NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5359758.html

Two Winona High School students have found themselves in hot water with school officials.

Why? Because after Carrie Rethlefsen attended a performance of the play "The Vagina Monologues" last month, she and Emily Nixon wore buttons to school that read: "I [heart] My Vagina."

School leaders said that the pin is inappropriate and that the discomfort it causes trumps the girls' right to free speech. The girls disagree. And despite repeated threats of suspension and expulsion, Rethlefsen has continued to wear her button.

The girls have won support from other students and community members.

More than 100 students have ordered T-shirts bearing "I [heart] My Vagina" for girls and "I Support Your Vagina" for boys.

"We can't really find out what is inappropriate about it," Rethlefsen, 18, said of the button she wears to raise awareness about women's issues. "I don't think banning things like that is appropriate."

Their case could become another test of whether high school students have the right to express their views in school. Charles Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, has offered to help the girls.

"It's political speech," he said.

Samuelson acknowledged that school officials can limit speech considered detrimental or dangerous. But he said this case is similar to Tinker v. Des Moines, a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case where students were forbidden to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The court ruled that First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students and that administrators' fear about how others might react is not enough to squelch those rights.

"Free speech is a messy thing," Samuelson said. "People need to understand that opinions that they are not comfortable with, or even opinions they disagree with, need to be allowed."

Good students

To say the girls have never been in trouble at school before is an understatement. They are top students. Rethlefsen was in Minneapolis on Tuesday, presenting her science project on organic farming at General Mills. She has been invited to a prestigious international science and engineering fair for the fourth year in a row.

Nixon, 17, joked that when she was called into the assistant principal's office about the button issue, he told her: "I don't think we've ever met."

But they're in trouble now. And it could get worse.

Rethlefsen said school officials first told her the button was inappropriate in mid-March when a school secretary spotted it. That started a string of visits -- and debates -- with teachers, counselors, an assistant principal and the principal. A teacher barred Rethlefsen from her classroom as long as she wore her button.

"The principal said that by wearing the pin, I was giving people wrong ideas," Rethlefsen said. "That I was giving an open invitation [to guys]."

The girls said they tried to explain that the buttons are meant to spark discussion about violence against women, about women's rights. But Principal Nancy Wondrasch said others find the buttons offensive.

"We support free speech," she said. "But when it does infringe on other people's rights and our school policies, then we need to take a look at that."

Wondrasch said she thought they had worked out a compromise with the girls, allowing them to set up a table in the school to discuss women's issues. But Rethlefsen said school officials are insisting that they review and approve any information the girls want to present.

So they're turning to the T-shirts, paid for with money collected from friends and supporters. "And we're going to wear them sometime next week," Rethlefsen said.

Nixon said more than 100 students are expected to wear the shirts. She added that officials have threatened real consequences if that happens.

"They told us that if a single person showed up wearing them, we're going to get expelled," she said. "People are going to wear them anyway."

Wondrasch wouldn't comment on what sort of discipline the students might face. But the prospect of expulsion worries Rethlefsen's mother, Ann.

"She's a very independent young lady," Ann Rethlefsen said, adding that she understands the school's point. "We just want to make sure she graduates."

Her daughter has gained "a lot of support around town," she said. She's even received encouraging e-mails from noted feminist author Susan Faludi.

Nixon is nervous about what could happen next. But the girls say they are taking a stand.

"We're not trying to offend anyone," Nixon said. "But I want people to think for themselves and come up with their own conclusions."

The Minnesota ACLU has offered help to the students if necessary.

It looks like another assault of conservative political correctness on free speech that the students are bravely resisting.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5359758.html


The Minnesota ACLU has offered help to the students if necessary.

It looks like another assault of conservative political correctness on free speech that the students are bravely resisting.
Nahh. It's just the school trying to please everyone, and in the process pleasing no one, something most schools do all the time.

I personally see nothing wrong with it, and it would seem to me to be simply the students trying to spark some discussion by controversial means. I.E., it's free speech.

I personally see nothing wrong with it, and it would seem to me to be simply the students trying to spark some discussion by controversial means. I.E., it's free speech.

Ironically, the fact that the very mention of the word vagina is somehow contraversial is a big part of the reasoning behind the Vagina Monologues.

the shirt is fine for girls, however the guys dont need to wear them saying "i support your vagina". its too liberal.

the shirt is fine for girls, however the guys dont need to wear them saying "i support your vagina". its too liberal.

I'd wear one of those. My girlfriend would find it funny.

If there was an equivalent "I love my penis", I think it'd be pretty weird:)

But the whole vagina thing...if you didn't understand the context, I can see how it would be confusing and a bit discomfiting to see the word Vagina running around all day. Time to get over the embarassment of using PROPER words for our reproductive parts???

Ironically, the fact that the very mention of the word vagina is somehow contraversial is a big part of the reasoning behind the Vagina Monologues.
( shrug ) Some of my best friends are vaginas. :D

If there was an equivalent "I love my penis", I think it'd be pretty weird:)

But the whole vagina thing...if you didn't understand the context, I can see how it would be confusing and a bit discomfiting to see the word Vagina running around all day. Time to get over the embarassment of using PROPER words for our reproductive parts???
You'd think so, wouldn't ya! Tsk! :D

If there was an equivalent "I love my penis", I think it'd be pretty weird:)

I. Want. That. Shirt.

:D

what's the difference between i heart my vagina and i heart my lung? it is because one's a reproductive organ and the other is a pulminary organ?

no, it's because of close-minded conservative lackeys who are embarrased to say penis, vagina, foreskin, etc...

This is why i'm in the ACLU.

I. Want. That. Shirt.

:D
ROFLMAO!!! Me too! I'd wear one!

OMG! Can't you just imagine the reactions I'd get! ROFL!

EDIT: I already have a t-shirt that says "I am a professional. Do not attempt this at home!" I already get strange looks from that one. Can't you just imagine a 61 year old man with a beard and a slight limp wearing one that says, "I [ heart ] my penis!" ROFLMFAO!!!!!

I think a lot of people probably assumed from the pin that it was a pro-masturbation pin, which, heaven knows...is way ickier than just plain old sex, and therefore taboo :rolleyes:

I wonder if this same school would suspend a kid for wearing a NRA shirt? It's happened other places. I wonder if the ACLU would be as quick to defend that kid?

I think a lot of people probably assumed from the pin that it was a pro-masturbation pin, which, heaven knows...is way ickier than just plain old sex, and therefore taboo :rolleyes:
Masturbation is taboo? OMG! I'm doomed! :eek:

sticks and stones

If you're paying for school wear what you want. If you're a 14 year old going to school on the public dime, wear something that embarresses Grandma at the mall but not at school.

Write the check for your education and wear what you want. I just don't 14 year old girls as legitimate policy changers.

It's a sad fact of life that because these students are considered "children," they're granted fewer rights under legal precedent than adults are. High schools have rights to censorship that would be an outrage at the university level.

My high school experience had two polar opposites: In a high school in Maine, the principal was actually less likely to 'censor' articles than the newspaper advisor was, but in Maryland, the principal would censor stories. So much for teaching our children critical thinking skills.

School leaders said that the pin is inappropriate and that the discomfort it causes trumps the girls' right to free speech.
LOL

So obviously you're allowed to say whatever you want, unless someone doesn't like what you have to say. :rolleyes:

Masturbation is taboo? OMG! I'm doomed! :eek:

there goes my innocent view of the older generation

What about a button for guys that says "I heart your vagina too"?

Eh. The "I <3 My Vagina" thing is pretty vulgar and tasteless in my opinion. I mean, people ought to set their own boundaries on class I think, and there's no class in those kinds of slogans.

Still, in a play on Voltaire's famous declaration, I shall defend to the death their right to be vulgar and tasteless. :)

what's the difference between i heart my vagina and i heart my lung? it is because one's a reproductive organ and the other is a pulminary organ?

no, it's because of close-minded conservative lackeys who are embarrased to say penis, vagina, foreskin, cunnilingus, fellatio, **** diving, deep sea diving, masturbation, etc, etc etc...

This is why i'm in the ACLU.

Penis, vagina, foreskin, cock, ****, balls, scrotum, clit, pussy, dick, wand of fucking, rod pocket, G-spot, cum, cum stack, etc, etc, etc...

Have I offended anyone yet? :headbang:

Penis, vagina, foreskin, cock, ****, balls, scrotum, clit, pussy, dick, wand of fucking, rod pocket, G-spot, cum, cum stack, etc, etc, etc...

Have I offended anyone yet? :headbang:


nope, try again

Eh. The "I <3 My Vagina" thing is pretty vulgar and tasteless in my opinion. I mean, people ought to set their own boundaries on class I think, and there's no class in those kinds of slogans.

Why is it vulgar or tasteless? What if I said I love my eyes? Would that be vulgar or tasteless?

there goes my innocent view of the older generation
Hahahahaha! Oh, grow up! :p :D

Why is it vulgar or tasteless? What if I said I love my eyes? Would that be vulgar or tasteless?
Pffft no one is supposed to be ashamed of their eyes :rolleyes:

:D

I'm ashamed of the hair on my ass

I want the "I Support Your Vagina as Long as You Keep It Clean" button

What about a button for guys that says "I heart your vagina too"?

Or "I [penis] your vagina" - now that would be controversial!

Why is it vulgar or tasteless? What if I said I love my eyes? Would that be vulgar or tasteless?

All I'm saying is, what ever happened to subtlety and wit?

Penis, vagina, foreskin, cock, ****, balls, scrotum, clit, pussy, dick, wand of fucking, rod pocket, G-spot, cum, cum stack, etc, etc, etc...

Have I offended anyone yet? :headbang:
No no no, it's Wand of Fucking +3.

Or "I [penis] your vagina" - now that would be controversial!
ROFLMAO! Duh!

No no no, it's Wand of Fucking +3.

Shit... your right, I knew that didn't look right. :p

Beats the hell out of "I [spade] my Vagina". :eek:

Perhaps "I [club] my Penis" would be fun.

Or the ever popular "I [heart] your Vagina".

Or just "I [heart] Vagina".

ROFLMAO!!! Me too! I'd wear one!

OMG! Can't you just imagine the reactions I'd get! ROFL!

