I agree. We should wait until people are much, much older before exposing them to controversy; that’s surely the best way to raise informed citizens who can reason things out and thus be ready to take a meaningful role in society, and its controversies.
God, I hope you blindfold your kids on the way to and from school then. Otherwise, it’s a non-starter to say you don’t want them to learn about it from a t-shirt and then throw on (in school). Would learning about it from a t-shirt outside of school be okay? We don’t live in a vacuum. If you want to keep your children completely ignorant of anything complex until high school, home school them.
I have no idea why people can’t discuss a topic with children in age-appropriate terms. They’re going to hear about it somewhere, somehow. Might as well give them the impression you give half a shit about their education by talking to them about a topic with at least the information that you’ll discuss it with them when they’re older, but for right now . . .
See, you can do it in age-appropriate terms. Why can’t others?
Couldn’t you make that argument for anything your kids see that you don’t want them to see? Billboards or protesters holding signs, that sort of thing–you can’t control everything your kid sees or comes into contact with. Obviously, there are some things your kids shouldn’t be shown, but how do you control whether or not a kid happens to see a shirt or a sign that you don’t think they’re ready for.
I’m aware that there are a handful of states with no restrictions in the 3rd trimester, but those states don’t have any availability for them so it’s a moot point. Since this digression stems from a question about whether what is depicted on the t-short is an accurate chracterization of abortion in the US, I think the fact that actual avaiability of 3rd trimester abortions is so limited and so stringent pretty much puts the lie to that image. We know who PERFORMS 3rd trimester abortions in the US, and we know their conditions. If anyone wants to assert that purely elective abortions are performed in the 3rd trimester let’s see the evidence.
I never said that wouldn’y be illegal. It would be. I’ve already said more than once that the policy needs to be the same for either side.
Is there any reason to believe that the school has restricted only one side?
Heavens to Betsy! It’s almost as if you and your children live in a society of free actors who are entitled to think and say things while being quite indifferent to your own preferences as to what they should think and say! Oh, what a world, what a world!!!
A couple of years ago, a bartender friend of mine gave my son the shirt off of her back (my son was 12 or 13). He liked the shirt, and she had several that she wore at work, so she gave him one. I forget the picture, but it above the pic it said “IITYWIMWYBMAD?”
My son, showing questionable judgment, wore the shirt to school. The teacher asked what the letters meant and he said he did not know (he didn’t). The principal asked him and he insisted he had no idea. Eventually, the school dropped the matter, and my son never wore the shirt to school again.
Just recently, I ran into one of his teachers and she asked what the letters meant. I said, “If I tell you what it means, will you buy me a drink?” She gave me a coy grin and said, “yes”. And she’s teaching our youth!
That’s a lame argument. Schools have a particular mission. They have a right to restrict speech and activities which disrupt that mission. The notion that if a kid might see something outside a classroom, then that makes it ipso fact ok to see IN a classroom is ridiculous. Kids MIGHT see porn on the internet. Does that mean no parent should have a problem with kids seeing porn in a first grade classroom? That whole angle is asinine.
This line of reasoning is such bull. A second grader is 7 or 8 years old. Under no circumstances do they NEED to be dragged in to the abortion debate. You’re right, you can’t control what goes in the public sphere, but a school (even a public school) is not the public sphere. If someone wants to sanitize a 7 year old’s world of adult things they don’t have the capacity to truly understand (how many adults truly understand the abortion debate?), I say let them.
True story. When I was in 7th grade, I had a t-shirt with a picture of a turtle humping an army helmet. It had a caption that said, “If it feels good do it.” I wore it to school a couple of times without drawing any notice, but about the 3rd or 4th time, my gym coach finally noticed, and gave me a lecture about it and sent me to the office. They made me turn it inside out and told me not to wear it again.
The shirt had not caused ony disruption, or really even drawn any notice except for a couple of snickers from other kids here and there. Were my rights violated? Was I a victim? Should I have sued?
No, equating a kid watching porn to a citizen’s right to free speech is asinine.
Schools have a mission. True. One part of their mission is not to violate the constitutional rights of their students. Or, do you suggest there are other constitutional rights students have which can be culled if it makes the schools more efficient?
Apparently, you don’t understand a right versus a privilege. It’s a right because it can’t be so easily done away with at the whim of someone else.
Of course you bring up a great point: why is it that we have so many adults who lack the mental capacity and the desire to engage in deep critical thinking? Do you think it could possibly be related to how people like you want to keep our children from learning it in the first place?
It sounds to me like you’re defining their mission very narrowly. I think the mission of a school includes teaching what’s on the curriculum, but also includes teaching broader lessons about dealing with society, and to me, dealing with a classmate’s t-shirt is an acceptable part of that.
I also wish parents wouldn’t make political pawns out of their kids, but kids do sometimes get interested in these things at an early age.
What deep critical thinking were you engaged in when you were 7? Because I was in the trenches of the “Who is your favorite Ninja Turtle?” war and it has surely shaped the subsequent 20 years of my life.
Maybe. Unlike the question in this thread, there is no Supreme Court case directly on point for your case. Your case involves non-political speech (like Morse and unlike Tinker), but it doesn’t seem to go to the school’s educational mission (unlike Morse).
Well, in order for that to be “proven” they would have had to let her wear the shirt throughout the school day to see if anything happened. IIRC they stopped her very early on in the school day so there was almost no opportunity to actually disrupt the educational mission of the school.
That’s exactly what the parents of that child are doing when they turn her into a hunman anti-abortion banner. They’re interfering with the ability of other students to get an education free of distraction.
Anything which disrupts the mission of the school can be restricted. Citizens have a right to sing and dance, but that doesn’t mean students have a right to do it in an algebra class.
It is already well established that public schools have a right to restrict cetrtain rights under certain situations.
Do you buy that distinction though? I mean between political and non-political speech? I’ve always found it ridiculously weak. It’s the sort of BS used by MacKinnon in anti-porn crusades.
Note I am not denying it is present in the controlling law…
That you chose, or were allowed, to not to deal with complex issues as a child isn’t exactly a lesson the greater community should embrace.
When I was in grade school, I wasn’t concerned about cartoons. I was busy growing up and dwelling in reality with a sprinkling of wasteful time.
Let’s see, when I was second grade, I was busy studying a variety of things: introduction into logic, philosophy, literature, algebra, and probably some other stuff which I don’t recall offhand. My question to is why were not being made, in school, to examine such things? Or in general, why shouldn’t students be forced to? Isn’t it, after all, responsibility of schools to force upon students information about the world around them?
Not for children. Children don’t get rights in exactly equal measure to adults. This hasn’t been challenged anywhere here.
You have information we don’t? You don’t know if this girl in question independently holds this position? Even if she didn’t come to on her own, all that matters is that she holds the view.
No. That is a misstatement of the law. The issue, as I’ve repeatedly said, as current law says, as others have said, isn’t that a disruption happens. It’s that both a disruption happens, and that it is substantial.
And it’s equally well-established that those circumstances are limited by the right in question.
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.