teach my children about murder by murdering someone and saying, “see, it’s rude, huh?” > [@](#): > > There are better times and places and better and worse ways to impart certain information to children. Any info at all at any given time imparted in any random fashion does not make sense. Then the solution is simple: lock them away in a small room without any access to anyone. > [@](#): > > For younger children this is more an issue. As they grow to be young adults I think “protecting” them becomes less and less an issue and indeed not a good thing. By the time they are well into high school I think kids can generally handle most anything thrown at them and need less protecting. Yeah, they just go in disadvantaged by being socially retarded. That’s a helluva first impression. “Hi, I’m Stephen and I know nothing about anything happening in the world. 'Sup?” > [@](#): > > I would say an anti-abortion t-shirt in an elementary school is pushing things. I’m not sure even the oldest children there, who are barely into puberty themselves, can have a good handle on the abortion debate. But remember there are much younger kids zooming about that school and this stuff almost certainly is beyond them. I think it is appropriate for parents to have issue with their kids being exposed to that at that age. That’s what free speech protections are there to do: to let people push their ideas without being silenced. It wouldn’t be much of a protection if it’s done away with because someone just doesn’t want it said. Of course parents should have an issue with it. Hopefully the issue they take is that they’re doing an inadequate job of teaching their children about the world and must do better. ---
**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 8, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/179 "2009-07-08T21:08:24Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > It takes a common phrase among children, attaches to it a picture of the growth of a fetus (an idea to which they’ve hopefully been exposed) to make a not-so-clever pun of it with the aims of preying (praying? for a laugh) on their emotions to persuade them to the wearer’s political view. It’s direct, slightly artistic and actual speech on a political issue. > > The other is a vagina with some vague reference to abstinence as though a vagina is somehow necessary to having sex. Or abstaining. It’s obtuse. 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? > [@](#): > > Oh, okay. I kind of work under the premise that people choose their analogies on purpose and mean what they say and say what they mean (excepting the _obvious_ typo). > > I suppose I’ve fallen into the habit of expecting the “NSFW” tag when one is concerned about such a thing. No worries. I figured that if it’s NSFW then it’s probably also NSFS and that would have undermined my argument, you see. 😉 > [@](#): > > Maybe I’m missing something, but what about a picture of some vagina with the phrase abstinence is the only way would necessarily indicate to the kid that the object (end goal) of the message is necessarily related to the picture? I just don’t get a kid looking at that, or an adult for that matter, and saying, “Oh snap. I’m never going to fuck again because a vagina had the worlds abstinence is the only to know slammed under it.” 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!” > [@](#): > > As it does for mine as well. But we aren’t the issue. You and I surely have more freedoms than children, about whose rights this thread is created. I think we should avoiding equating the two since they aren’t actually equal. Granted, I have all of their rights, but they have only a fraction of mine. Lost me here. I’m just saying that if abortion shirt is okay, abstinence shirt should be as well. > [@](#): > > I’m pointing out there are 5 year olds in the school who might see it. You think they’re going to see that and say “hey, lots of sex might make my junk look like roast beef!” 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. > [@](#): > > I was pointing out that in that picture, there’s no real idea being conveyed to the younger children, assuming they can even read the slogan. So, in essence, they see a vagina with some hard to read fancy writing on the top, and a big word on the bottom they can’t pronounce. 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. > [@](#): > > That leaves us with the picture and abstinence is the only way to know. What would a seven or eight year get from that? A vagina and abstinence is the only way to know . . . to know what?! 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”? > [@](#): > > I’m at all focused on the vagina for my own sake; but again, this isn’t about _ **ADULT** _ speech and what an _ **ADULT** _ might take it to be. It’s about what a child, in a school would. Maybe some of the other kids might notice something awry with that vagina, and read the captions and understand it. But I’m not sure many of them have seen a lot of vaginas. Also, there’s no pedagogical context to it. It’s a vagina with some obtuse meaning attached to it. 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. ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263/180 "2009-07-08T21:15:52Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > So, your argument is: is it okay when discussing the constitutional rights of some people, which might impart on other people hitherto unknown information to analogize that with the illegal actions? No, it’s not okay. Nor is it okay for me to show my children pornography to teach them about sex. Your whole post is a serious mischaracterization of what I said. 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. Am I trying to lock little Whack Jr. away from the world? Nope. 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. Some day sure…I hope Whack Jr. gets that and a whole raft of other info on all sorts of topics. 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-banned-from-wearing-somewhat-graphic-pro-life-t-shirt/502263.md?page=10)