EDIT: I already have a t-shirt that says "I am a professional. Do not attempt this at home!" I already get strange looks from that one. Can't you just imagine a 61 year old man with a beard and a slight limp wearing one that says, "I [ heart ] my penis!" ROFLMFAO!!!!!

...That's hilarious!

I can't wait until i'm old. :D

Or "I [penis] your vagina" - now that would be controversial!

I want that shirt too :p

No no no, it's Wand of Fucking +3.

I counter your Wand of Fucking with my Def+5 Rubber Helmet of Strawberry Flavour!

I'm ashamed of the hair on my ass

I want the "I Support Your Vagina as Long as You Keep It Clean" button


The vagina is a self cleaning device.

I counter your Wand of Fucking with my Def+5 Rubber Helmet!
Sorry, I only roll natural 20's

the shirt is fine for girls, however the guys dont need to wear them saying "i support your vagina". its too liberal.
I was displeased by it too, but what do you mean too liberal? It needs to be more liberal, along the lines of "I Love Your Vagina!"

True, too. :D

Can't you just imagine a 61 year old man with a beard and a slight limp wearing one that says, "I [ heart ] my penis!" ROFLMFAO!!!!!
Teehee! "Limp". ;)

I wonder if this same school would suspend a kid for wearing a NRA shirt? It's happened other places. I wonder if the ACLU would be as quick to defend that kid?
I don't know about the ACLU, but I think that kid should be allowed to wear it, just as I said that a kid should be allowed to wear his "homosexuality is immoral" t-shirt.

sticks and stones

If you're paying for school wear what you want. If you're a 14 year old going to school on the public dime, wear something that embarresses Grandma at the mall but not at school.

Write the check for your education and wear what you want. I just don't 14 year old girls as legitimate policy changers.
This is understandable if what's happening is costing taxpayer money, but it's not, so what's the problem? Would you have a problem with an NRA t-shirt? A t-shirt that said "Homosexuality is immoral?"

What about a button for guys that says "I heart your vagina too"?
I agree, there so should be one!

Okay.... this poses a really good question about free speech.
And I think that this would be the "best" place to talk about or get thoughts on it...

I can see that the majority of people here believe that it is okay for these girls to wear these pins (tshirts) about "I <3 My Vagina".
Even if it offends some people, it is okay, because they have a right to free speech.
And they should not be disciplined or singled-out or "picked on" because of it.
Right? (Seriously not trying to me mean or hateful here) :)

Okay... so, if most of us/you feel this is okay for them... shouldn't it be okay for everyone?
No matter what they are wearing?

My children and I are Christians. (Please don't flame me)
We went to the mall... and he bought a shirt, "Got Jesus?".
Wouldn't wearing that shirt in school be okay because of freedom of speech?
You can't say no because it is "religious"... because he is just expressing his "Freedom of Speech" just like the vagina girls. (LOL, vagina girls)
It doesn't have anything to do with the Separation of Church and State thing... cause this is freedom of speech, not mandatory prayer, bible preaching or anything like that.

So, really, if those girls and the ACLU and you guys here think it is okay to wear Vagina stuff... it HAS to also be okay for my son to wear Jesus stuff.

I am not trying to be a troll, not trying to be accusitory... I want to honestly get thoughts on this... and possibly try to prove a point.
Because in all reality... if it is okay for those girls to wear vagina stuff (even if it offends some) it is okay for my son to wear Jesus stuff (even if it offends some). :p

Or "I [penis] your vagina" - now that would be controversial!
that would also be incredibely, incredibely awesome

i would pay somebody to wear that t-shirt for a day

Okay... so, if most of us/you feel this is okay for them... shouldn't it be okay for everyone?
No matter what they are wearing?

My children and I are Christians. (Please don't flame me)
We went to the mall... and he bought a shirt, "Got Jesus?".
Wouldn't wearing that shirt in school be okay because of freedom of speech?
You can't say no because it is "religious"... because he is just expressing his "Freedom of Speech" just like the vagina girls. (LOL, vagina girls)
It doesn't have anything to do with the Separation of Church and State thing... cause this is freedom of speech, not mandatory prayer, bible preaching or anything like that.

So, really, if those girls and the ACLU and you guys here think it is okay to wear Vagina stuff... it HAS to also be okay for my son to wear Jesus stuff.

And it would be just fine.

Okay.... this poses a really good question about free speech.
And I think that this would be the "best" place to talk about or get thoughts on it...

I can see that the majority of people here believe that it is okay for these girls to wear these pins (tshirts) about "I <3 My Vagina".
Even if it offends some people, it is okay, because they have a right to free speech.
And they should not be disciplined or singled-out or "picked on" because of it.
Right? (Seriously not trying to me mean or hateful here) :)

Okay... so, if most of us/you feel this is okay for them... shouldn't it be okay for everyone?
No matter what they are wearing?

My children and I are Christians. (Please don't flame me)
We went to the mall... and he bought a shirt, "Got Jesus?".
Wouldn't wearing that shirt in school be okay because of freedom of speech?
You can't say no because it is "religious"... because he is just expressing his "Freedom of Speech" just like the vagina girls. (LOL, vagina girls)
It doesn't have anything to do with the Separation of Church and State thing... cause this is freedom of speech, not mandatory prayer, bible preaching or anything like that.

So, really, if those girls and the ACLU and you guys here think it is okay to wear Vagina stuff... it HAS to also be okay for my son to wear Jesus stuff.

I am not trying to be a troll, not trying to be accusitory... I want to honestly get thoughts on this... and possibly try to prove a point.
Because in all reality... if it is okay for those girls to wear vagina stuff (even if it offends some) it is okay for my son to wear Jesus stuff (even if it offends some). :p

Well the Jesus stuff is totally fine, I think. In my opinion, it's little different than wearing a yarlmuke or hijab. There's always something that *someone* will find offencive.

Nahh. It's just the school trying to please everyone, and in the process pleasing no one, something most schools do all the time.

Very true.

it HAS to also be okay for my son to wear Jesus stuff.

Of course it is.

Oh.. and BTW, he and I have talked about it... and he has decided NOT to wear it to school.

And for the reasons mentioned, that being, it might offend some.
And the school might send him home to change.
But, that isn't the point of my argument. ;) :)

edit: okay guys, thanks. :)

Sableonia I think they shoudl be able to wear whatever they want. Jesus stuff included. I am for the separation of church and state but don't think this has anythign to do with it. It's free speech like you say. I also thinkg that people dont have a right to wear whatever they want and not expect to get ridicule from other students.

My children and I are Christians. (Please don't flame me)
We went to the mall... and he bought a shirt, "Got Jesus?".
Wouldn't wearing that shirt in school be okay because of freedom of speech?
You can't say no because it is "religious"... because he is just expressing his "Freedom of Speech" just like the vagina girls. (LOL, vagina girls)
It doesn't have anything to do with the Separation of Church and State thing... cause this is freedom of speech, not mandatory prayer, bible preaching or anything like that.

So, really, if those girls and the ACLU and you guys here think it is okay to wear Vagina stuff... it HAS to also be okay for my son to wear Jesus stuff.
Why the hell do you assume that we wouldn't be in favour of the freedom to wear religious stuff?

Oh.. and BTW, he and I have talked about it... and he has decided NOT to wear it to school.

And for the reasons mentioned, that being, it might offend some.
How is "got Jesus?" offensive to anyone?

If there was an equivalent "I love my penis", I think it'd be pretty weird:)

But the whole vagina thing...if you didn't understand the context, I can see how it would be confusing and a bit discomfiting to see the word Vagina running around all day. Time to get over the embarassment of using PROPER words for our reproductive parts???
Just think of how many guys would like to see their girls in a shirt that says I “support” your penis :D

Why the hell do you assume that we wouldn't be in favour of the freedom to wear religious stuff?


because apparently, those who support separation of church and state HATE RELIGION and spit on anyone who attempts to show support of religion.

because apparently, those who support separation of church and state HATE RELIGION and spit on anyone who attempts to show support of religion.
Lol might want to put a [/sarcasm] tag in there if intended :p
Some people are slow on the uptake lol

Just think of how many guys would like to see their girls in a shirt that says I “support” your penis :D

for guys: I http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_heartbeat.gif my cock

for girls: I http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_heartbeat.gif the cock.

because if you're going to be controversial you may as well be obscene too.

Lol might want to put a [/sarcasm] tag in there if intended :p
Some people are slow on the uptake lol


:p NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

for guys: I http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_heartbeat.gif my cock

for girls: I http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_heartbeat.gif the cock.

because if you're going to be controversial you may as well be obscene too.
Got to love jay and silent bob :p

:p NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:fluffle: LOL

:fluffle: LOL :D :fluffle: :D

Got to love jay and silent bob :p

Really? I dont think i've seen any of their movies before. Though i might have heard the lines quoted at me by somebody.

Really? I dont think i've seen any of their movies before. Though i might have heard the lines quoted at me by somebody.
Thoes lines are almost strait out of the movie (well more in the context of "he LOVES the cock" :D)

Why should a student, who is not a represenative of the state, be banned from wearing a yarlmuke or hijab?

I absolutely did NOT say they should be banned from wearing yarlmukes or hijabs! I said it would be fine! Reread what I said, please.

In the coming weeks, several Members of Congress are expected to try to expand indecency fines on broadcast television and spread their use to include cable television and the Internet. This would mean many cable television shows, such as The Sopranos or Sex and the City, would need to change their content or face significant fines.

Cable television and the Internet should not be censored by the government since they are voluntary media: each of us chooses to watch -- or not watch -- cable television just as we decide which Internet sites to visit. The government should not place ill-defined restrictions on “indecency” on these mediums.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that cable and satellite are different than the broadcast media because one has to make the choice to subscribe to the service. We need to ensure that we can watch what we want without fear that government bureaucrats will declare some controversial content “indecent.”

Several Senators want to increase “indecency” fines for broadcast TV. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation dramatically increasing fines for "indecency" on broadcast radio and television. Several Senators intend to try to increase these fines and expand their use to satellite and cable TV as well.

No one has adequately been able to define “indecency.” No one, including the Supreme Court, has offered a practical definition of what is indecent, leading to ambiguity and confusion. Already broadcasters and speakers are very wary of running afoul of the FCC. For example, some ABC stations refused to air "Saving Private Ryan" during Veterans Day because of fear of the FCC over language contained in the movie. Increasing fines will further chill speech in order to avoid possibly ruinous fines.

