NationStates Jolt Archive

Bearing John Edwards '08... In Republican Country USA, Texas...

Apparently, "John Edwards" running for the president is offensive to Texans.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299148,00.html

or........the shirt was against dress code.

I am sure the dress code was put into place just to keep the Edwards shirt out though :rolleyes:

The District Court recognized that the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views is the type of symbolic act that is within the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. As we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was closely akin to "pure speech" which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment.

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.

. . .

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained.


Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Now, if wearing black armbands, in protest of Vietnam was not found to be materially and substntially interference in the operation of the school, I fail to see why a "John Edwards for President" tshirt will be. In other words, I don't really give a shit what the school dress code says if said dress code is unconstitution.

or........the shirt was against dress code.

I am sure the dress code was put into place just to keep the Edwards shirt out though :rolleyes:

Bearing John Edwards '08... In Republican Country USA, Texas...

Apparently, "John Edwards" running for the president is offensive to Texans.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299148,00.html

I have no idea why that is newsworthy.

There is already a Supreme court ruling on shit like this. They said political messages are alright as long as they aren't distracting to others around them. And any person with common sense would realize that shirt is not distracting.

depends on the school's dress code doesn't it? I mean if they only allow solid color shirts with no message or shirts relating to school clubs, then this shirt is against dress code right?

but then the dress code itself would be unconstitutional

There is already a Supreme court ruling on shit like this. They said political messages are alright as long as they aren't distracting to others around them. And any person with common sense would realize that shirt is not distracting.

depends on the school's dress code doesn't it? I mean if they only allow solid color shirts with no message or shirts relating to school clubs, then this shirt is against dress code right?

There is already a Supreme court ruling on shit like this. They said political messages are alright as long as they aren't distracting to others around them. And any person with common sense would realize that shirt is not distracting.

The hideous expression on that kid's face is though.

depends on the school's dress code doesn't it? I mean if they only allow solid color shirts with no message or shirts relating to school clubs, then this shirt is against dress code right?

No. It does not. That's the point. Tinker specifically held that objects worn as clothing that carry a particular political message are considered to be political speech. And you can't, with a few exceptions, regulate speech.

Clothing that articulates, either directly, or symbolically, a political viewpoint has been held to be speech, and incidents of speech are exceptions to the dress code. The dress code, nor any other code, can limit free speech. And a political message on clothing, just as arm bands in Tinker is speech.

but then the dress code itself would be unconstitutional

then the dress code at the public schools in my area is unconstitutional. They only allow solid colored shirts with no messages or images on them and black or brown pants.

then the dress code at the public schools in my area is unconstitutional. They only allow solid colored shirts with no messages or images on them and black or brown pants.

well, it depends. It's no so much "unconstitutional" as simply inapplicable. You can say that only solid colored shirts are allowed. For instance, a tie-dye shirt would be barred.

however when an article of clothing carries a political message, either explicitly or implicitly, and is worn for the purpose of conveying that message, it becomes an element of speech. And the schools can not for the most part regulate speech. So for instance, if his shrt said "GHWPERIO{
BNWETPIB$E!" then it can be regulated and barred, because that's not any expression he's attempting to convey.

However when it's a political message, it becomes a free speech matter, and outside the bounds of that dress code. So, in other words, the code can say that, it's fine, but with the understanding, of course, that since the constitution is a higher authority, the code simply doesn't apply to those things it can not regulate.

Another troublemaker.

This is why I advocate closing the public schools.

ah, that makes more sense. Thank you for explaining.

It's...a bit confusing. The easiest way to think of it is that school codes like this appy....except when they don't. Because no public school can regulate (with some exceptions) the free speech rights of the students, any code that could have the effect of limiting free speech is effectively rendered inapplicable when it would do so.

So you can place limits on the what they can wear, as long as those limits don't apply when it comes to speech.

well, it depends. It's no so much "unconstitutional" as simply inapplicable. You can say that only solid colored shirts are allowed. For instance, a tie-dye shirt would be barred.

however when an article of clothing carries a political message, either explicitly or implicitly, and is worn for the purpose of conveying that message, it becomes an element of speech. And the schools can not for the most part regulate speech. So for instance, if his shrt said "GHWPERIO{
BNWETPIB$E!" then it can be regulated and barred, because that's not any expression he's attempting to convey.

However when it's a political message, it becomes a free speech matter, and outside the bounds of that dress code. So, in other words, the code can say that, it's fine, but with the understanding, of course, that since the constitution is a higher authority, the code simply doesn't apply to those things it can not regulate.
ah, that makes more sense. Thank you for explaining.

Another troublemaker.

This is why I advocate closing the public schools.

When large institutions are privatized, they are initially given a jumpstart to attract consumers, and soon after slowly decline while the private owners do all they can to maximize profits. Privatizing our school system will run this country straight to hell within 10 years.

Yet another reason for everyone to go topless.

Yet another reason for everyone to go topless.
Have you seen the picture of that kid? Trust me, we're all happier that he's covering those man-titties.

I have no idea why that is newsworthy.

I KNOW!!! I wanna know what Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan are doing!!!

:D

Another troublemaker.

This is why I advocate closing the public schools.

I fail to see how wearing a political t-shirt makes one a "troublemaker". Or is it that he is challenging the schools blatantly unconstitutional policy? Damn troublemakers, refusing to mindlessly adhere to everything we tell them, even when a higher authority tells them they can do the things we're telling them they can't. Oh, and it's nice to know you don't think poor kids deserve an education.

Oh, and it's nice to know you don't think poor kids deserve an education.
Oh, and it's nice to know you think that closing the current public schools means 'privatization.' He could have meant new, better public schools, better funding, or even revising the entire institution.

Just because a school is private doesn't mean it can't be affordable. High-end private schools do cost a lot of freaking money, but most are either forced to do this to maintain their high standards, or become completely non-profit.

If the public schools can actually function as an institution that: 1. doesn't waste taxpayer's money, 2. provide an environment conducive to learning, and 3. can perform adequate instruction, then I see no reason why they should be privatized, but if they don't meet those expectations, then its privatization or get better.

I fail to see how wearing a political t-shirt makes one a "troublemaker". Or is it that he is challenging the schools blatantly unconstitutional policy? Damn troublemakers, refusing to mindlessly adhere to everything we tell them, even when a higher authority tells them they can do the things we're telling them they can't. Oh, and it's nice to know you don't think poor kids deserve an education.

Education should be a privilege not a right. People go there to learn, not to be subjected to some lackwit's advocacy. As such, he should be expelled until such time as he learns to keep his agitprop to the appropriate fora.

Education should be a privilege not a right. People go there to learn, not to be subjected to some lackwit's advocacy. As such, he should be expelled until such time as he learns to keep his agitprop to the appropriate fora.

And how is wearing a political t-shirt preventing anyone from learning? And, according to the supreme court, his he is alllowed to take his agitprop to that fora.

And how is wearing a political t-shirt preventing anyone from learning? And, according to the supreme court, his he is alllowed to take his agitprop to that fora.

The problem is not that the t-shirt prevented people from learning, it is that it forced people to learn. Anything other than complete political apathy is unacceptable in the youth of today and the voters of tomorrow. The so-called 'supreme court' is just an elitist club of old men sitting on a bench and flipping coins. There is no flora, fauna, or fora in which a political t-shirt is acceptable in today's society. You should be ashamed.

And how is wearing a political t-shirt preventing anyone from learning? And, according to the supreme court, his he is alllowed to take his agitprop to that fora.

Forum.

I used to live in that area of the state and there is nothing there but rude, backwards, ignorant, and xenophobic people. The North, East, and North East part of the state is a freaking joke and just spread a bad image for the actual decent parts of Texas like San Antonio.

then the dress code at the public schools in my area is unconstitutional. They only allow solid colored shirts with no messages or images on them and black or brown pants.

That's just silly.

I imagine the constitutionality of their ruling will be raised?

And how is wearing a political t-shirt preventing anyone from learning? And, according to the supreme court, his he is alllowed to take his agitprop to that fora.
Pay no attention to Lac, no one else does. That's why he's not around much anymore.

Bearing John Edwards '08... In Republican Country USA, Texas...

Apparently, "John Edwards" running for the president is offensive to Texans.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299148,00.html

Personally I thought this was the scariest part:

“It was an opportunity for us to continue to try and maintain a safe and orderly environment. The dress code gives us the tools to make a decision on what is right and what isn’t,” said Thomas J. Collins, Waxahachie Independent School District superintendent.

