To my knowledge the school has not formally responded to the complaint and laid out their understanding and reasoning.
Considering they had the girl stop wearing the shirt I think it is a safe assumption they deemed it potentially disruptive.
They stopped her from wearing the shirt early in the day so whether it would actually have been disruptive we cannot say. Are administrators supposed to wait for disruption to occur or are they to try and nip it in the bud? Regardless the court will just have to use their judgment as there is no data on this point one way or another. What we do know is that abortion topics are divisive in this country so I do not think it is unreasonable to suppose such a shirt might cause disruption…more the question is how much and does it go past protected speech in a school environment? Betting that is what the courts will be judging this on.
Further, subsequent court decisions related to student free speech have tended to be restrictive. Tinker largely remains intact and the subsequent cases do not bear directly on this case (I do not think) but the court seems to have leaned toward more restriction of free speech at a school rather than less restriction.
Add all that up and I cannot see your firm statement of, “She had the right; her rights were violated” as being without question. Obviously it is in question no matter how certain you are personally.
Which would, by definition, render my argument true. If they haven’t responded, then they haven’t asserted anything, now have they?
I see you didn’t take my invitation to read the case on point here considering you’re still misunderstanding the law. It isn’t “potential disruption”; it’s “substantial” disruption. Do read the case.
We can say up until the point she was nabbed it hadn’t, can we not?
Well, since it didn’t involve any of the delimited examples laid out by the Court, yes. And, again, you misconstrue the law. It isn’t “disruption”; it’s “substantial disruption”.
Still, no. A disruption isn’t good enough; it must a substantial one.
Clearly, some people can question it. But they can’t reasonably justify their position. Protip: misquoting the law isn’t a reasonable argument.
You seriously are just arguing to argue aren’t you?
The complaint was filed a few days ago. I do not know how long someone has to respond to a legal complaint but I am betting you get a few days at least to do so. It says nothing that they haven’t asserted anything yet and they will not assert anything in the press till it is part of their filed legal document (assuming they just don’t settle). I suggested one would presume they would have seen it as a disruptive shirt. Unless you think they just have a thing against the color blue.
How disingenuous can you get?
As to no disruption up till the point they stopped her the complaint said she had not finished breakfast yet. She had very little time really.
Your jumping on me about your uber legal analysis on “substantial” disruption is coming across as rather screechy. I explicitly said the court will need to determine whether her speech went to far in a school environment.
The horse on this is well and truly dead man…give it a rest.
I see that despite your diatribe here, you do agree with my point that they haven’t asserted anything. But since you demanded of me earlier to predict the future, I will now ask you to do the same. What will the assert when they respond?
I can get disingenuous enough to read the relevant law governing the matter, which puts me precisely one step ahead of you.
But time nevertheless, during which it would seem no disruptions were caused. I see you still have either chosen not to read the relevant caselaw, or you just intend on misconstruing it.
Yes, I do have a nagging habit of, when discussing the law, doing it in detail. Why would it be otherwise? You may call it screechy if you wish, which I guess makes sense considering you have no reasonable position at all. Protip (again): misstating the law isn’t a reasonable argument.
I’ll give it a rest right after you read the law and demonstrate the slightest understanding of the standard it dictates.
If the school fights the case (rather than settling) they pretty much have to assert that they felt the t-shirt would have substantially disrupted discipline at the school. That or she was depriving other students of their rights but that dog won’t hunt on this one that I can see.
I’m glad to see you finally got part of the relevant law correct. Progress is slow at times, but it’s worth the endeavor to make it. I’ll encourage you to keep up the good work.
You didn’t ask a reasonable one. There is much more you have to learn. There is much more in the world. I don’t really know what you’re asking; perhaps if you want better answers, you should endeavor to ask better questions.
The school has had a legal complaint filed against it for violating a student’s free speech rights. This is not in dispute.
The school can either settle the case or fight the case in court. This is not in dispute.
The question is if the school decides to fight the case in court what do you think they would assert in their defense that they did not, in fact, violate a student’s free speech rights?
They could try to argue that it violates some dress code. Or that the imagery itself is gratuitous. They needn’t assert that it would cause a substantial disruption to have, theoretically at least, a chance of prevailing.
There are other factors which play into Tinker than just substantial disruption. But you kept harping on some nebulous disruption, like people might talk about the subject or debate it or something, so I stuck with correcting that misunderstanding of the law. It took quite a bit of column space to get you to just accept that the plain language “substantial disruption” is actually the legal standard (as opposed to just some disruption). I didn’t think it wise to try to debate the full gamut of shit with you since getting you to look at the plain language of the case and finally understand that part of the law required so much effort.
Yeah…in fact they have said so. They have a dress code that says, “Personal articles, clothing, or manner of dress shall make no suggestion of tobacco, drug, or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or other inappropriate subject matter.” (bolding is theirs [PDF]).
The issue is if that violates the student’s constitutional right to free speech which is what the complaint is alleging.