The government should not censor voluntary media. The Supreme Court has made it clear that cable and satellite are different than the broadcast media because one has to make the choice to subscribe to the service. And, technology is available to block cable channels the consumer does not want in their homes. Expanding "indecency" to cable and satellite would be clearly unconstitutional, and would severely chill speech in that medium.


Just thought I'd throw that in, since I was on the ACLU site this morning.

I absolutely did NOT say they should be banned from wearing yarlmukes or hijabs! I said it would be fine! Reread what I said, please.

Sorry, I was inserting an "a" in there, so that it sounded as if you were saying wearing a "Got Jesus?" t-shirt was ok, but wearing a hijab was not.

How is "got Jesus?" offensive to anyone?
Everything offends someone, some people just like to be pissed off in general.

Anybody who gets squemish by the word "vagina" at that age needs to grow up.

ROFLMAO!!! Me too! I'd wear one!

OMG! Can't you just imagine the reactions I'd get! ROFL!

EDIT: I already have a t-shirt that says "I am a professional. Do not attempt this at home!" I already get strange looks from that one. Can't you just imagine a 61 year old man with a beard and a slight limp wearing one that says, "I [ heart ] my penis!" ROFLMFAO!!!!!


That would be hilarious :p

In the coming weeks, several Members of Congress are expected to try to expand indecency fines on broadcast television and spread their use to include cable television and the Internet. This would mean many cable television shows, such as The Sopranos or Sex and the City, would need to change their content or face significant fines.

Cable television and the Internet should not be censored by the government since they are voluntary media: each of us chooses to watch -- or not watch -- cable television just as we decide which Internet sites to visit. The government should not place ill-defined restrictions on “indecency” on these mediums.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that cable and satellite are different than the broadcast media because one has to make the choice to subscribe to the service. We need to ensure that we can watch what we want without fear that government bureaucrats will declare some controversial content “indecent.”

Several Senators want to increase “indecency” fines for broadcast TV. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation dramatically increasing fines for "indecency" on broadcast radio and television. Several Senators intend to try to increase these fines and expand their use to satellite and cable TV as well.

No one has adequately been able to define “indecency.” No one, including the Supreme Court, has offered a practical definition of what is indecent, leading to ambiguity and confusion. Already broadcasters and speakers are very wary of running afoul of the FCC. For example, some ABC stations refused to air "Saving Private Ryan" during Veterans Day because of fear of the FCC over language contained in the movie. Increasing fines will further chill speech in order to avoid possibly ruinous fines.

The government should not censor voluntary media. The Supreme Court has made it clear that cable and satellite are different than the broadcast media because one has to make the choice to subscribe to the service. And, technology is available to block cable channels the consumer does not want in their homes. Expanding "indecency" to cable and satellite would be clearly unconstitutional, and would severely chill speech in that medium.


Just thought I'd throw that in, since I was on the ACLU site this morning.

I would love to see them try to sensor the internet … the only thing they would be able to enforce is servers located with the US.

Silly people the internet is NOT a MST there is no entry point and there can be no filters short of forcing every individual isp to do filtering.
The US does not own the internet and it has no way of enforcing internet indecency laws

This is only an issue in government schools. In a private school, the owner can rigthfully determine what types of speach will and will not be allowed on campus. The rights of any student in such a school are not being violated if she's prohibited from wearing or saying such things, because she's there voluntarily. But in public schools, the students have a certain expectation of rights because
A) They're required to be there by the state. and
B) Their parents are required to pay for it.

It seems reasonable that the school's policies should reflect the general sentiments of the taxpayers, but that can make the government school feel more like a prison than a learning institution.

The thing I'm wondering is: Why worry about free speech when you're not even allowed to leave?

I don't know about the ACLU, but I think that kid should be allowed to wear it, just as I said that a kid should be allowed to wear his "homosexuality is immoral" t-shirt.What about a "God hates fags!" shirt?

I would love to see them try to sensor the internet … the only thing they would be able to enforce is servers located with the US.

Silly people the internet is NOT a MST there is no entry point and there can be no filters short of forcing every individual isp to do filtering.
The US does not own the internet and it has no way of enforcing internet indecency lawsIf anyone can shut down the internet, it's the US government.

Or "I [penis] your vagina" - now that would be controversial!
I B====D your vagina?

I guess it was thought that those of a more liberal bent would object to a "Got Jesus" t-shirt because of posts like the one student who wanted to shut down a bible study group at his school because he was offended by the mere idea of religion, or like the multitude of "I hate religious people/religion" posts on multiple threads.

What about a "God hates fags!" shirt?
Sure he can. Kids might call him a bigoted fucktard, but hey, that's life.

plus they would prolly be beaten to a pulp by the liberal militant gays

What about a "God hates fags!" shirt?
Fine, of course he'd have to be councelled that in wearing the t-shirt he is broadcasting the fact that he's an ignorant fucktard and is likely to get lynched.

And of course it would be better were it my God hates fags.

censor the internet !! but...but... the pr0n :< ... er ... i mean nationstates...yea...heh
>.>
<.<
whew...

Agh! I hate articles like this. Schools and centers of education should be the last places to infringe upon free speech, especially something as harmless as this. I wish I knew why Puritanical morality is so highly upheld in this country when the pervailing activity flies in the face of it...

If the buttons said "I <3 my elbows" no one would have thought twice about it.

Agh! I hate articles like this. Schools and centers of education should be the last places to infringe upon free speech, especially something as harmless as this. I wish I knew why Puritanical morality is so highly upheld in this country when the pervailing activity flies in the face of it...

If the buttons said "I <3 my elbows" no one would have thought twice about it.

serously, the vajina is just another part of the body... now if it had said
"I <3 my ankles" that is wayyyy outa line :>

Sometimes people read way too much into things.

There's a big difference between wearing something that says "I love my vagina" and "My vagina is open to all comers" (excuse the pun.)

Fine, of course he'd have to be councelled that in wearing the t-shirt he is broadcasting the fact that he's an ignorant fucktard and is likely to get lynched.

And of course it would be better were it my God hates fags.

"Hate Speech" is not protected anymore. (in fact, I don't think it ever was...) a "god hates fags" tee-shirt used to be grounds for suspension or expulsion (even back in the dark ages of the 1980's.)
this really goes back to whether children are, in fact, entitled to the same constitutional protections as Adults. Children are not legally responsible for most of their actions-presumably, this is because they're not yet old enough to be responsible, and Rights are nothing without responsibility.

That said, I think the Principal in this case is being a (censored) moral-coward, just like other ZT policy actions (Calling the cops over an action-figure's toy gun, charging a kid with 'Assault' for playing cops and robbers/cowboy/army on the playground and pretending to shoot guns, expelling a sixth grader over an aspirin...)
People give the schools this authority, but the schools in turn delegate it to blind policies to avoid lawsuits.

One of the drivers behind one of hte Conservative Movement's big planks (School Choice) is the desire to have one's hellspawn educated by people who act like adults, take responsibility, and occasionally (gasp!!) make decisions without resorting to the most expedient means possible.

because apparently, those who support separation of church and state HATE RELIGION and spit on anyone who attempts to show support of religion.
Yeah... that's what I was thinking, swimmingpool. [/sarcasm] ;) :p
(the sarcasm note as directed by UpwardThrust) :D

I'm not a swiming pool, I'm just a hot tub

In the coming weeks, several Members of Congress are expected to try to expand indecency fines on broadcast television and spread their use to include cable television and the Internet. This would mean many cable television shows, such as The Sopranos or Sex and the City, would need to change their content or face significant fines.

Cable television and the Internet should not be censored by the government since they are voluntary media: each of us chooses to watch -- or not watch -- cable television just as we decide which Internet sites to visit. The government should not place ill-defined restrictions on “indecency” on these mediums.
Certainly, especially considering that the FCC was originally set up to monitor the government-funded media ONLY, if I'm not mistaken.

What about a "God hates fags!" shirt?
Should be allowed. The wearer should not be surprised or complain when people challenge the message, however.

That article was sent to me through an email. I am out of school, however, I never realized how ridiculous these things that I rallied for actually were when I did them as a student.
High school students are constantly looking for ways to voice their opinions, and they should. But, when they decide to make it a rally against administration, they are screwing themselves. It has nothing to do with the word vagina. I remember these people in school. I was one of these people when I was in school. I eventually found that I could exercise my opinion in groups such as Model UN and Youth Legislature.

These girls have a right to an opinion, but to risk their grades for something that does not mean anything in the end (except to feel they have one over on adults) is ridiculous If this were college, that is one thing, because you are considered an adult. High school students are not, and SHOULD have to follow the rules of administration. Everyone has become way to sensitive to things, and 16 year old revolutionaries are a dime a dozen. And, pointless.

maybe I could find a way to exploit this and make up some pins or shirts that say "I luv big breasts!! " I could make a million-spread the word.

they should fight the school district in court. Why should the schools be able to disobey the first amendment? I think they should keep wearing the buttons and shirts. I would wear a shirt that was controversial.

If schools are not allowed to restrict things they find to be potentially disruptive, then should businesses not be allowed to, either?

Agh! I hate articles like this. Schools and centers of education should be the last places to infringe upon free speech, especially something as harmless as this. I wish I knew why Puritanical morality is so highly upheld in this country when the pervailing activity flies in the face of it...

If the buttons said "I <3 my elbows" no one would have thought twice about it.Yes, but if they said "I <3 my anus", that would turn some heads.

they should fight the school district in court. Why should the schools be able to disobey the first amendment? I think they should keep wearing the buttons and shirts. I would wear a shirt that was controversial.You've got church and state mixed up.

Amendments are violated. Commandments are disobeyed. Rules are broken...

If schools are not allowed to restrict things they find to be potentially disruptive, then should businesses not be allowed to, either?

(a) Schools can restrict disruptive things. If, for instance, the girls were changing "Vagina! Vagina!" in history class, they could punish them. However, unless they ban all buttons, there is no reason to ban this one.

(b) Businesses are private entities. As long as they are not run/funded by the government, they can certainly restrict things.

(a) Schools can restrict disruptive things. If, for instance, the girls were changing "Vagina! Vagina!" in history class, they could punish them. However, unless they ban all buttons, there is no reason to ban this one.

(b) Businesses are private entities. As long as they are not run/funded by the government, they can certainly restrict things.