Why is the shirt wrong? It seems its inappropriate for this guy to be making decisions on what is right and wrong since he clearly has no idea what is and isn't.

well, it depends. It's no so much "unconstitutional" as simply inapplicable. You can say that only solid colored shirts are allowed. For instance, a tie-dye shirt would be barred.

however when an article of clothing carries a political message, either explicitly or implicitly, and is worn for the purpose of conveying that message, it becomes an element of speech. And the schools can not for the most part regulate speech. So for instance, if his shrt said "GHWPERIO{
BNWETPIB$E!" then it can be regulated and barred, because that's not any expression he's attempting to convey.

Unless he says it is. Where do you draw the line: is he allowed political speech within the gamut of the two major parties? Is he allowed to express a political opinion about elections in Pakistan? Is he allowed to wear the slogan of his own two-man political party (GB for short) ... or indeed to wear a swastika armband to express himself politically?

However when it's a political message, it becomes a free speech matter, and outside the bounds of that dress code. So, in other words, the code can say that, it's fine, but with the understanding, of course, that since the constitution is a higher authority, the code simply doesn't apply to those things it can not regulate.

Well, that all sounds very reasonable.

I can't get this image out of my head though, three senior staff at the front door in the morning, squinting at one whacky t-shirt after the other.
"Nuh, never seen that before"
"Manga style"
"Also, iridescent. But there's words"
"It says conspiracy there..."
"Where?"
"There, on the side. Only it's in that code they're using now"
"Ebichu conspiracy? Anyone?"
"Whatever. Let her in."

And how is wearing a political t-shirt preventing anyone from learning? And, according to the supreme court, his he is alllowed to take his agitprop to that fora.
Forum.

You concede the point. Good.

The Edwards campaign needs to make bigger shirts available...

This was in the middle of the article when I read it-


Free Ann Coulter Email

Get Ann’s weekly column sent to you by email each week!

www.HumanEvents.com

Ah, Fox...

Anyway-seems more disruptive to everyone to have made a stink over this shirt than to let him wear it.

Why is the shirt wrong? It seems its inappropriate for this guy to be making decisions on what is right and wrong since he clearly has no idea what is and isn't.

Guidelines. *nod*

"Why did you do X?"
"It was in the guidelines. W satisfied the criteria, so I did X."
"So this heap of shit called Y isn't your fault? It's the guidelines?"
"Y is a modest but understandable outcome under the circumstances. And of course I followed the guidelines."
"Y is a heap of shit. And ... what circumstances? You don't mean 'the criteria' by any chance? All the stuff you knew when you made this shit decision?"
"The criteria are only our assessment of the circumstances. We do our best always, of course, but ..."
"So your role is to mediate the cir -- no. Let's not go there. You did X because W satisfied the criteria of the guideline. That it led to Y, the heap of shit, is therefore the fault of the guidelines?"
"Oh, no, there's nothing wrong with the guidelines! But they're only guidelines, after all. Someone needs to take the actual decision, the guidelines only guide, you know?"
"What?"
"Well, it's right there in meaning of the word. Guide. Lines. You have a Guide, and everyone forms a Line behind them, to facilitate an optimal and efficient Guiding Experience. Guide-line; it's from the travel industry I believe."
"Right. Who wrote these guidelines?"
"Wrote them? They're guidelines. They have existed since time immemorial!"
"OK. Who sent them to you before you printed them?"
"I'm not sure you need to know that."
"I'm just trying to find the person who wrote ... the ... no, never mind. My computer was infected with a virus and it sent all bad stuff with my email, that one I sent you this morning, and now I'm worried because all of your school might now be infected or it could happen any moment and I need to tell your network administrator right away."
"Network what?"
"Whoever fixes the computer when no-one else can?"
"Oh, Rodney. Did you say you sent me a virus?"
"By mistake. Get me Rodney!"
"Right away sir ... uh, I mean ... yes, right away."

Ah I see UK style school uniforms creeping into the USA instead of a dress code.

Those of you who do not now the horror of school uniform do not know what you are in for.

Personally, I consider an Edwards shirt to be nearly as offensive as a Giuliani shirt. Of course, I still consider an overtly pro-war or pro-domestic war (a.k.a. socialism/fascism) shirt to be more offensive (for example, socialized medicine shirts and the "Save Darfur" shirts). However, nobody has a right to tell anybody what they can wear, except on their own private property. The government is a thief and has no right to any of its supposed "property" (which is why I have no problem with somebody collecting welfare to take the stolen property away from the government) and it definitely has no right to tell somebody what they can wear on that injustly-acquired property (I also don't recognize the property rights of corporatist firms such as Blackwater or Halliburtion as legitimate because they acquired their property from the gang of thieves that calls itself the government). If somebody wants to show up to "public" (ie. government) school nude, they have every right to do so.

This action by the school is immoral. The school has committed a criminal act of aggression against the person who wore the Edwards shirt (though, of course, if he's wearing an Edwards shirt, he is a Statist reactionary, but the state still has no right to violate the rights of Statists, even though my personal sympathy is very limited in this case).

Of course, a private school has every right to decide the terms on which it will do business with its customers (of course, there should not be any of those "child labor" and "compulsory education" laws that exploit children in the name of "protecting" them). A private school or any other private organization has the right to discriminate in any manner in which they see fit (of course, discrimination always hurts their bottom line sufficiently that it is unsound business to discriminate, though many would still do so anyways).

Personally, I consider an Edwards shirt to be nearly as offensive as a Giuliani shirt. Of course, I still consider an overtly pro-war or pro-domestic war (a.k.a. socialism/fascism) shirt to be more offensive (for example, socialized medicine shirts and the "Save Darfur" shirts). However, nobody has a right to tell anybody what they can wear, except on their own private property.

So ... you can tell me what to wear, when I am on your property?


By what authority? Perhaps everything beyond my skin is your property?
Whatcha gonna do about it? Take my clothes off? See you in court :p


Yeah, I saw all the stuff which follows. None of that needs a new asshole, so let's just go with this for now.

What an *ss.

Btw he's on High School...

So who is he trying to convince to vote for Edward?

Schools should be political neutral places.

What's next? Wearing swastika t-shirts, just in name of the freedom of speech?

You could do it, but odds are high that they will beat you up and that's exactly what one deserves wearing swastika t-shirts.

And that's what they should do with this 'vote Edward' guy as well. Beat him up. Just 'cause he's an *ss.

What an *ss.

Btw he's on High School...

So who is he trying to convince to vote for Edward?

Schools should be political neutral places.

What's next? Wearing swastika t-shirts, just in name of the freedom of speech?

You could do it, but odds are high that they will beat you up and that's exactly what one deserves wearing swastika t-shirts.

And that's what they should do with this 'vote Edward' guy as well. Beat him up. Just 'cause he's an *ss.

Why not?

The swastika was originally a symbol that stood for peace, as I recall.

Why not?

The swastika was originally a symbol that stood for peace, as I recall.

The association is just too strong. Try starting a peace group that uses the swastika as a symbol...see how far you get. I'll guarantee you that most of the people here will probably condemn your group, as would most elsewhere, especially the Jews.

Why not?

The swastika was originally a symbol that stood for peace, as I recall.

Yes, it was (and still is) used by all kind of cultures (even Native Americans...) all over the globe, but I don't think that people think about them when they see a swastika...

But hey, wear a swastika t-shirt and have a walk in Harlem - New York or Jerusalem...

The association is just too strong. Try starting a peace group that uses the swastika as a symbol...see how far you get. I'll guarantee you that most of the people here will probably condemn your group, as would most elsewhere, especially the Jews.

Well then we'll have to have marches for peace, with catchy phrases, and a charismatic leader to prove that we are peaceful!! With snazzy uniforms, iron discipline, and hand gestures! :p

What an *ss.

Btw he's on High School...

So who is he trying to convince to vote for Edward?

Schools should be political neutral places.

Why?

What's next? Wearing swastika t-shirts, just in name of the freedom of speech?

Well thankyou. It's nice to know people read my posts, even if they get bumper-sticker wisdom from them.

You could do it, but odds are high that they will beat you up and that's exactly what one deserves wearing swastika t-shirts.

And that's what they should do with this 'vote Edward' guy as well. Beat him up. Just 'cause he's an *ss.

;) Yep. That's what I've been saying for years.

Throw them all in jail, let the professional murderers sort 'em out.
Heh, throw the entire human race in jail. Let the professional murderers sort 'em out.

Why not?

The swastika was originally a symbol that stood for peace, as I recall.

