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.
You think any school is going to let a kid wear a KKK shirt? Yeah right.
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.
Really? What message or idea would a shirt which simply said “Vulva” attempt to convey?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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.
You said “cherry picked” first. 
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.
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.
Do you not see that you’ve taken a picture from a discussion about a vulva and pulled it out?
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!”
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?
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”.
Um, okay? How is that different than the images on the abortion shirt?
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.
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).
Well, all I’m saying is that it should protect my cheap, retarded argument equally. Or not.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?”
Then the solution is simple: lock them away in a small room without any access to anyone.
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?”
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.
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?
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!”
Lost me here. I’m just saying that if abortion shirt is okay, abstinence shirt should be as well.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
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.