(a) Who determines "disruptive" in this case, though?

(b) A government-run business cannot force its employees not to wear, for example, a button that contains foul language? (Not saying that "vagina" is foul language, just using it as a general example) If such businesses have the same restriction to only restricting "disruptive" things as public schools apparently do, again, who determines what is "disruptive"? Does it end up relying on the court?

That would be hilarious :p
Hey! You live in NC. What say I get one and then meet you for lunch to prove I'm wearing it? ROFL!

Just think of how many guys would like to see their girls in a shirt that says I “support” your penis :D
LOL! Or how about just "I'm an athletic supporter!" :D

(a) Who determines "disruptive" in this case, though?

In general, the administration. If there is dispute (such as in this case), then it may go to the courts. In this case, there is quite a bit of dispute. The schools will likely lose.

Meanwhile, "disruptive" is fairly easily defined. These girls were not disrupting class. The administration simply didn't like the button. That is not a disruption.

(b) A government-run business cannot force its employees not to wear, for example, a button that contains foul language? (Not saying that "vagina" is foul language, just using it as a general example) If such businesses have the same restriction to only restricting "disruptive" things as public schools apparently do, again, who determines what is "disruptive"? Does it end up relying on the court?

If the government-run business bans *all* buttons, that is fine. If a government-run business bans all buttons with foul language, it must define foul language.

Of course, an employer has more leeway with restrictions, as the employees choose to be there and are representative of the employer. Students do not choose to be at school, nor are they official representatives of the school or the state.

How do you love a body part...especially one for reproducing? :confused:

How do you love a body part...especially one for reproducing? :confused:
There are books where you can learn that. If I tried to explain here in a public forum, I would get banned! :D

Sounds good, Dempublicents. Thanks. :D

What a load. These kids were probably just doing it for attention. They hide behind 'free speech' while really they are just abusing it. Anyway, when did high schools become democracies, as far as I can remember they were harsh dictatorships ruled with an iron fist.

What a load. These kids were probably just doing it for attention.

Yeah, I tried to raise awareness about violence against women in high school just for attention too. Oh, wait, I didn't.

Also remember that these kids have pretty much *never* been in trouble.

They hide behind 'free speech' while really they are just abusing it.

How is this abusing free speech?

Anyway, when did high schools become democracies, as far as I can remember they were harsh dictatorships ruled with an iron fist.

The courts have ruled that free speech does apply to high school kids, although in a limited fashion.

Sounds good, Dempublicents. Thanks. :D

YAY! (I don't get agreement on here very often =)

Hey! You live in NC. What say I get one and then meet you for lunch to prove I'm wearing it? ROFL!

I wouldn't have a hard time spotting you for sure. LoL

If you get one, don't be suprised if a red headed chic walks up to you laughing her ass off while tryin to introduce herself. :p

Yeah, I tried to raise awareness about violence against women in high school just for attention too. Oh, wait, I didn't.
Well I never mentioned you but anyway. I have no problem with people raising awareness about important issues such as violence against women. I just find it hard to believe that wearing a 'I love my vagina' badge was a serious attempt at raising awareness of anything except themselves. This is an assumption I know, I could be wrong, maybe they were legitimate.

Also remember that these kids have pretty much *never* been in trouble. Like I said, I could be wrong about the intentions of these kids. Though a clean sheet doesn't mean much.



How is this abusing free speech? It's not if they were serious. If they were just doing it for fun or attention however, then it is a waste of free spech. Perhaps abuse was too ahrsh a word.

If they are trying to make a serious point however, surely they could have utilised their free speech better than just wearing a badge and refusing to take it off. It just seems like kids behaving like kids to me.



The courts have ruled that free speech does apply to high school kids, although in a limited fashion. Yeah, the last bit was a joke.

After reading the article provided, and having attended The Vagina Monologues live, I must say, I'm miffed that these girls thought they wouldn't get in trouble for wearing the pins to school. I'm not saying they should be prevented from wearing them, I'm just surprised they really didn't think they'd be in hot water. I mean, of course, wearing a pin that say "I heart vaginas" is not only going to get you sent to principal's office, it's probably going to get you suspended and otherwise in trouble...

It's not fair, it's not right and it's a violation of free speech, but unfortunately, not many high school teenagers understand the power of that statement in today's day and age. Most teenager boys, in particular, see the word vagina and think sex. Many girls are too afraid to use the word vagina as power, even though it's a crude way of going about it, and I think these girls knew what they were getting themselves into by wearing these pins.

Well I never mentioned you but anyway. I have no problem with people raising awareness about important issues such as violence against women. I just find it hard to believe that wearing a 'I love my vagina' badge was a serious attempt at raising awareness of anything except themselves. This is an assumption I know, I could be wrong, maybe they were legitimate.

Are you familiar with the Vagina Monologues?

I dunno, I got away with wearing a naked mermaid shirt in high school. There was a starfish covering her nether regions, but other than that it was full nudity. The only people it really pissed off were the school nurse and an english classmate.

Are you familiar with the Vagina Monologues?
No. So that is probably why I don't get it. I'm happy to hear about it though.

Though unless others in their high school were familiar with it, they were probably raising as much awareness there as they are with me by wearing a badge about it.

Hmm....

Actually, this sudden public highlight of the female's love for her private parts proves that....

Freud was right! Penis envy exists and rural high school females' envy of us males just went over the breaking point! It also seems that some males are sympathetic towards the females' sour feelings. Aww, isn't that sweet... Then again perhaps they have found an opportunity to score. :D :D

Actually, in equating themselves with their vaginas, women ultimately degrade themselves and become sexual objects of desire... Also, apparently all profits from the play go to V-Day causes which is a campaign thing for very feminist causes. I take it that these girls are too nieve to realize that they are being exploited for political gain by people. Or as said earlier, they felt that no one was paying attention to them so why not get on TV in some bizzare way?

Are you familiar with the Vagina Monologues?
Ok this may seem weird for me to say

Yes I am familiar with the vagina monologues and what they try to convey (and I completely agree with the point they are trying to convey)
BUT to those that do not know them (which is many many people) the pin contains phrases that do not make sense (well in context anyways) and are potentially offensive (not saying they are to me) and without the knowledge of the monologues.

I still think they should be able to wear the button but I can defiantly see how the other side takes offense to it …
You don’t see it as offensive because you understand the message … but I actually saw the pin before I saw the monologues and I know how aback I was taken at first myself

(sorry I am rambling don’t be too harsh on me :) )

No. So that is probably why I don't get it. I'm happy to hear about it though.

The Vagina Monologues are a set of monologues that come from discussions with women of all ages and backgrounds about and relating to sexuality.

The purpose of the monologues is to:

(a) do away with misconceptions, such as the misconception that the vagina is somehow "dirty" or "bad" or that women cannot or should not enjoy their sexuality

(b) raise awareness of and empower women over violent acts committed against them

(c) get people talking about difficult issues, as they shouldn't really be difficult at all.

The monologues cover everything from normal sex to rape to beatings to childbirth. I'm sure that transcripts are available online.

Though unless others in their high school were familiar with it, they were probably raising as much awareness there as they are with me by wearing a badge about it.

It is likely that there were others there who knew it. Meanwhile, the purpose of the pin was to *start* conversation. If you saw someone in between classes wearing such a pin, would you not wonder what it was all about?

Ok this may seem weird for me to say

Yes I am familiar with the vagina monologues and what they try to convey (and I completely agree with the point they are trying to convey)
BUT to those that do not know them (which is many many people) the pin contains phrases that do not make sense (well in context anyways) and are potentially offensive (not saying they are to me) and without the knowledge of the monologues.

I still think they should be able to wear the button but I can defiantly see how the other side takes offense to it …
You don’t see it as offensive because you understand the message … but I actually saw the pin before I saw the monologues and I know how aback I was taken at first myself

(sorry I am rambling don’t be too harsh on me :) )

I can see how someone might take offense if they had no idea what the purpose was. While offense is not its purpose, being taken aback probably is. This will get you to examine *why* you were so bothered by it, and hopefully realize that you really had no reason to be. After having it explained to them, they should no longer be offended.

How do you love a body part...especially one for reproducing? :confused:

Much like pride parades are more about not being ashamed that about having any particular pride in sexuality, loving your vagina is more about not being ashamed of it than about having any more love for it than any other body part.

I can see how someone might take offense if they had no idea what the purpose was. While offense is not its purpose, being taken aback probably is. This will get you to examine *why* you were so bothered by it, and hopefully realize that you really had no reason to be. After having it explained to them, they should no longer be offended.
Logically nothing to be offended about … but by logic as long as there is no vitriol directly behind the words there is no real reason to be offended by ANY word … but because of social constructs some people are (I.E. why is using the N word bad in a rap song that holds no anger towards those of African descent)

Some words have social ramifications that’s one … in fact a lot of words associated with reproduction (irregardless if sex) have stigmata’s attached

Where I am going with this is some words have more attached to them then strict definitions we can say that people SHOULD not be effected by it but they are.

Where I am going with this is some words have more attached to them then strict definitions we can say that people SHOULD not be effected by it but they are.

I agree.

And, in fact, a big part of the movement is to point out how silly that is.

I agree.

And, in fact, a big part of the movement is to point out how silly that is.
It is silly but never the less it seems to be part of me (or the human condition) on something lower then the individual word is the reaction it spikes

What I mean is possibly the removal of that stigmata is possible for that individual word but like we have seen out of the pc movement the stigmata may just travle to another word or set of words

If I had to guess about this issue, I'd imagine the students were just out to get a reaction out of the school admins. Whatever their motives though, I'd be more apt to stand behind the students.

At the same time the school's position is easy to justify. Even if they were morally on the same side as the students it would be impossible to express an official position towards that end. Their decision is more political: they need to be able to say to the more prudish people "see, we tried." This will ensure nobody gets fired or gets booted from the school board.

If jobs were not on the line, the best position for the school to take would be one of acceptance. It lets the students both express their views and blow off whatever steam they had built up in a reasonable manner.

Ha, they talked about Iowa! We actually contributed something to the country! Besides feeding big parts and stuff. But that's boring.

On a side note, I do think the ACLU would support a kid who wore an NRA shirt. They've supported KKK members and Nazis before, and the NRA is somewhat less extreme than them.