But now that the gnawing urge to post something, post it fast, and go the next thread has passed ... you're wrong, right?


Yeah, I'm drunk and I'm pissed-off. That isn't anyone here's fault. But honestly, what a crock ...

Why not?

The swastika was originally a symbol that stood for peace, as I recall.

Sure and what will YOU do when someone is wearing a t-shirt with 'Trollgaards' mother is a whore'.

Just say: "Oh well, it's our constitution, freedom of speech, blablabla" ? :)

Sure and what will YOU do when someone is wearing a t-shirt with 'Trollgaards' mother is a whore'.

Just say: "Oh well, it's our constitution, freedom of speech, blablabla" ? :)

that would be slander or libel, I forget which. But neither is protected by the 1st amendment.

that would be slander or libel, I forget which. But neither is protected by the 1st amendment.

Well, a swastika is insulting many other people.

Wearing a 'Vote the Pr*ck Man" t-shirt INSIDE a school could be insulting for other people.

Where will you draw the line?

But we are close.

One can clean himself by misusing the 1st (or whatever other) amendment, but that one stays a dirty jerk.

Ah I see UK style school uniforms creeping into the USA instead of a dress code.

Those of you who do not now the horror of school uniform do not know what you are in for.

What! School uniforms are a bloody great idea. Whats the problem with them?

What an *ss.

Btw he's on High School...

So who is he trying to convince to vote for Edward?
The teachers and staff maybe? The students who are old enough to vote? People he passed going too and from school?

Schools should be political neutral places.
Why?

What's next? Wearing swastika t-shirts, just in name of the freedom of speech?
And why not?

You could do it, but odds are high that they will beat you up and that's exactly what one deserves wearing swastika t-shirts.

And that's what they should do with this 'vote Edward' guy as well. Beat him up. Just 'cause he's an *ss.

I don't see why I should even bother. You seem far too much like a standard issue bully to give a rat's ass about other people's rights.

The teachers and staff maybe? The students who are old enough to vote? People he passed going too and from school?


Sure, they'll change their vote 'cause some nerd is wearing an ugly t-shirt.

For me, he can wear his t-shirt, till the porches of the school.

Why?


And why not?

For several reasons.

• What if a significant share of the students are wearing swastika t-shirts? The school would get a particular label it isn't wanting.

• I don't feel that a school floor is the location to promote products or people. They are there for another reason: get educated.

• To prevent troubles. Where will you draw the line? Can he promote Bin Laden? Or insult other students or the teachers?



I don't see why I should even bother. You seem far too much like a standard issue bully to give a rat's ass about other people's rights.

His freedom ends, where the freedom of another begins...

Sure, they'll change their vote 'cause some nerd is wearing an ugly t-shirt.
That's your opinion. One assumes he doesn't think so, otherwise he wouldn't wear the tshirt int he first place.

For me, he can wear his t-shirt, till the porches of the school.
Why? What's so special about schools that he can't express his desire for people to vote for Edwards?



For several reasons.

• What if a significant share of the students are wearing swastika t-shirts? The school would get a particular label it isn't wanting.
And the school would naturally issue a press relaease that, in keeping with the 1st Amendment, it does not attempt to control the speech and expression of its students(most of the time).


Oh, and Godwin approves.

• I don't feel that a school floor is the location to promote products or people. They are there for another reason: get educated.
That is the primary reason for going to school. It is certianly not the only thing that happens in a school. And it's not like having politcally aware children is going to be a bad thing.
• To prevent troubles. Where will you draw the line? Can he promote Bin Laden?
If he wants.
Or insult other students or the teachers?

That depends on the circumstances. He can tell all his friends that he despises his English teacher, he could probably tell the English teacher too, as long as he isn't disrupting the class.


His freedom ends, where the freedom of another begins...

Indeed. And exactly whose freedom is he infringing upon by wearing that tshirt?

Oh, and what exactly do you mean to achieve by calling him a fat nerd? Or are you just compelled to insult people?

Oh, and what exactly do you mean to achieve by calling him a fat nerd? Or are you just compelled to insult people?

I didn’t call him a fat nerd. That would be insulting. But you called him fat! What an insult!

I called him a nerd.

Why?

• He’s (http://www.foxnews.com/images/310990/0_61_palmer_pete.jpg) damn ugly
• He’s (http://www.foxnews.com/images/310990/0_61_palmer_pete.jpg) very ugly.
• Which normal being would step to the media ‘cause you can’t wear a f*cking t-shirt?
• He’s wearing his t-shirt wrongly. The back is in front.
• There are sweat islands visible
• Some pizzas smudge is visible on the left.
• Look at his freaky hair style.
• He smells.
• …

It's fairly easy to understand really. The boy's at school, he wore a T-shirt that is not in line with the schools clothing policy, he should not be wearing it at school.

When you work, depending on where and what you do, there are certainly dress codes to bear in mind. I don't like wearing a shirt and tie, but I would do so if my boss asked me to.

Similarly, it does one no good to wear a 'Jesus is a ****!' T-shirt when meeting clients. This is all part of everyday life, you choose to co-operate with others in society, whether you like it or not, otherwise you get nowhere.

As to why the schools rules ban this T-Shirt, perhaps just because they can see the chance of arguments, fighting, and other distractions from the job of teaching and learning, that making such a public political statement would inveribly bring. I mean if the boy went to school with a T-shirt espousing extreme right wing political views, you know those students on the left are going to give him a hard time.

Isn't it, in such case, better to ban all such cloths to foster a more harmonious place in which to learn, and work?

I didn’t call him a fat nerd. That would be insulting. But you called him fat! What an insult!
My mistake.

I called him a nerd.

Why?

• He’s (http://www.foxnews.com/images/310990/0_61_palmer_pete.jpg) damn ugly
• He’s (http://www.foxnews.com/images/310990/0_61_palmer_pete.jpg) very ugly.
• Which normal being would step to the media ‘cause you can’t wear a f*cking t-shirt?
• He’s wearing his t-shirt wrongly. The back is in front.
• There are sweat islands visible
• Some pizzas smudge is visible on the left.
• Look at his freaky hair style.
• He smells.
• …
And? I asked what you hoped to achieve by insulting him. It just seems childish to me, but maybe you have a good reason for it.
It's fairly easy to understand really. The boy's at school, he wore a T-shirt that is not in line with the schools clothing policy, he should not be wearing it at school.

When you work, depending on where and what you do, there are certainly dress codes to bear in mind. I don't like wearing a shirt and tie, but I would do so if my boss asked me to.

Similarly, it does one no good to wear a 'Jesus is a ****!' T-shirt when meeting clients. This is all part of everyday life, you choose to co-operate with others in society, whether you like it or not, otherwise you get nowhere.
But public schools and the workplace are not analogous. Since public schools are essentially parts of the government, they are subject to different rules than businesses.

As to why the schools rules ban this T-Shirt, perhaps just because they can see the chance of arguments, fighting, and other distractions from the job of teaching and learning, that making such a public political statement would inveribly bring. I mean if the boy went to school with a T-shirt espousing extreme right wing political views, you know those students on the left are going to give him a hard time.
Perhaps they would, but that's no reason to ban students from espousing extreme right wing views. That's akin to having a DADT policy in schools, so gay students won't get a hard time from the homophobic students.

Isn't it, in such case, better to ban all such cloths to foster a more harmonious place in which to learn, and work?

And ban gay students, and black students, and immigrant students, and children-of-immigrant students, and muslim students, and jewish students and basically any group of students that another group of student don't like. It's a frre for all folks, go complain about a group of students you don't like and get them all expelled quick, before they complain about you!

Apparently, "John Edwards" running for the president is offensive to Texans.



John Edwards running for president should offend everyone.

But public schools and the workplace are not analogous. Since public schools are essentially parts of the government, they are subject to different rules than businesses.

Perhaps but could you see a school letting a teacher wear a 'Jesus is a ****!' T-shirt? Schools are there to teach, if they can teach kids that when they leave school they will have to abide by dress rules of where ever they work then that is a good thing yes? what about working in McDonalds, if you disobey the dress code and wear what you like(political statement or not) you can expect to be sacked, would there be a case for unfair dismissal here, or will the judge say 'well it is in their written dress code'


Perhaps they would, but that's no reason to ban students from espousing extreme right wing views. That's akin to having a DADT policy in schools, so gay students won't get a hard time from the homophobic students.

So by that logic all schools should just let their pupils fight and do violence? No man they have to instill some discipline, contrary to popular opinion, we have to obey the laws of the land, we can't just do what we wish, and children can also learn this at school. If a pupil is getting bullied, for what ever reason, should the school not do anything about it?