So, you’re still avoiding the question asked. Pointing to the dress code will not help the school when it is being claimed the dress code violated her free speech rights. The school, if they choose to fight this, need to make the case that this is not a violation of her 1st amendment rights.
“Nebulous disruption” indeed.
Can you tell me exactly what “substantial disruption” entails?
Pin it down for me unambiguously so we can know from here on out precisely which actions are allowable and which aren’t. It will save everyone a lot of trouble.
Its inappropriate for schoolwear and its inappropriate clothing for any child to wear whether in or out of school.
His parents sound a bit odd allowing him to wear it in the first place whatever their own views are.
What next?
Well we’ve all been in the Klan for generations…
We’ve always supported Basque terrorists in their struggle for freedom…
But Blacks/women/Gays ARE inferior to white straight males.
I find it ironic that people who are so obviously unfit to be parents are apparently so for parenting rights.
Thank you for supporting my claim and cutting against your own? You’ve been going on about this disruption bit. Not seeing what you’ve quoted as supporting that at all. My response was that they needn’t assert any issue dealing some disruption, that they could try to get around it based on some dress code. Thank you for the cite to support my claim, though no cite was necessary for it.
Accepting arguendo that this is what the discussion is about, it isn’t an issue you were arguing for. You were arguing, again, about the disruption potential.
I don’t see a question I’ve avoided. Indeed, I have read this last paragraph nine times now and still see no question.
No, and neither can anyone else because the court held that, “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the **rule **is necessary to avoid substantial interference **with **school discipline or the rights of others, **is not permissible **under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” (emphasis mine)
You ask me to write out, not roughly, but exactly the thing which the school district doesn’t have: evidence of this substantial disruption. The language is unambiguous. I’m sorry you aren’t reasonable enough to understand that there isn’t some exhaustive list of all possible conduct which falls outside of this very unambiguous language. The school must (not should, or is allowed to, or is preferred to) show that this was necessary to prevent an actual substantial interference with the school. The supreme court in no case has delineated an exhaustive list of “allowed” or “disallowed”. It’s also worth noting that, “The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners.” (emphasis mine)
The Court goes on and explains, “The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, **undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to **overcome the right to freedom of expression.” (emphasis mine) There is nothing here ambiguous. They have said resolutely that some nebulous fear of disruption or violence isn’t enough. There has to be actual evidence of an actual disturbance.
In closing, the court observed: “As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or **material interference **with school activities, and **no disturbances or disorders **on the school premises in fact occurred.” (emphasis mine)
In short, your argument carries no force because it’s rooted in your imagination, and perhaps feigned, moral indignation. Fortunately for you, you have the right to express those all you want. Equally fortunate for the student at hand, you don’t get restrict everyone else’s rights as you deem fit.
The boy in question is, as discovered through a massive cover up of a salacious scandal, actually a girl.
That’s a value judgment. It isn’t inappropriate under the law, which is the only litmus test that matters in this country. You can argue the ethics of it, or the morality of it, but as I’ve capably demonstrated elsewhere in this thread, there is no viable legal argument.
Why stop there? If you’re going to make a slippery slope argument, you generally want to use examples of things which support your claim, not tear it apart. Nothing up there is on its face unconstitutional.
First off, I don’t find the shirt to be graphic or offensive at all to an adult. It’s actually pretty clever.
I’m also not a big fan of censorship in schools.
That said, this shirt is not appropriate in a K-8 school. Young kids have vivid imaginations and often fill in the pieces themselves without asking an adult for more information. A shirt like that could easily give nightmares to a kindergartener or first grader – particularly one whose mother is pregnant or has a new baby. It’s a much more appropriate topic in a middle school or high school setting where all the kids understand where babies come from and what abortion is. At that point, they can begin debating the topic in a personal way, not a “team life” / “team choice” way.
I would similarly object to an anti-smoking shirt in a K-8 setting that depicted an adult man smoking, smoking and then gone. It’s an appropriate message for pre-teens and teens, but unnecessarily harsh and disturbing for a K-2 kid with a parent who smokes.
Public schools should go to standardized uniforms.
I remember my friend used to hide a shirt he had from his parents with a guy in a jail cell with a shotgun in his mouth while he rested on the toilet. He’d change on his way to school.
I hated the idea of uniforms as a kid, but I think it’s a great idea now.
They should have those rights in equal measure to adults. For whom all restrictions on those rights are suspect and must be justified. You don’t get to say “You can’t print xxxxx in your newspaper because I think it might upset some people”, you need to make a compelling case for a reason to abridge a fundamental right.
Ok, how about…they are at school. There you go a compelling case to abridge the fundamental right. If she wants to put the shirt on as soon as she leaves she has that right.
What rights they should have is a different discussion. We’re talking about what they do have. I think that children should have some rights equal to adults, but others which are graduated to accommodate their brain development. My view, as it turns out, is the predominant one.