How do you love a body part...especially one for reproducing? :confused:

There are several books on the matter, if you are curious.

Ha, they talked about Iowa! We actually contributed something to the country! Besides feeding big parts and stuff. But that's boring.

On a side note, I do think the ACLU would support a kid who wore an NRA shirt. They've supported KKK members and Nazis before, and the NRA is somewhat less extreme than them.

They didn't support the girl who wore the confederate flag dress to the prom.

This is another example of people lining up behind free speech - as long as they approve of it.

They didn't support the girl who wore the confederate flag dress to the prom.

Did she ask?

This is another example of people lining up behind free speech - as long as they approve of it.

Yeah, I'm really sure that the people at the ACLU approve of the messages of NAMBLA and the KKK, just as well as the NAACP, comic book shops, and Christian girls who want to put Bible verses as their senior quotes.

Go Minnesota!

Did she ask?

Well, how would I know? But it was a free speech case of national prominance where they were conspiciously absent.


Yeah, I'm really sure that the people at the ACLU approve of the messages of NAMBLA and the KKK, just as well as the NAACP, comic book shops, and Christian girls who want to put Bible verses as their senior quotes.

They love the KKK, it helps them out. They are, after all, an advocacy group and not apolitical.

Frankly, I wonder what your opnion was about the confederate flag dress, I don't recall you being so quick to defend free speech in that instance.

I, on the other hand, realize that the both the vagina button, and the flag dress are inappropriate for school.

i really dont see anything innapropriate about wearing a button that has teh word vagina on it

people talk a lot worse than that and so what its a body part, no one would care if it said "I support my hair"

Well, how would I know? But it was a free speech case of national prominance where they were conspiciously absent.

I don't think it was all that "nationally prominent", considering I follow the news pretty closely and never heard of it.

They love the KKK, it helps them out. They are, after all, an advocacy group and not apolitical.

How does the KKK group help them out, especially when the KKK speaks out against the very principles they stand for?

Frankly, I wonder what your opnion was about the confederate flag dress, I don't recall you being so quick to defend free speech in that instance.

I don't recall ever hearing about it. If it was a case of her wearing a dress that happened to be the pattern of the Confederate flag and getting punished in some way for it, that is obviously bull. I won't say that I agree with her for wearing it. If her motives were racially based, then I would have little respect for her. If her motives had something to do with the flag being a "long-time history" of any given state, I would question her knowledge of history. But, one way or another, she certainly would have a right to wear such a dress.

I, on the other hand, realize that the both the vagina button, and the flag dress are inappropriate for school.

Why is that? Are teenagers not allowed to have opinions? Are teenage girls not allowed to speak out against violence?

The Vagina Monologues are a set of monologues that come from discussions with women of all ages and backgrounds about and relating to sexuality.

The purpose of the monologues is to:

(a) do away with misconceptions, such as the misconception that the vagina is somehow "dirty" or "bad" or that women cannot or should not enjoy their sexuality

(b) raise awareness of and empower women over violent acts committed against them

(c) get people talking about difficult issues, as they shouldn't really be difficult at all.

The monologues cover everything from normal sex to rape to beatings to childbirth. I'm sure that transcripts are available online.

Sounds interesting, well for women anyway. Thanks for the info. Personally I have nothing against women or the word vagina, except that when you say it, it sounds about 5 times longer than it actually is.



It is likely that there were others there who knew it. Meanwhile, the purpose of the pin was to *start* conversation. If you saw someone in between classes wearing such a pin, would you not wonder what it was all about?
Good point. If that is the case then it's cool with me. It just seemed like kids wanting attention, like a student refusing to take off a metallica T-shirt after he'd seeen the concert and that's what my assumption was based on. That and I think teenagers these days suck :) [Though I'm probably just jealous 'cause I'm getting old]

i really dont see anything innapropriate about wearing a button that has teh word vagina on it

people talk a lot worse than that and so what its a body part, no one would care if it said "I support my hair"

Some would claim that the sexually explicit material is disruptive to an educational setting. Unless your hair is styled as some kind of massive phallice atop your head, obviously there's nothing sexually explicit about your hair.

By the way. The "no one would care if it said 'I support my [hair, elbow, eye]'" argument has been many many times already.

Some would claim that the sexually explicit material is disruptive to an educational setting. Unless your hair is styled as some kind of massive phallice atop your head, obviously there's nothing sexually explicit about your hair.

By the way. The "no one would care if it said 'I support my [hair, elbow, eye]'" argument has been many many times already.
Depends on the society … to a Muslim woman (traditionalist) it can be just as bad to expose their hair as it would to flash someone

Some would claim that the sexually explicit material is disruptive to an educational setting. Unless your hair is styled as some kind of massive phallice atop your head, obviously there's nothing sexually explicit about your hair.

By the way. The "no one would care if it said 'I support my [hair, elbow, eye]'" argument has been many many times already.

My pubic hair is pretty explicit. No split ends though!

I don't think it was all that "nationally prominent", considering I follow the news pretty closely and never heard of it.

Yah, it was. It was on CNN and shit, there was eve a thread about it on here. I am sure you can look it up if you want.



How does the KKK group help them out, especially when the KKK speaks out against the very principles they stand for?

Because the KKK helps their overall agenda. Which is admittedly anti-kkk, but if not for the ACLU, the rest of us would have written those wankers off years ago. (Well except for Bob Byrd). Keeping the 'hate' alive helps out their overall view of where the US should go. (Plus I liek how the KKK has been recast as a republican thingy :rolleyes: )


I don't recall ever hearing about it. If it was a case of her wearing a dress that happened to be the pattern of the Confederate flag and getting punished in some way for it, that is obviously bull. I won't say that I agree with her for wearing it. If her motives were racially based, then I would have little respect for her. If her motives had something to do with the flag being a "long-time history" of any given state, I would question her knowledge of history. But, one way or another, she certainly would have a right to wear such a dress.

Well it was on the news quite a bit. She hand sewed a dress in the style of the stainless banner, and then was suspended from school for wearing it to the prom. Then she couldn't graduate, and couldn't go to college. What's more apparently it wasn't even a political statement, more of a fashion statement.

And look, I am a NYC resident, and this happened in kentucky I think, so if I heard of it, then the rest of the country did.


Why is that? Are teenagers not allowed to have opinions? Are teenage girls not allowed to speak out against violence?

Not at school they don't. It is not an appropriate forum for advocacy. You wouldn't condone the wearing of white power t-shirts at school for the same reason.

snip





Because the KKK helps their overall agenda
snip

yup it does it helps their agenda to promote free speach

yup it does it helps their agenda to promote free speach


That's not their agenda.

That's not their agenda.
No of course not :rolleyes:

I wonder if this same school would suspend a kid for wearing a NRA shirt? It's happened other places. I wonder if the ACLU would be as quick to defend that kid?

Yes. I suspect they would. *nod*

No of course not :rolleyes:

Fine, sign your right to speak over to the ACLU, I don't really care.

Yes. I suspect they would. *nod*
Its amazing how people point out how biased ACLU is by pointing at the supposedly “liberal” point of view (like the vagina thing) but any time they stand up for something other then that (NRA KKK or NAMBALA … or any of the other “detestables”)somehow it is just part of a plot to make us think they want free speech

(not saying the group is completely un biased … it seems like no group is but not nearly as much as some seem to make out)

Its amazing how people point out how biased ACLU is by pointing at the supposedly “liberal” point of view (like the vagina thing) but any time they stand up for something other then that (NRA KKK or NAMBALA … or any of the other “detestables”)somehow it is just part of a plot to make us think they want free speech

(not saying the group is completely un biased … it seems like no group is but not nearly as much as some seem to make out)

Get fired for speaking out against affirmative action (a fairly non-contraversial viewpoint), and see how quickly they won't defend you.

Fine, sign your right to speak over to the ACLU, I don't really care.
Which in no way proved your point :P I am not saying they are fool proof or unbiased but you make it seem like they have some secret agenda and that anything they do that does not fit in with the “secret” agenda must be a fake to achieve it
Is it not more likely that their support for the KKK was legit based on their nationally publicized public agenda?

Get fired for speaking out against affirmative action (a fairly non-contraversial viewpoint), and see how quickly they won't defend you.
Got proof or just random claims?

If the frigging ACLU is so loving of free speech and anti-censorship, why didn't they pick up this girl's case?

http://www.wnyt.com/x1649.xml?ag=x156&sb=x183

A federal lawsuit is slated to be filed Friday. At issue is whether a Schenectady girl's constitutional rights were violated when school officials asked her to remove a necklace.

Twelve-year-old Raven Furbert insists the beaded necklace shows her support for the troops. School administrators say regardless of what the necklace means, the beads are not allowed.

For Raven, every day is a chance to be patriotic. Her uncle, J.D. Barnes, is serving in Iraq. So she made a red, white and blue beaded necklace to express her patriotism and her support for the troops.

She wore the necklace to Mont Pleasant Middle School on Tuesday until she was told to take it off.

Got proof or just random claims?

What like a clicky. No. But it is what it is.

I tell you what though, a good friend of mine was nailed in a union dispute in westchester, and they refused to get involved. Apparently NAMBLA takes up all their time.

So believe what you want.

If the frigging ACLU is so loving of free speech and anti-censorship, why didn't they pick up this girl's case?

http://www.wnyt.com/x1649.xml?ag=x156&sb=x183

Good post.

Its amazing how people point out how biased ACLU is by pointing at the supposedly “liberal” point of view (like the vagina thing) but any time they stand up for something other then that (NRA KKK or NAMBALA … or any of the other “detestables”)somehow it is just part of a plot to make us think they want free speech

(not saying the group is completely un biased … it seems like no group is but not nearly as much as some seem to make out)

Like any organization, they have to pick their battles. Also, though they are possibly the most famous defender of civil liberties, there are others. Some decidedly more 'conservative' in reputation. Just because the ACLU didn't defend a particular cause, doesn't mean they wouldn't. They've defended religions, they've defended us FROM religions. That has caused many people to call them anti-christian. That's somewhat unfair. I'm certain that if someone was trying to make sacrificing goats in the name of the Dark Gods mandatory in schools, they would probably be as against that just as much as mandatory christian prayer in schools.

The bottom line is that nobody has tried to make me believe in The Goddess when I was in school. They HAVE tried to make me believe in Christ. (I do, but that's not the point.)