And ban gay students, and black students, and immigrant students, and children-of-immigrant students, and muslim students, and jewish students and basically any group of students that another group of student don't like. It's a frre for all folks, go complain about a group of students you don't like and get them all expelled quick, before they complain about you!


Now thats just plain silly, and some what of a knee jerk answer. Again let us say that I went to school wearing a T-shirt calling prez Bush, a Bush monkey. Now lets say some Bush supporters decided to stop me and start to make something about that. The school can then expel the pupils that beat me up(after the event) or they can take steps to try and stop this sort of thing happening.

I know which one sounds the better and more logical approach to me.

On the face of it also, what does the kid actually feel about the ban, how has he been hurt by it, how much of his life is caught up in it, or did he just shrug,
mumble, something let a girl(or boy) catch his eye and wonder off following his dick, or do you think this has caused him lasting mental health problems?

Ohhh the evil evil school!

My mistake.


And? I asked what you hoped to achieve by insulting him. It just seems childish to me, but maybe you have a good reason for it.

No, that nerd already took too much time away. We have to save the Earth yet.


But public schools and the workplace are not analogous. Since public schools are essentially parts of the government, they are subject to different rules than businesses.

Is it? Firstly, school are preparing us for the society, for the workplaces.
Schools are doing more than just only try to educate you. They teach you how to behave later, by instance.

And what if a teacher would wear that t-shirt?

Or another member of the government?


Perhaps they would, but that's no reason to ban students from espousing extreme right wing views. That's akin to having a DADT policy in schools, so gay students won't get a hard time from the homophobic students.

We had some gay people in our classroom. Not one of them was wearing things like 'Proud to be Gay' t-shirts. At least, not in classroom. They never had a hard time (haha!). Sure, we joked about some their gayness.

It's just dumb to be provocative in a classroom.


And ban gay students, and black students, and immigrant students, and children-of-immigrant students, and muslim students, and jewish students and basically any group of students that another group of student don't like. It's a frre for all folks, go complain about a group of students you don't like and get them all expelled quick, before they complain about you!


You forgot the white ones, the christians...

Nah, ban only the ones that wear a 'Vote the Pr*ck Man" t-shirt, that should satisfy.

Perhaps but could you see a school letting a teacher wear a 'Jesus is a ****!' T-shirt? Schools are there to teach, if they can teach kids that when they leave school they will have to abide by dress rules of where ever they work then that is a good thing yes? what about working in McDonalds, if you disobey the dress code and wear what you like(political statement or not) you can expect to be sacked, would there be a case for unfair dismissal here, or will the judge say 'well it is in their written dress code'
But the school is a part of the government. If they can restrict your right to free speech and expression in school, then why not everywhere?

So by that logic all schools should just let their pupils fight and do violence? No man they have to instill some discipline, contrary to popular opinion, we have to obey the laws of the land,
Laws that forbid the government from restricting your freedom of speech(most of the time).
we can't just do what we wish, and children can also learn this at school. If a pupil is getting bullied, for what ever reason, should the school not do anything about it?
Of course they should do something.

Now thats just plain silly, and some what of a knee jerk answer.
I was pointing out that stopping people from expressing certain views because other people don't like them is a stupid idea.
Again let us say that I went to school wearing a T-shirt calling prez Bush, a Bush monkey. Now lets say some Bush supporters decided to stop me and start to make something about that. The school can then expel the pupils that beat me up(after the event) or they can take steps to try and stop this sort of thing happening.

I know which one sounds the better and more logical approach to me.
I hope it's the former. Because if the school were to ban anti-Bush tshirt upon learning that a student was beaten up for wearing one, then the school would be implictly stating that it was the victim's fault, and we've been over than one a thousand times, though generally regarding victims of rape.

On the face of it also, what does the kid actually feel about the ban
What does it matter? Is theft no longer wrong because I don't care that much about having my keys and a USB stick stolen from me?
No, that nerd already took too much time away. We have to save the Earth yet.
For someone who's 38 you do persist in acting much younger.

Is it? Firstly, school are preparing us for the society, for the workplaces.
Schools are doing more than just only try to educate you. They teach you how to behave later, by instance.

And what if a teacher would wear that t-shirt?

Or another member of the government?
As I pointed out, public schools are part of the government.


We had some gay people in our classroom. Not one of them was wearing things like 'Proud to be Gay' t-shirts. At least, not in classroom. They never had a hard time (haha!). Sure, we joked about some their gayness.

It's just dumb to be provocative in a classroom.
Then one assumes that you and the people in your class aren't the people I was referring to.

But the school is a part of the government. If they can restrict your right to free speech and expression in school, then why not everywhere?

Again thats knee jerk thinking. How does it logically follow, that because of a school rule banning children from wearing politically motivated cloths whilst at school, then the government will stamp all over the right to free speech as an adult?



Laws that forbid the government from restricting your freedom of speech(most of the time).

What law? We are talking about a school rule on the kinds of clothing it allows it's pupils to wear.


Of course they should do something.

Exactly and as I have already laid out, perhaps this rule about cloths is what they have decided to do, to stop such bullying taking place.


I was pointing out that stopping people from expressing certain views because other people don't like them is a stupid idea.

Really? At school? So you would say that the outwardly gay boy shouting from the school rooftops about his sexuality is a good idea? Did you go to school, can you remember what kids at school where like? It is to try to stop bullying and violence before they happen that such rules are put into place. Would you really advocate the alternative?


I hope it's the former. Because if the school were to ban anti-Bush tshirt upon learning that a student was beaten up for wearing one, then the school would be implictly stating that it was the victim's fault, and we've been over than one a thousand times, though generally regarding victims of rape.

Really? Why? Please explain the rational behind that one, 'cause I don't see it that way. What about gang colours, is it a good idea for schools to ban them? Isn't it a violation of freedom of speech not to be able to declare which gang you are in? Or does it make more sense for a blanket ban on all such cloths that may provoke unwanted attention or violence, while at school?


What does it matter? Is theft no longer wrong because I don't care that much about having my keys and a USB stick stolen from me?

What? We are talking about the boy not being allowed to wear an certain item of clothing. I asked not, what does it matter, but how does the boy himself feel about this, does he feel hard done by? Or (as I suspect is more likely) has he already shrugged it off for the nothingness that it clearly is, and gone back to getting on with his life.

For someone who's 38 you do persist in acting much younger.

Is it? It is not that I do not share your opinion that you have to start insulting.

He is just misusing the right of free speech to be an *sshole.

Btw he's on High School...

So who is he trying to convince to vote for Edward?

upperclassmen who will be eligible to vote next year?

Schools should be political neutral places.

why?

why?

Ummso that they don't push any bias onto the children?

Again thats knee jerk thinking. How does it logically follow, that because of a school rule banning children from wearing politically motivated cloths whilst at school, then the government will stamp all over the right to free speech as an adult?
Because the US government has shown little interest in the rights of its citizens.




What law? We are talking about a school rule on the kinds of clothing it allows it's pupils to wear.
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'


Exactly and as I have already laid out, perhaps this rule about cloths is what they have decided to do, to stop such bullying taking place.
To stop bullying they are punishing the victim? Or rather, someone they think might become a victim? Isn't that like putting someone in jail so they won't be murdered?


Really? At school? So you would say that the outwardly gay boy shouting from the school rooftops about his sexuality is a good idea?
No, the school rooftops are hardly a safe place for students to shout about anything.
Did you go to school
Yes
, can you remember what kids at school where like?
Yes
It is to try to stop bullying and violence before they happen that such rules are put into place. Would you really advocate the alternative?
If the alternative is punishing the people who do wrong, rather than punishing the people who might become victims, then hooray for the alternative. You've said that school is meant to prepare children for being a part of society, are you saying that openly gay adults shoulndn't be allowed to shout about how gay they are from their own rooftop, because they might get attacked for being gay?



Really? Why? Please explain the rational behind that one, 'cause I don't see it that way. What about gang colours, is it a good idea for schools to ban them? Isn't it a violation of freedom of speech not to be able to declare which gang you are in? Or does it make more sense for a blanket ban on all such cloths that may provoke unwanted attention or violence, while at school?
Explain why the victim is not to blame for what someone else does to them? Do you serioulsy not understand that concept?

And gangs aren't the same as political parties. Gangs, of the sort you're referring to, are inherently violent. Political parties are not.