If the frigging ACLU is so loving of free speech and anti-censorship, why didn't they pick up this girl's case?

http://www.wnyt.com/x1649.xml?ag=x156&sb=x183
Im not sure … not a member of the ACLU I was just pointing out that it is unlikely that it is some big conspiracy I have made a point to say over and over that it does not necessarily mean they are not biased. But I don’t know enough about the law with things like specifically disallowing beads ... nor were the school rules posted

(by the way I found some vague references to appeals documents sent by the ACLU to the court based on this case but have not nailed it down yet (working on my server right now) what makes you think they haven’t done some work based on it? )

Good post.

Not really. I googled it. The ACLU didn't pick upt the case because someone beat them to it. They have offered their support and have volunteered to aid with any appeals if necessary. :p

Im not sure … not a member of the ACLU I was just pointing out that it is unlikely that it is some big conspiracy I have made a point to say over and over that it does not necessarily mean they are not biased. But I don’t know enough about the law with things like specifically disallowing beads ... nor were the school rules posted

(by the way I found some vague references to appeals documents sent by the ACLU to the court based on this case but have not nailed it down yet (working on my server right now) what makes you think they haven’t done some work based on it? )

The ACLU offered their support. But she already had a civil rights specialist attorney. :)

What like a clicky. No. But it is what it is.

I tell you what though, a good friend of mine was nailed in a union dispute in westchester, and they refused to get involved. Apparently NAMBLA takes up all their time.

So believe what you want.
OhhhHH anecdotal evidence

The ACLU offered their support. But she already had a civil rights specialist attorney. :)
Thank you :) I was trying to look while managing some database stuff and confusing myself lol

Not really. I googled it. The ACLU didn't pick upt the case because someone beat them to it. They have offered their support and have volunteered to aid with any appeals if necessary. :p
WHich is why I caught some refferences but not much out of it ... makes sence normaly where there is a pretty clear cut case like this their actions are always the subject of massive rants one way or the other ... this one was suprisingly nutral in respect to ACLU which got me curious as to why bookworms said they refused the case

Im not sure … not a member of the ACLU I was just pointing out that it is unlikely that it is some big conspiracy I have made a point to say over and over that it does not necessarily mean they are not biased. But I don’t know enough about the law with things like specifically disallowing beads ... nor were the school rules posted

(by the way I found some vague references to appeals documents sent by the ACLU to the court based on this case but have not nailed it down yet (working on my server right now) what makes you think they haven’t done some work based on it? )
Because all the cases that they champion have at least one news article about the case on their site.
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRightsList.cfm?c=159&ContentStyle=1&num=1000

For her, there's nothing

Thank you :) I was trying to look while managing some database stuff and confusing myself lol

Unfortunately, I can only find this in blogs(I really hate 'news' blogs). But I've found them on decidedly conservative-slanted blogs under the title, "The ACLU finally did something right". How pleasant. :)

Because all the cases that they champion have at least one news article about the case on their site.
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRightsList.cfm?c=159&ContentStyle=1&num=1000

For her, there's nothing
Yeah searched there too got the same null result but lunitic covered it already
Edit: you know people can refuse their help as well its lack of a story does not mean that they refused to offer help

Unfortunately, I can only find this in blogs(I really hate 'news' blogs). But I've found them on decidedly conservative-slanted blogs under the title, "The ACLU finally did something right". How pleasant. :)
Lol we must have searched the same thing :fluffle:

OhhhHH anecdotal evidence

All the evidence in these kinds of debates in anecdotal. Or hadn't you noticed that.

All the evidence in these kinds of debates in anecdotal. Or hadn't you noticed that.
Not necessarily you could be presenting statistics to past history cases, or an average break down of topics … you know using real hard data rather then personal unverifiable stories

Not necessarily you could be presenting statistics to past history cases, or an average break down of topics … you know using real hard data rather then personal unverifiable stories

True that, about statistics, but I don't know of any for the ACLU.

The rest is all anecdotal.

True that, about statistics, but I don't know of any for the ACLU.

The rest is all anecdotal.
I understand … and don’t think I am trying to get down on you … I get the feeling of bias sometimes myself I just cant seem to prove it … I am to much of a “prove it “ person I don’t mean to get in your face about it :)

I understand … and don’t think I am trying to get down on you … I get the feeling of bias sometimes myself I just cant seem to prove it … I am to much of a “prove it “ person I don’t mean to get in your face about it :)

Yah, well all I can tell you is that I know of three individual instances where the ACLU were asked for support - and all were really deserving cases for help - and three times people got the big F.O. becuase the ACLU had other fish to fry. (And one of these instances caused about 25 low income families to lose their homes).

So, not knowing anything official about the ACLU - statistics wise -, I have to go with my second hand personal experience, which tends to indicate that they are a bunch of cynical douchebags with a hidden agenda.

Thus, whenever anyone defends them, I argue against them, because I don't want them getting anymore money until they reform their ass, and really start to do what they claim they do.

But it's all good. :)

Yah, well all I can tell you is that I know of three individual instances where the ACLU were asked for support - and all were really deserving cases for help - and three times people got the big F.O. becuase the ACLU had other fish to fry. (And one of these instances caused about 25 low income families to lose their homes).

So, not knowing anything official about the ACLU - statistics wise -, I have to go with my second hand personal experience, which tends to indicate that they are a bunch of cynical douchebags with a hidden agenda.

Thus, whenever anyone defends them, I argue against them, because I don't want them getting anymore money until they reform their ass, and really start to do what they claim they do.

But it's all good. :)
Like most things the ideals may (and I don’t know enough of the stats to say one way or another) be better then the implementation. Has happened all through history, defiantly not unthinkable that it is happening again

Like most things the ideals may (and I don’t know enough of the stats to say one way or another) be better then the implementation. Has happened all through history, defiantly not unthinkable that it is happening again

See, this is the problem these days. I think a national conversation about limits of free speech is a good thing in respect of the workplace and classrooms. However, substantive issues always get bogged down in defense of political groups &c.

I admit I am as guilty of this as anyone, but it is still a shame.

I would like to see less political hackery, and more debate about actual issues. In other words, don't defend the organization, defend the ideas.

Never happen though.

I wonder if this same school would suspend a kid for wearing a NRA shirt? It's happened other places. I wonder if the ACLU would be as quick to defend that kid?

The ACLU defended the right of the KKK to peaceably assemble - not their views, their right.

If the ACLU didn't defend that kid's rights, its members would have something to say about it (I'm not a member - yet. I will be in the near future).

sticks and stones

If you're paying for school wear what you want. If you're a 14 year old going to school on the public dime, wear something that embarresses Grandma at the mall but not at school.

Write the check for your education and wear what you want. I just don't 14 year old girls as legitimate policy changers.

They aren't paying for it? Public education isn't free - it just seems that way.

Kids - 14 year old girls nor not - don't pay taxes, nor school fees. Yet the student still has rights that even the parents can't infringe upon, much less government officials (even parochial school officials).

So, really, if those girls and the ACLU and you guys here think it is okay to wear Vagina stuff... it HAS to also be okay for my son to wear Jesus stuff.

I am not trying to be a troll, not trying to be accusitory... I want to honestly get thoughts on this... and possibly try to prove a point.
Because in all reality... if it is okay for those girls to wear vagina stuff (even if it offends some) it is okay for my son to wear Jesus stuff (even if it offends some). :p

Absolutely!

The opposition to prayer in schools, etc, is when it's government sponsored. At least, where rationality is retained.

A child wearing a "Got Jesus?" shirt is simply wearing a "Got Jesus?" shirt - not imposing anything upon anyone, and even if he was, your son isn't a school official. ;)

There shouldn't be any problem (except in the chance of an overzealous school administrator, as seems to be the case in the case referenced).

What might be a problem would be a "Jesus Loves Your Vagina!" t-shirt. I think a lot of people would find that too much! :p

No of course not :rolleyes:

Anarchist Communist Freemason Illuminati Fascist conspiracy to take over the world... didn't you know that?

Hey, I'd wear one of those shirts that state "I so totally support your pussy!" (Why can't we 'heart' the vagina as well?!?)

Free speech is great but those who demand the greatest tolerance from others are very often the same people who would like to restrict others from speaking their mind freely.

What might be a problem would be a "Jesus Loves Your Vagina!" t-shirt. I think a lot of people would find that too much! :p

I want one of those too :D

aaa again weird fuss about some not important stuff.

No no no, it's Wand of Fucking +3.

+3? Are you sure?

*looks again*

Maybe +1?

;)

Well it was on the news quite a bit. She hand sewed a dress in the style of the stainless banner, and then was suspended from school for wearing it to the prom. Then she couldn't graduate, and couldn't go to college. What's more apparently it wasn't even a political statement, more of a fashion statement.

As long as there was nothing about it explicitly against school rules, I see no problem at all with it.

Not at school they don't. It is not an appropriate forum for advocacy. You wouldn't condone the wearing of white power t-shirts at school for the same reason.

Actually, I would have no problem with the wearing of white-power t-shirts, although I would disagree with the message. The only difference is that the white power t-shirts would have a high probability of leading to violence, and thus might need to be restricted.

If the frigging ACLU is so loving of free speech and anti-censorship, why didn't they pick up this girl's case?

http://www.wnyt.com/x1649.xml?ag=x156&sb=x183

(a) If the school is being truthful, and all beads of this type are banned, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. This would hold true for the current case under discussion if all buttons were banned.

(b) Do you really think the ACLU has the funds to take every case that might be related to civil rights? Has this girl contacted them?

(a) If the school is being truthful, and all beads of this type are banned, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. This would hold true for the current case under discussion if all buttons were banned.

(b) Do you really think the ACLU has the funds to take every case that might be related to civil rights? Has this girl contacted them?
From what we can find out on it they turned down the ACLU offer being they already had a fairly decent lawyer that has experience in the area of the case

What like a clicky. No. But it is what it is.

I tell you what though, a good friend of mine was nailed in a union dispute in westchester, and they refused to get involved. Apparently NAMBLA takes up all their time.

So believe what you want.

Has it ever crossed your mind that they might have certai amounts of money earmarked for certain areas of the law?