What? We are talking about the boy not being allowed to wear an certain item of clothing. I asked not, what does it matter, but how does the boy himself feel about this, does he feel hard done by? Or (as I suspect is more likely) has he already shrugged it off for the nothingness that it clearly is, and gone back to getting on with his life.
You seem to be suggesting that because he's not bothered by it(incidentally, do you actually know how he feels about it?) it can't be that big a deal. Since this kid doesn't care about Vote Edwards tshirts being banned, then it's not that big a deal, right? I was pointing out how that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
Is it? It is not that I do not share your opinion that you have to start insulting.

He is just misusing the right of free speech to be an *sshole.

I don't mean to be insulting, it's just that pointless name calling is typical of young children.

Ummso that they don't push any bias onto the children?

Wearing a 'Vote Edwards' tshirt is pushing bias on people?

upperclassmen who will be eligible to vote next year?



why?
I explained before...

A rule is only working if it is clear, if there's no discussion about it.

Where will you draw the line if you play the 'freedom of speech' rhetoric?

Should we allow that students wear swastika t-shirts and pollute the image of the school?

I don't think so.

Oh, but swastikas that's extremist. Sure. But not for Nazi people.

So, to make life easier, most schools will forbid t-shirts with political slogans of any party.

If the school is allowing a 'vote for pr*ck x' t-shirt, then they should allow anything. And that would result in problems, internal & external.

Not one school likes it to be labelled as a Nazi school or a Bush school or as a pro- or anti abortion school....

Btw, I'm rather sure that he still can talk about voting for his favourite candidate...

Oh and if he doesn't like the policy of the school, he can search & hunt for a school that is allowing his attitude.

Wearing a 'Vote Edwards' tshirt is pushing bias on people?

No, I was answering the question why should schools be political neutral places.

When I was at school my Sociology teacher was a raving socialist, in fact it is due to her lessons, and the socialist bias that she pushed while teaching us that I hold to the politics that I do.

Whilst on the one hand I have a lot to thank her for, on the other I realise that she took advantage of my young mind, and all of the young minds of those she teaches. This should not be allowed.

Not one school likes it to be labelled as a Nazi school or a Bush school or as a pro- or anti abortion school....

What makes you think this would actually happen?

No, I was answering the question why should schools be political neutral places.


This is a great quote and is worth repeating:

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

What makes you think this would actually happen?

Common sense.

It's not needed that the entire school is wearing swastikas to get the Nazi school label.

One t-shirt could be enough...

A public school is not on the market to serve only Edward voters, Nazis, communists, Christians, Muslims, gays or whatever culture, subculture, group or club.

A public school is...public.

To make life easier for everyone, some rules are needed. Like a dressing policy.

This is a great quote and is worth repeating:

His t-shirt isn't speaking. And I'm sure the nerd still can say 'vote for Edwards, please'

So it isn't violating that right.

To make life easier for everyone, some rules are needed. Like a dressing policy.

Absolutly, just as long as that dressing policy does not overstep the authority of the school and do something contrary to a higher law.

Like, for example, the US constitution.

If the parents sue, I'll support them.

His t-shirt isn't speaking.

So neither would be black armbands worn to protest vietnam?

So neither would be black armbands worn to protest vietnam?

nope. They wouldn't!

Absolutly, just as long as that dressing policy does not overstep the authority of the school and do something contrary to a higher law.

Like, for example, the US constitution.

Ok.

Sue all schools. I believe you can't bring a gun in any US school, no?

This is interfering another amendment, no?

nope. They wouldn't!

You're saying that if during the vietname era, a student wearing a black armband, which was an accepted symbol of protest of the vietnam war, this would not be an example of free speech?

Common sense.

It's not needed that the entire school is wearing swastikas to get the Nazi school label.

One t-shirt could be enough...

A public school is not on the market to serve only Edward voters, Nazis, communists, Christians, Muslims, gays or whatever culture, subculture, group or club.

A public school is...public.

To make life easier for everyone, some rules are needed. Like a dressing policy.

Absolutly, just as long as that dressing policy does not overstep the authority of the school and do something contrary to a higher law.

Like, for example, the US constitution.
Yeah, that.
His t-shirt isn't speaking. And I'm sure the nerd still can say 'vote for Edwards, please'

So it isn't violating that right.
Freedom of speech covers freedom of expression too.

Ok.

Sue all schools.

Nope, just the ones that break the law.


I believe you can't bring a gun in any US school, no?

This is interfering another amendment, no?

Not really, because the US constitution requires the right to own a gun, not the right to bring it on to other property. More to point, there is a clear and compelling risk of guns which can be used to circumvent in cases of a compelling state interest.

That's not really present here.

You're saying that if during the vietname era, a student wearing a black armband, which was an accepted symbol of protest of the vietnam war, this would not be an example of free speech?

His t-shirt isn't speaking.

So neither would be black armbands worn to protest vietnam?

Hence they no they wouldn't be speaking. Unless I took something out of context. Which is possible.

Hence they no they wouldn't be speaking. Unless I took something out of context. Which is possible.

depends on whether we mean literal or legal. Are black arm bands worn in protest of vietnam, and shirts with political messages "speaking"? Of course not, they have no mouth with which to speak.

The question is, are they, for the purposes of the first amendment, speech? Which is to say, is the act of wearing clothing that contains a political message an act of free speech, even if no words are spoken?

Because if it's speech, the school dress code can go fuck itself, it does not have the authority to supercede the constitution.

Apparently, "John Edwards" running for the president is offensive to Texans.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299148,00.html

You mislead me with your summary. I was under the impression a republican was behind it and it was simply school policy. He should be able to wear the shirt and Tekania you should present the facts, not try to cause a reaction based on your obfuscation of them.

Because the US government has shown little interest in the rights of its citizens.

Sorry? So what you are saying here is that if we allow schools to implement a uniform policy this is an indication of the governments stance on denying us our freedom of speech?


'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

Okay when I said what law, I meant why are we talking about this law, it has nothing to do with a school ruling about what cloths can be worn.



To stop bullying they are punishing the victim? Or rather, someone they think might become a victim? Isn't that like putting someone in jail so they won't be murdered?

Where do you get this? The boy broke the uniform code(if he was punished at all, it would be for that). The point being though that perhaps the rule was put into place to stop people being victimised. Are you really saying that is a bad thing?



No, the school rooftops are hardly a safe place for students to shout about anything.

So either you don't understand metaphor, or more likely you realise that I am right on this point so you give a jokey response rather than show a modicum of intellectual honesty and say 'ahhhh yes yes I got ya! '


If the alternative is punishing the people who do wrong, rather than punishing the people who might become victims, then hooray for the alternative. You've said that school is meant to prepare children for being a part of society, are you saying that openly gay adults shoulndn't be allowed to shout about how gay they are from their own rooftop, because they might get attacked for being gay?

Again what punishment are you talking about. Not being able to wear a T-shirt? Do you not ken the difference between an adult and a child, should we look after our children and make rules(which they may not understand) in order to protect them, or should we let them make their way in the world as adults, and treat them as we would treat an adult.

A gay man can certainly be attacked because he actively professes his sexuality, but he is an adult with and adult mind, and does not have to worry about all of the other boys getting him on the way back from school. I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes children have to be protected from themselves.


Explain why the victim is not to blame for what someone else does to them? Do you serioulsy not understand that concept?

No explain why it follows that because a school bans the wearing of a T-shirt that has been the cause of violence in the school it is punishing the victim? So you equate not being allowed to wear a T-shirt with being punished? Man if that is punishment I would have rather had it that way as a kid.



And gangs aren't the same as political parties. Gangs, of the sort you're referring to, are inherently violent. Political parties are not.

You are right there but both membership of rival gangs and allegiance to opposite political parties can and does provoke ill feeling, and violence. Yet you did not answer the question I see.


You seem to be suggesting that because he's not bothered by it(incidentally, do you actually know how he feels about it?) it can't be that big a deal. Since this kid doesn't care about Vote Edwards tshirts being banned, then it's not that big a deal, right? I was pointing out how that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

No I actualy asked(twice now) how does he feel? All in all though yeah if the kid isn't bothered about it then:

1) How exactly is he being punished, as you keep telling me?
2) What is the big deal?

And yeah in the grand scheme, the banning of a T-shirt at school is extreamly little fish. Please explain to me why it is such a big deal to you.

but then the dress code itself would be unconstitutional

hmm, but then this would be proposing the idea that school uniforms is unconstitutional as it is limiting how students may express themselves through their clothing. I am quite sure however, that the use of uniforms in private institutions has been constitutionally upheld.

Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Now, if wearing black armbands, in protest of Vietnam was not found to be materially and substntially interference in the operation of the school, I fail to see why a "John Edwards for President" tshirt will be. In other words, I don't really give a shit what the school dress code says if said dress code is unconstitution.

http://www.acluutah.org/uniforms.htm

As outlined by the 5th circut court, however, Mandatory School Uniforms and a revised manadatory policy of solid t-shirts pants with little variet were indeed constitutional. This is because the court found "an important and substantial governmental interest" which was born out of an improvement of the educaiotnal process.

So the family really has no case for a law suit!

Sorry? So what you are saying here is that if we allow schools to implement a uniform policy this is an indication of the governments stance on denying us our freedom of speech?
Yes, the government denying your citizens their rights would be an indication fo your government denying their citizens their rights.

Okay when I said what law, I meant why are we talking about this law, it has nothing to do with a school ruling about what cloths can be worn.
Try reading the thread. This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13105688&postcount=2) post specifically.

Where do you get this? The boy broke the uniform code(if he was punished at all, it would be for that).
The uniform code which is unconstitutional
The point being though that perhaps the rule was put into place to stop people being victimised. Are you really saying that is a bad thing?
I am most definately saying that blaming, and worse, punishing someone for being bullied is a bad thing. Are you saying otherwise?


So either you don't understand metaphor, or more likely you realise that I am right on this point so you give a jokey response rather than show a modicum of intellectual honesty and say 'ahhhh yes yes I got ya! '
A metaphor is a comparrison using 'like' or 'as'. There is no metaphor to understand here. Though I was being humourous, or at least tryning to be. Perhaps you didn't understand it.



Again what punishment are you talking about. Not being able to wear a T-shirt?
Being removed from the school campus. Surely you read the article?
Do you not ken the difference between an adult and a child, should we look after our children and make rules(which they may not understand) in order to protect them, or should we let them make their way in the world as adults, and treat them as we would treat an adult.

A gay man can certainly be attacked because he actively professes his sexuality, but he is an adult with and adult mind, and does not have to worry about all of the other boys getting him on the way back from school. I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes children have to be protected from themselves.
And what are we teaching children by protecting them from themselves in this way? In the case of the roof climbing gay student, it seems we are teaching him that being gay is something you should hide, something you should never let people know. Is that really a lesson we should teaching children? That they are at fault when they are bullied for not taking greater precautions against being bullied?

No
Why not?
explain why it follows that because a school bans the wearing of a T-shirt that has been the cause of violence in the school it is punishing the victim?
It vilifies the people who were bullied for wearing that tshirt by implying that they were at fault.
So you equate not being allowed to wear a T-shirt with being punished? Man if that is punishment I would have rather had it that way as a kid.

No. I equate making the victim out to be at fault to be a punishment.


You are right there but both membership of rival gangs and allegiance to opposite political parties can and does provoke ill feeling, and violence.
I know of no case where someone was killed or even assaulted for being in the opposing political party to that of their attacker or attackers. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Yet you did not answer the question I see.
You chose not to explain why you think the victim is to blame for the actions of their assailant. I see no reason to rush at answering your question when you won't answer mine.


No I actualy asked(twice now) how does he feel? All in all though yeah if the kid isn't bothered about it then:

1) How exactly is he being punished, as you keep telling me?
Didn't you read the article? He was removed from the school campus. 'Booted out' is the term the article uses.
2) What is the big deal?
He was deprived of a day's education because of the tshirt he wore.

And yeah in the grand scheme, the banning of a T-shirt at school is extreamly little fish. Please explain to me why it is such a big deal to you.

Because in this case, such a ban is illegal.

A metaphor is a comparrison using 'like' or 'as'. There is no metaphor to understand here. Though I was being humourous, or at least tryning to be. Perhaps you didn't understand it.

That's a simile, actually.

met·a·phor /ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[met-uh-fawr, -fer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).

sim·i·le /ˈsɪməli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sim-uh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared, as in “she is like a rose.” Compare metaphor.
2. an instance of such a figure of speech or a use of words exemplifying it

Sorry. Carry on.

http://www.acluutah.org/uniforms.htm

As outlined by the 5th circut court, however, Mandatory School Uniforms and a revised manadatory policy of solid t-shirts pants with little variet were indeed constitutional. This is because the court found "an important and substantial governmental interest" which was born out of an improvement of the educaiotnal process.

So the family really has no case for a law suit!

It's actually not nearly that simple. First I"ll note that the US supreme court is a higher authority than the 5th circuit court of appeals.

Now, with that said, moving on, that 5th circuit case had to do with school uniforms infringing on clothing in general. They did not address in the specific instance what happens when an article of clothing, as articulated in Tinker, constitutes a clear effort of political speech. Which is to say, that while a school uniform policy may well prevent you from wearing...say...a tie dye shirt or your favorite sport's team's jersey, these are not examples of political speech. As such, because it's not really speech, and does not infringe on political speech, the uniforms can be utilized.

We can see this because, by your own quotation, the court discussed a "important and substantial" government interest. This is a heightened scrutinty standard. However, when discussing free speech a heightened scrutinty standard is not applicable. Rather, when faced with issues of political and religious speech, the proper standard of review, as articulated by the Supreme Court, is not a heightened scrutinty (important and substantial government interest) but rather strict scrutinty, IE not merely important government interest, but compelling government interest. A much higher standard to be sure.

In other words, uniforms and dress codes are constitution insofar as they limit general clothing choices, however the question as to whether it is not constitutional when such dress code prohibits the exercise of free political or religious speech has not been addressed specifically, and as such, Tinker is still the authority on that matter.

Which is to say, while dress codes can stop you from wearing your red sox jersey, it can't stop you from making political speech.

Still, good effort though.

edit: to clarify something. Wearing a red sox jersey can be considered an exercise of "free speech" as promoting the statement "I like the red sox". However when it has come to school children, the Supreme Court has articulated "levels" of speech. Which is to say, acts that bar religious and political speech are held to a much much much higher standard than acts that bar your freedom to express via clothing your love for the Boston Red Sox. So when talking about dress codes and uniforms, it's fairly clear that it's ok to limit "lesser" speech, to the extent that it be implied speech such as a boston Red Sox shirt. However when you come to political and religious speech, it becomes a whole hell of a lot murkier.

While yes, it is true, the 5th circuit did say uniforms are alright, the 5th circuit is not an authority on the United States Supreme Court, and nothing in the 5th circuit's opinion can be held to in any way contradict the ruling of the Supreme Court. It can't. So the 5th circuit's opinion must be read in the context of the earlier ruling by the Supreme Court, which is binding on the 5th. So since the 5th circuit's opinion can not as a matter of law overturn one word SCOTUS says, it must be read consistant with Tinker. And Tinker clearly said no limiting political speech

Yes, the government denying your citizens their rights would be an indication fo your government denying their citizens their rights.

That is not what I asked. I asked if a school implementing a uniform policy was an indication of the governments stance on freedom of speech.


Try reading the thread. This (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13105688&postcount=2) post specifically.

I have read the thread, and I understand what you are talking about. I still don't see it as big deal though. Lets go back to my McDonalds example, would it also unconstitutional if I worked at McDonalds, and choose to wear a T-shirt declaring my love for an extreame right wing party, then I got the sack for violating the companies uniform policy?


The uniform code which is unconstitutional
Nope I don't agree.


I am most definately saying that blaming, and worse, punishing someone for being bullied is a bad thing. Are you saying otherwise?

Again though that is not what I asked. However if I was to provoke you into violence against me, would I not bear some of the blame?


Being removed from the school campus. Surely you read the article?

So you advocate that people should face no penalty for the transgressing of rules? Did he or did he not brake the school policy? And again, how many school age children do you know that would lament a day off school?



And what are we teaching children by protecting them from themselves in this way? In the case of the roof climbing gay student, it seems we are teaching him that being gay is something you should hide, something you should never let people know. Is that really a lesson we should teaching children? That they are at fault when they are bullied for not taking greater precautions against being bullied?

No but hopefully the sense to know what you can get away with and where. Where do you get these flights of fantasy from? I say one thing and you take it to the opposite extreame.



It vilifies the people who were bullied for wearing that tshirt by implying that they were at fault.

If you choose to view it that way, then there is really nowt more I can say. Suffice to say though that is not the way I see it. What about it helps everybody to maintain a semblance of peace and helps to stop stirring up ill will.


No. I equate making the victim out to be at fault to be a punishment.

You keep talking about the victim, yet the boy broke the rules, and it was his choice to do so, how is he a victim?