I have a friend (Yay! more anecdotal evidence, eh) who was defended by the ACLU. He ran a comic book shop and got called in on trumped up charges of selling lude material to a minor. This is something he would never do. In fact, he rarely, if ever, has obscene material in the shop. He does keep comics that are rated as mature, but is careful who he sells them to (and it wouldn't be illegal to sell those to minors anyways). So they trump up these charges and confiscate a good bit of the material from his store (including old Batman comics and other such "obscene" material).

The ACLU came in to help defend him. In the end, in the weirdest ruling ever, they ruled that he had not sold lude materias, but was still a sex offender. (Don't ask me how they figured this one out - this is the same town that sues 30-year old cops having sex with teenage girls for rape, instead of statutory rape or child molestation). The ACLU at this point had run out of money that could be used on the case, so he was unable to appeal the ruling.

He isn't upset about it. They did what they could. Meanwhile, he gets a kick out of driving people's property values down when he moves into a neighboorhood - his own little FU to the system.

From what we can find out on it they turned down the ACLU offer being they already had a fairly decent lawyer that has experience in the area of the case

Makes sense, although I think they are going to have to show either that there is not a prohibition against all such beads, or that the rule against beads is itself a breach of rights. I say good luck to them, all this dress code bull in schools is a pain.

Makes sense, although I think they are going to have to show either that there is not a prohibition against all such beads, or that the rule against beads is itself a breach of rights. I say good luck to them, all this dress code bull in schools is a pain.
Looking at the article it comes only under “gang related” articles of clothing. Not specifically beads so I don’t know lol

Has it ever crossed your mind that they might have certai amounts of money earmarked for certain areas of the law?

I have a friend (Yay! more anecdotal evidence, eh) who was defended by the ACLU. He ran a comic book shop and got called in on trumped up charges of selling lude material to a minor. This is something he would never do. In fact, he rarely, if ever, has obscene material in the shop. He does keep comics that are rated as mature, but is careful who he sells them to (and it wouldn't be illegal to sell those to minors anyways). So they trump up these charges and confiscate a good bit of the material from his store (including old Batman comics and other such "obscene" material).

The ACLU came in to help defend him. In the end, in the weirdest ruling ever, they ruled that he had not sold lude materias, but was still a sex offender. (Don't ask me how they figured this one out - this is the same town that sues 30-year old cops having sex with teenage girls for rape, instead of statutory rape or child molestation). The ACLU at this point had run out of money that could be used on the case, so he was unable to appeal the ruling.

He isn't upset about it. They did what they could. Meanwhile, he gets a kick out of driving people's property values down when he moves into a neighboorhood - his own little FU to the system.


Typical. So his life is fucked, but they still have money for NAMBLA. He should probably sue them for malpractice instead of trying to grin and bear it.

The case should go to court and be decided in the favor of the school, Porter v. Ascention Parish School Board will most likely be used as precedence. The ability to have free speech ends when you are interfeering in any way to the right every student has to FAPE. The teachers may be taking it too far by threatening expulsion but they are well within their requirements as a representative of the institution to require them to remove the pins.

Typical. So his life is fucked, but they still have money for NAMBLA. He should probably sue them for malpractice instead of trying to grin and bear it.
He would have no leg to stand on they donated as much as they could to the case … and just because you don’t agree with NAMBLA’s case does not make theirs any less deserving (if this was anything other then a smartass reply)

Besides they do not sign a contract to help nor do they guarantee complete success malpractice would not even be an option

Besides they do not sign a contract to help nor do they guarantee complete success malpractice would not even be an option

Legal representation doesn't work that way. You can't just abandon a client because he - or you - runs out of money.

Moreover, given that he was indigent, the appeal cost would have been negligible, especially as it was a criminal case.

Legal representation doesn't work that way. You can't just abandon a client because he - or you - runs out of money.

Moreover, given that he was indigent, the appeal cost would have been negligible, especially as it was a criminal case.
Psst they did not abandon him during the case they just did not offer to help with the appeal that is a COMPLEATLY different situation

If they abandoned him during the case there would be an issue but there is NOTHING saying they have to continue through the appeals process

Psst they did not abandon him during the case they just did not offer to help with the appeal that is a COMPLEATLY different situation

If they abandoned him during the case there would be an issue but there is NOTHING saying they have to continue through the appeals process


And I know that, but you have to put your best face forward. Christ, filing an appeal brief is usually no problem if you have fought the case to begin with.

Also. psst. they got a ruling from the bench apparently, so the guy is a felon without ever going in front of a jury. That sounds like a half-assed defense to me.

And I know that, but you have to put your best face forward. Christ, filing an appeal brief is usually no problem if you have fought the case to begin with.

Also. psst. they got a ruling from the bench apparently, so the guy is a felon without ever going in front of a jury. That sounds like a half-assed defense to me.
Where did it ever say that he did not get a jury trial?

Where did it ever say that he did not get a jury trial?

Prolly this:


In the end, in the weirdest ruling ever, they ruled that he had not sold lude materias, but was still a sex offender.

Couldn't get that in a jury trial.

Prolly this:



Couldn't get that in a jury trial.
Why not? If he was put up for two charges and one was denied …

And he could have gotten a jury trial where the judge overturned the decision (all possible) and none of them would have been the defenders fault (at least not malpractice)

Typical. So his life is fucked, but they still have money for NAMBLA. He should probably sue them for malpractice instead of trying to grin and bear it.

Why? Why should he feel entitled to outside help in the first place? They did what they could, and he is happy with that.

Couldn't get that in a jury trial.

Oh really? Juries do some pretty odd things sometimes.

Oh really? Juries do some pretty odd things sometimes.

Not in criminal trials they don't. They only get to say yes or no, they don't give rulings.

Not in criminal trials they don't. They only get to say yes or no, they don't give rulings.
But if the man was on trial for more then one offense he could have gotten a yes for one and a no for the other

Thereby making him a sex offender while not being guilty of the other offense
Or have you not heard of split decisions?

Not in criminal trials they don't. They only get to say yes or no, they don't give rulings.

And they can give a no to one offense and a yes to another. See?

But if the man was on trial for more then one offense he could have gotten a yes for one and a no for the other

Thereby making him a sex offender while not being guilty of the other offense
Or have you not heard of split decisions?

:fluffle:

While I understand their right to free speech, there is a difference between having free speech, and just being a pain in the arse.
Why say I heart my vagina or something similar when you can say I support women's rights / ask me about how you can support women's rights etc.

:fluffle:
I have kept saying it we think a like :fluffle:

And they can give a no to one offense and a yes to another. See?

You said ruling. He couldn't have got a ruling from a jury.

And I doubt that any jury would have exonerated him for the underlying offence, and then voted guilty on the hithertofore unknown crime of "being a sex offender".

You said ruling. He couldn't have got a ruling from a jury.

And I doubt that any jury would have exonerated him for the underlying offence, and then voted guilty on the hithertofore unknown crime of "being a sex offender".
Though his second charge could be one that carried a penalty that would raise him to sex offender status

Anyway, when did high schools become democracies, as far as I can remember they were harsh dictatorships ruled with an iron fist.
lol, classic

After reading the article provided, and having attended The Vagina Monologues live

-snip-
TH is back! Where had you gone?

Because the KKK helps their overall agenda. Which is admittedly anti-kkk, but if not for the ACLU, the rest of us would have written those wankers off years ago. (Well except for Bob Byrd). Keeping the 'hate' alive helps out their overall view of where the US should go. (Plus I liek how the KKK has been recast as a republican thingy :rolleyes: )
Hold on, what about freedom of speech, even if it is hateful? Isn't this the problem that we (incl. conservatives) have with political correctness? That it is restrictive of free speech?

Maybe if the KKK hadn't endorsed Bush in 2004 they would not have been recast as Republican. :rolleyes:

While I understand their right to free speech, there is a difference between having free speech, and just being a pain in the arse.
Why say I heart my vagina or something similar when you can say I support women's rights / ask me about how you can support women's rights etc.
Saying "you can have freedom of speech as long as it's not a pain in the arse" is the same as saying "you can have freedom of speech as long as you agree with me."

"I <3 My Vagina" commands more attention than the mundane "I support women's rights". That's why.

Maybe if the KKK hadn't endorsed Bush in 2004 they would not have been recast as Republican. :rolleyes:

Well that's all well and good. The republicans didn't want their endorsement, and nor did they seek it. So you see how that helps the ACLU by keeping them alive.


Everyone hates them. Jesus Christ, I could start a "Gays are Useless Fags" movement and have them endorse the British Labour Party, and by your logic, Tony Blair would be a homophobe. (He is like, but that is a different issue).

Saying "you can have freedom of speech as long as it's not a pain in the arse" is the same as saying "you can have freedom of speech as long as you agree with me."

"I <3 My Vagina" commands more attention than the mundane "I support women's rights". That's why.
Though we have to remember this took place in a high school full freedom of speech is not always an option in such an institution (well its an option but some find it disruptive with is decidedly against most schools charters)

Though his second charge could be one that carried a penalty that would raise him to sex offender status

And that would have been a verdict, not a ruling.

And I fail to see how you could be convicted of a secondary offence, when you are aquitted of the underlying crime. It is just not possible, and any judge would vacate it in a heartbeat. Failing that, it would be a piss easy appeal.

Well that's all well and good. The republicans didn't want their endorsement, and nor did they seek it. So you see how that helps the ACLU by keeping them alive.


Everyone hates them. Jesus Christ, I could start a "Gays are Useless Fags" movement and have them endorse the British Labour Party, and by your logic, Tony Blair would be a homophobe. (He is like, but that is a different issue).
That was NOT his logic … he was pointing out why they may be seen as a conservative organization because of their support

That has nothing to do with your example (a more correct example would be the “Gays are useless fags” would be seen as a labor sympathetic party because if their support for tony blare) I hope you see the difference

And that would have been a verdict, not a ruling.

And I fail to see how you could be convicted of a secondary offence, when you are aquitted of the underlying crime. It is just not possible, and any judge would vacate it in a heartbeat. Failing that, it would be a piss easy appeal.
So you are basing your whole argument off of one incorrect usage of the word?

And maybe but they were out of money to donate ... the guy can appeal with a public defender

I wonder if this same school would suspend a kid for wearing a NRA shirt? It's happened other places. I wonder if the ACLU would be as quick to defend that kid?

If they'll defend Rush Limbaugh I'm pretty sure that they'll defend just about anyone.