I know of no case where someone was killed or even assaulted for being in the opposing political party to that of their attacker or attackers. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Really you know of no case in which violence has erupted between supporters of different politics? I find that hard to believe, I seems to remember some Chinese politicains at each others throat being all over the web the other year, not to mention, numerous incidents between the far right and the left.



You chose not to explain why you think the victim is to blame for the actions of their assailant. I see no reason to rush at answering your question when you won't answer mine.

Perhaps because that is not what I believe at all, you have just made that one up.



Didn't you read the article? He was removed from the school campus. 'Booted out' is the term the article uses.

Ohh what an evil punishment.


He was deprived of a day's education because of the tshirt he wore.

Was he aware of the rules, did he still choose to brake them?



Because in this case, such a ban is illegal.

Nope I don't think so.

Lets go back to my McDonalds example

No, let's not. McDonalds is not a government entity, so it is not bound by our constitution. The public school system, on the other hand, is.

Seriously, why is this so hard to get? Let's not talk about McDonalds, McDonalds is not the government.

You keep talking about the victim, yet the boy broke the rules, and it was his choice to do so, how is he a victim?

If a cop walks up to you and says "confess to murder right now or I shoot you" and you refuse, and he shoots you, are you not a victim of illegal police brutality?

If someone comes up to a woman and says give me your money or I rape you, and she refused, and is raped, is she not a victim?

It's actually not nearly that simple. First I"ll note that the US supreme court is a higher authority than the 5th circuit court of appeals.

Now, with that said, moving on, that 5th circuit case had to do with school uniforms infringing on clothing in general. They did not address in the specific instance what happens when an article of clothing, as articulated in Tinker, constitutes a clear effort of political speech. Which is to say, that while a school uniform policy may well prevent you from wearing...say...a tie dye shirt or your favorite sport's team's jersey, these are not examples of political speech. As such, because it's not really speech, and does not infringe on political speech, the uniforms can be utilized.

We can see this because, by your own quotation, the court discussed a "important and substantial" government interest. This is a heightened scrutinty standard. However, when discussing free speech a heightened scrutinty standard is not applicable. Rather, when faced with issues of political and religious speech, the proper standard of review, as articulated by the Supreme Court, is not a heightened scrutinty (important and substantial government interest) but rather strict scrutinty, IE not merely important government interest, but compelling government interest. A much higher standard to be sure.

In other words, uniforms and dress codes are constitution insofar as they limit general clothing choices, however the question as to whether it is not constitutional when such dress code prohibits the exercise of free political or religious speech has not been addressed specifically, and as such, Tinker is still the authority on that matter.

Which is to say, while dress codes can stop you from wearing your red sox jersey, it can't stop you from making political speech.

Still, good effort though.

edit: to clarify something. Wearing a red sox jersey can be considered an exercise of "free speech" as promoting the statement "I like the red sox". However when it has come to school children, the Supreme Court has articulated "levels" of speech. Which is to say, acts that bar religious and political speech are held to a much much much higher standard than acts that bar your freedom to express via clothing your love for the Boston Red Sox. So when talking about dress codes and uniforms, it's fairly clear that it's ok to limit "lesser" speech, to the extent that it be implied speech such as a boston Red Sox shirt. However when you come to political and religious speech, it becomes a whole hell of a lot murkier.

While yes, it is true, the 5th circuit did say uniforms are alright, the 5th circuit is not an authority on the United States Supreme Court, and nothing in the 5th circuit's opinion can be held to in any way contradict the ruling of the Supreme Court. It can't. So the 5th circuit's opinion must be read in the context of the earlier ruling by the Supreme Court, which is binding on the 5th. So since the 5th circuit's opinion can not as a matter of law overturn one word SCOTUS says, it must be read consistant with Tinker. And Tinker clearly said no limiting political speech

Well.. after reading this article... http://www.modrall.com/articles/article_13.html
and gaining a better understanding of the differeing levels of free speech and how they apply to minors (who have a significantly depressed access to constitutional rights than adults do) I would probably agree with you that the parents do in fact have a case.

However, I think its worth noting that the supreme court itself has only once specifically addressed the issue of mandated uniforms in :Phoenix Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836, 839, 120 Educ. L.R. 1170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). Here the court upheld the uniform code. The only reason I dont see this as being applicable is because of the relaxed dress code in place, where by no significant disruption to the eduction process could be established (which would have overided the right to his political expression). If the school had a strict uniform code, I think then this would be an entirely different matter.. :']

No, let's not. McDonalds is not a government entity, so it is not bound by our constitution. The public school system, on the other hand, is.

Seriously, why is this so hard to get? Let's not talk about McDonalds, McDonalds is not the government.

So you are saying that if you work for McDonalds you have no freedom of speech? Nope I just don't believe that. Goverment or no government since when has America had one law for some people and another law for others?

So lets do go back to my McDonalds example as it IS relevant?


If a cop walks up to you and says "confess to murder right now or I shoot you" and you refuse, and he shoots you, are you not a victim of illegal police brutality?

If someone comes up to a woman and says give me your money or I rape you, and she refused, and is raped, is she not a victim?

If wear a 'Jesus is a ****' T-shirt to work and get the sack form my job for breaching it's uniform rule, am I a victim?

So you are saying that if you work for McDonalds you have no freedom of speech?

Do you have ANY idea how our constitution works? Any what so ever? Do you have the slightest idea what in fuck you are talking about?

Let me explain, very easily, ok. Just to make it simple. The first amendment prohibits the government, THE GOVERNMENT from taking action that limits your free speech.

Got that? THE GOVERNMENT. The Government, with some exceptions, can not limit what you say. Remember, I'll say it again, we're talking about THE GOVERNMENT.

The first amendment stops THE GOVERNMENT from preventing your free speech. In case you have gotten lost here we're talking about THE GOVERNMENT

OK good, glad that's clear. Now, a public school is an instrument of "the government". And the first amendment stops "the government" from preventing your free speech.

McDonalds...is not the government. You realize that right? The place you buy that big mac isn't funding by the government, the public school is. You understand the distinction, yes?

OK so since the first amendment prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from limiting your free speech, and a public school is part of THE GOVERNMENT, then the public school is bound by the rule that says THE GOVERNMENT can not limit your free speech.

McDonalds is not THE GOVERNMENT, and as such is NOT bound by the rule that says THE GOVERNMENT can not limit your free speech.

And because McDonalds is not THE GOVERNMENT, they can fire you for doing something against policy.

Why? Because they are not part of THE GOVERNMENT.

The first amendment only says that THE GOVERNMENT can not stop you from saying what you wish. That's it. The first amendment does not say you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, where ever you want, and face no penalty or punishment what so ever. It only prevents THE GOVERNMENT from stopping you from saying it.

Got it?

government.

Do you have ANY idea how our constitution works? Any what so ever? Do you have the slightest idea what in fuck you are talking about?

Let me explain, very easily, ok. Just to make it simple. The first amendment prohibits the government, THE GOVERNMENT from taking action that limits your free speech.

Got that? THE GOVERNMENT. The Government, with some exceptions, can not limit what you say. Remember, I'll say it again, we're talking about THE GOVERNMENT.

The first amendment stops THE GOVERNMENT from preventing your free speech. In case you have gotten lost here we're talking about THE GOVERNMENT

OK good, glad that's clear. Now, a public school is an instrument of "the government". And the first amendment stops "the government" from preventing your free speech.

McDonalds...is not the government. You realize that right? The place you buy that big mac isn't funding by the government, the public school is. You understand the distinction, yes?

OK so since the first amendment prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from limiting your free speech, and a public school is part of THE GOVERNMENT, then the public school is bound by the rule that says THE GOVERNMENT can not limit your free speech.

McDonalds is not THE GOVERNMENT, and as such is NOT bound by the rule that says THE GOVERNMENT can not limit your free speech.

And because McDonalds is not THE GOVERNMENT, they can fire you for doing something against policy.

Why? Because they are not part of THE GOVERNMENT.

Got it?

government.

Owned.

Well.. after reading this article... http://www.modrall.com/articles/article_13.html
and gaining a better understanding of the differeing levels of free speech and how they apply to minors (who have a significantly depressed access to constitutional rights than adults do) I would probably agree with you that the parents do in fact have a case.