While I understand their right to free speech, there is a difference between having free speech, and just being a pain in the arse.
Why say I heart my vagina or something similar when you can say I support women's rights / ask me about how you can support women's rights etc.

There's a difference, but there's also an overlap. That's why there has to be freedom of speech.

If people always go for the watered down version of what they're trying to say then it just gets ignored, and eventually it becomes the "extreme" option when people have forgotten about how many levels it could have been taken too.

Take that recent ban on that church's ads for example. They show a club set up to reject people for cosmetic reasons, and then they say that their church doesn't. The ads were rejected on basis of the implication that other chruches do. By saying that they're tolerant, they are accused of calling others intolerant, which is shocking. If they'd started out by saying that Southern Baptists are closet-racist, blatently homophobic, amoral bastards then that would have been the accusation of intolerance and their "nice" ad would have been fine.

When you have a message you are entitled to deliver it in a way that makes those who oppose it uncomfortable. Otherwise there is no freedom of speech.

The discourse will just go:
"why not say I support women's rights instead of I <3 my vagina"
then
"Why not just say you support people's rights instead of implying that I don't support women's rights?"
then
"You support people's rights, are you saying the rest of us don't?"
then
"Stop complaining about all this "civil rights" bullshit, no one cares about civil rights anymore, no I won't turn down the genital electrocution machine."

I wonder if this same school would suspend a kid for wearing a NRA shirt? It's happened other places. I wonder if the ACLU would be as quick to defend that kid?

I'm curious as to what instances you can document in which the ACLU refused to help.

Because it has happened and the ACLU defended the kid all the way to a successful conclusion (for the kid and free speech) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?DID=32671&CID=164

They didn't support the girl who wore the confederate flag dress to the prom.

This is another example of people lining up behind free speech - as long as they approve of it.

The ACLU offered -- they weren't asked, but offered -- and were turned down because she is already represented by the Southern Legal Resource Center (upon whom I will not comment at this time).

The ACLU has repeatedly defended students who wear Confederate symbols.

Here a couple of examples:
ACLU backs students on Confederate shirts (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/09/confederate.shirts.ap/)
http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/newsletter.html (see first entry)

Yes, but if they said "I <3 my anus", that would turn some heads.

Yes, it most likely would. However, unless teachers are unable to teach class without constant interruption and distraction directly related to the buttons, I hardly see how they could be considered disruptive, let alone in bad taste.

Yes, it most likely would. However, unless teachers are unable to teach class without constant interruption and distraction directly related to the buttons, I hardly see how they could be considered disruptive, let alone in bad taste.
Same way they found hats in the classroom disruptive in my old school

Yah, it was. It was on CNN and shit, there was eve a thread about it on here. I am sure you can look it up if you want.

*snip*

Well it was on the news quite a bit. She hand sewed a dress in the style of the stainless banner, and then was suspended from school for wearing it to the prom. Then she couldn't graduate, and couldn't go to college. What's more apparently it wasn't even a political statement, more of a fashion statement.

*snip*

Almost a complete fiction.

Teen barred from prom for Confederate-flag dress sues (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14583)
Girl Sues Over Confederate Prom Dress Ban (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142338,00.html)

She was not suspended from school.
She did graduate.
She is currently in college.
It was a political statement -- according to her and her lawyers.

"I wanted to show part of my Southern heritage," she said, adding that she had worked on the dress' design for four years.

Ironically, as one blog pointed out, the girl is from Kentucky. Kentucky was not a part of the Confederacy. I hope she is not planning on majoring in history. :rolleyes:

snip
Ironically, as one blog pointed out, the girl is from Kentucky. Kentucky was not a part of the Confederacy. I hope she is not planning on majoring in history. :rolleyes:
LOL I was not even paying attention to it (there was a thread about it a few months ago lol )

If the frigging ACLU is so loving of free speech and anti-censorship, why didn't they pick up this girl's case?

http://www.wnyt.com/x1649.xml?ag=x156&sb=x183


As has been noted, the ACLU has offered their help. Not clear that it has been accepted as of yet.

Not that whether or not the ACLU has defended every case of free speech is a good test. There are lots of lawyers outside the ACLU, mmkay?

the shirt is fine for girls, however the guys dont need to wear them saying "i support your vagina". its too liberal.

theres no such thing as too liberal

Because all the cases that they champion have at least one news article about the case on their site.
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRightsList.cfm?c=159&ContentStyle=1&num=1000

For her, there's nothing

What makes you think that every case in which the ACLU helps or offers help requires mention on the national website?

Rather silly premise.

But, while we are there:

Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)

Is the ACLU involved in every free speech case? No.

Do they refuse some cases? Yes.

Are they nonetheless extremely consistent in defending free speech across the political/ideological/religious spectrum? Yes.

Get fired for speaking out against affirmative action (a fairly non-contraversial viewpoint), and see how quickly they won't defend you.

Pfft.

You can get fired by a private employer for speech without it violating free speech.

Affirmative action is hardly non-controversial.

Got any evidence of someone with an actual leg to stand on that the ACLU refused to defend or is this just a make-believe smear?

What like a clicky. No. But it is what it is.

I tell you what though, a good friend of mine was nailed in a union dispute in westchester, and they refused to get involved. Apparently NAMBLA takes up all their time.

So believe what you want.

Wow. The ACLU turned down one case (the basis of which you don't reveal) according to you.

Those scumbags!

How dare they not represent for free anyone that thinks they have a case but does not want to pay for a lawyer?

Especially cases that appear to have nothing to do with the First Amendment or other issues on which the ACLU specializes!

----

Is the ACLU perfect? No. No organization is.

Are they generally fighting the good fight for civil liberties? Yes.

Wow. The ACLU turned down one case (the basis of which you don't reveal) according to you.

Those scumbags!

How dare they not represent for free anyone that thinks they have a case but does not want to pay for a lawyer?

Especially cases that appear to have nothing to do with the First Amendment or other issues on which the ACLU specializes!

----

Is the ACLU perfect? No. No organization is.

Are they generally fighting the good fight for civil liberties? Yes.


I'm sorry, I'm just not impressed with the ACLU. On certain First Amendment issues, and other civil rights issues, it's taken the lead, but their public image is heavily politicized. At least the NRA admits that it's a political organization, even if it tries to defend the Second Amendment (which seems to be a waste of time - but the NRA has gotten a lot of pro-gun legislation passed). The ACLU should admit as much.

You said ruling. He couldn't have got a ruling from a jury.

And I doubt that any jury would have exonerated him for the underlying offence, and then voted guilty on the hithertofore unknown crime of "being a sex offender".

He is the type that would outright demand a jury trial. As such, I would say that I most likely used the wrong word.

And I don't doubt anything about juries. There have been way too many juries that have done absolutely inexplicable things, especially in a small GA hick town like this one, where much of the jury probably would've thought comic books were sin.

Even this past year, the DA in this town tried a cop for the wrong crime, effectively putting a child molester not only back on the street, but still a police officer.

Well that's all well and good. The republicans didn't want their endorsement, and nor did they seek it. So you see how that helps the ACLU by keeping them alive.
I'm not saying that Republicans wanted their endorsement. I would certainly not insinuate that Republicans are racists and like the KKK. Not at all.

But why should Republicans come into this? The ACLU is a self-declared non-partisan organisation.

Also, why would the ACLU oppose the freedom to wear a Confederate flag (not that they actually did oppose it), but support it's more extreme extension (the KKK's right to free speech)? Where's the logic there?

I don't want to hear about how it's a conspiracy to bring down the Republican party. If they wanted to do that, then they would not be defending Rush Limbaugh right now.

But, while we are there:

Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)

Is the ACLU involved in every free speech case? No.

Do they refuse some cases? Yes.

Are they nonetheless extremely consistent in defending free speech across the political/ideological/religious spectrum? Yes.
Excellent post.

I'm sorry, I'm just not impressed with the ACLU. On certain First Amendment issues, and other civil rights issues, it's taken the lead, but their public image is heavily politicized. At least the NRA admits that it's a political organization, even if it tries to defend the Second Amendment (which seems to be a waste of time - but the NRA has gotten a lot of pro-gun legislation passed). The ACLU should admit as much.

Of course it's a political organization - it's intimately involved in the political system. Whether it's partisan is a different story, and a very subjective one at that.

It's easy, though, to conflate "politics as system" with "politics as den of thieves, Congressional prostitution, etc". The ACLU, except in the case of a view diametrically opposite to my own, is the former. Most politicians (either party) belong to both.

Same way they found hats in the classroom disruptive in my old school

Was disruption the reason they banned hats? The main reason I've heard for banning of hats was actually related to cheating on tests; kids had the answers on the inside or under the brims of their hats.

Was disruption the reason they banned hats? The main reason I've heard for banning of hats was actually related to cheating on tests; kids had the answers on the inside or under the brims of their hats.

I'd always been under the impression that hats were not allowed out of tradition - men not supposed to wear hats indoors, women not supposed to wear hats (at least, baseball caps - "traditionally" it's ok for women to wear some form of head dress, especially on more formal occasions).

When I was in high school, the handful of boys who would sometimes wear hats in class were often told to remove them in conjunction with being gentlemanly, or some such thing. I don't recall any hat ever having been a disruption, nor any concern that they might be used for cheating... But that's my own experience.

Of course it's a political organization - it's intimately involved in the political system. Whether it's partisan is a different story, and a very subjective one at that.

It's easy, though, to conflate "politics as system" with "politics as den of thieves, Congressional prostitution, etc". The ACLU, except in the case of a view diametrically opposite to my own, is the former. Most politicians (either party) belong to both.

You can't be in politics and be non-partisan. It's just not possible.

Stalin was right when he told the Finns that there was no such thing as a neutral country.

There's no such thing as a non-partisan political group. Eventually, bias will out.

You can't be in politics and be non-partisan. It's just not possible.

Stalin was right when he told the Finns that there was no such thing as a neutral country.

There's no such thing as a non-partisan political group. Eventually, bias will out.

I think we're using partisan in two different ways.

I used it in the sense many do as in "not (overtly?) supporting any given political party", in the sense that the AMA is non-partisan.

In the sense that it means taking one party's (not political party, a general party) view, absolutely. They are partisans on the side of x, y, and z - just not partisans on the side of the Republicans, or the Greens, or the Know Nothings.