However, I think its worth noting that the supreme court itself has only once specifically addressed the issue of mandated uniforms in :Phoenix Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836, 839, 120 Educ. L.R. 1170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). Here the court upheld the uniform code. The only reason I dont see this as being applicable is because of the relaxed dress code in place, where by no significant disruption to the eduction process could be established (which would have overided the right to his political expression). If the school had a strict uniform code, I think then this would be an entirely different matter.. :']

Can I just say how refreshing it is for someone who is not a lawyer to actually put forth a well researched and coherent legal argument? usually all I get around here is people talking about the first amendment and why it doesn't apply to mcDonald's.

Well done.

Do you have ANY idea how our constitution works? Any what so ever? Do you have the slightest idea what in fuck you are talking about?

Let me explain, very easily, ok. Just to make it simple. The first amendment prohibits the government, THE GOVERNMENT from taking action that limits your free speech.

Got that? THE GOVERNMENT. The Government, with some exceptions, can not limit what you say. Remember, I'll say it again, we're talking about THE GOVERNMENT.

The first amendment stops THE GOVERNMENT from preventing your free speech. In case you have gotten lost here we're talking about THE GOVERNMENT


OK good, glad that's clear. Now, a public school is an instrument of "the government". And the first amendment stops "the government" from preventing your free speech.

McDonalds...is not the government. You realize that right? The place you buy that big mac isn't funding by the government, the public school is. You understand the distinction, yes?

OK so since the first amendment prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from limiting your free speech, and a public school is part of THE GOVERNMENT, then the public school is bound by the rule that says THE GOVERNMENT can not limit your free speech.

McDonalds is not THE GOVERNMENT, and as such is NOT bound by the rule that says THE GOVERNMENT can not limit your free speech.

And because McDonalds is not THE GOVERNMENT, they can fire you for doing something against policy.

Why? Because they are not part of THE GOVERNMENT.

The first amendment only says that THE GOVERNMENT can not stop you from saying what you wish. That's it. The first amendment does not say you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, where ever you want, and face no penalty or punishment what so ever. It only prevents THE GOVERNMENT from stopping you from saying it.

Got it?

government.



Wait.... are ... I say.. You're not talking about the government are you?

also that link makes it far clearer than I, so I'm going to steal their words:

Dress and grooming codes are generally legally permissible.(15) The wearing of a particular type or style of clothing usually is not seen as expressive conduct protected under the Constitution.(16) Various school dress codes have been upheld including a prohibition against sagging pants, earrings, and clothing containing advertisements or objectionable statements.(17) Student speech which is indecent, lewd or profane is not entitled to constitutional protection. However, some conduct by students involving the wearing of "symbolic speech" expressive items, such as political protest buttons, will be protected by First Amendment free speech principles.

Which kind of what I have been saying from the beginning. Dress codes, fine. Uniforms, fine. But you can't stop pure political speech. And I can't imagine in any way how a "John Edwards for President" tshirt is ANYTHING but pure speech. It's pretty much the definition of pure speech. It presents a clear and direct political message, devoid of ambiguity.

Owned.

Seconded.

also that link makes it far clearer than I, so I'm going to steal their words:



Which kind of what I have been saying from the beginning. Dress codes, fine. Uniforms, fine. But you can't stop pure political speech. And I can't imagine in any way how a "John Edwards for President" tshirt is ANYTHING but pure speech. It's pretty much the definition of pure speech. It presents a clear and direct political message, devoid of ambiguity.

When a school makes a ruling for the running of the school , can it be said that it is a government ruling?

How much interference into the schools running does the actual government have? Is the school run by the government, or a board made up of teachers and parents?

Is a school rule, the same as a government law. Does a headmaster count as a government law maker?

When a school makes a ruling for the running of the school , can it be said that it is a government ruling?

Yes, and has been done so innumerable times. The courts have been very clear on the subject. School rules are considered government action.

That's not even a question anymore in american jurisprudence. Actions taken by school officials are actions taken by the government.

Yes, and has been done so innumerable times. The courts have been very clear on the subject. School rules are considered government action.

That's not even a question anymore in american jurisprudence. Actions taken by school officials are actions taken by the government.


Well I guess then it than case, it seems that I am wrong. It seems that this is unconstitutional.

It still seems silly to me, but I guess I have got my common sense glasses on. What then stops neo-nazi supporters wearing t-shirts proclaiming there support? Or Jahidists? Why bother having school uniform rules if they are this easy to flaunt?

Okay, my county had a similar dress code, and I'm sorry, it's there to keep kids from fighting about politics and shit that has no place in a public school. You're there to learn generic information that allows you to make decisions later in life. When the kid's parents sent him to the school, they (and the student) agreed to follow the rules. If he violated it, ignorance is still no excuse. You're expected to read the student handbook, you know.

"Excessively blatant" religious attire was discouraged back home as well, meaning keep your crucifix smaller than your hand so the Muslim or Atheist kid next to you doesn't have to look at it constantly.We weren't allowed to discuss politics (other than in a historical context) or religion (same historical context), and if it got out of hand, teachers were reprimanded and sometimes fired. Of course, our principal was a Jehovah's Witness. She tried to suspend the entire junior class for coming to school clad in solid black on Halloween. She banned Halloween costumes that year, so we were irritated. She also suspended four students my senior year for speaking out (AFTER school, OFF school property, NOT at a school function) against her transfer of several of our Nationally Certified teachers.

Well.. after reading this article... http://www.modrall.com/articles/article_13.html
and gaining a better understanding of the differeing levels of free speech and how they apply to minors (who have a significantly depressed access to constitutional rights than adults do) I would probably agree with you that the parents do in fact have a case.

However, I think its worth noting that the supreme court itself has only once specifically addressed the issue of mandated uniforms in :Phoenix Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836, 839, 120 Educ. L.R. 1170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). Here the court upheld the uniform code. The only reason I dont see this as being applicable is because of the relaxed dress code in place, where by no significant disruption to the eduction process could be established (which would have overided the right to his political expression). If the school had a strict uniform code, I think then this would be an entirely different matter.. :']

Although I join Neo Art in lauding your attempts at legal analysis, I feel compelled to point out that Phoenix Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836, 839, 120 Educ. L.R. 1170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997) is NOT a US Supreme Court case. It is, as the citation itself (and the link you got it from) indicates, a decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals. That is a state appellate court.

I don't believe the US Supreme Court has decided any cases directly on point regarding school dress codes. As Neo Art has explained, Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=393&invol=503), 393 U.S. 503 (1969), appears to be the closest precedent.

Okay, my county had a similar dress code, and I'm sorry, it's there to keep kids from fighting about politics and shit that has no place in a public school. You're there to learn generic information that allows you to make decisions later in life. When the kid's parents sent him to the school, they (and the student) agreed to follow the rules. If he violated it, ignorance is still no excuse. You're expected to read the student handbook, you know.

"Excessively blatant" religious attire was discouraged back home as well, meaning keep your crucifix smaller than your hand so the Muslim or Atheist kid next to you doesn't have to look at it constantly.We weren't allowed to discuss politics (other than in a historical context) or religion (same historical context), and if it got out of hand, teachers were reprimanded and sometimes fired. Of course, our principal was a Jehovah's Witness. She tried to suspend the entire junior class for coming to school clad in solid black on Halloween. She banned Halloween costumes that year, so we were irritated. She also suspended four students my senior year for speaking out (AFTER school, OFF school property, NOT at a school function) against her transfer of several of our Nationally Certified teachers.

It sounds like your school had little respect for the First Amendment. You seem to be describing several different violations of the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses.

Also I should point out, a lot of discussion on this thread has focused on whether it's a "dress code" versus "uniforms". As a matter of law, there really isn't any difference. The courts have not articulated that "uniforms" should be treated any differently than "dress codes". In fact, what are school uniforms other than a very specific dress code?

I don't think courts really deal with school uniforms in any particular difference or with any particular legal analysis seperate from mere dress codes. It's not like a particular clothing ban under a "dress code" is unconstitutional but it suddenly becomes OK once you institute full on uniforms. The analysis is the same, with the same questions.

I'm rather horrified by the posters who have said that political discussion has no place in schools. I really couldn't disagree more. When I was in high school, I was a member of a club called StuPAC - the Student Political Awareness Club. Those of us in the club varied greatly in our political opinions, but we could always reach a consensus on one issue - that educating students about local, national, and global politics is absolutely vital to creating an informed citizenry. So we brought in guest speakers, put up posters providing contact information for assorted activist groups, and (most notably) organized student vs. student political debates representing the issues and candidates in each major election. My personal big innovation to the latter was suggesting that we not only allow our audience to make noise, but to encourage it. We turned a rather dry event into a wild political rally, with conservative and liberal students taking turns applauding, shrieking, booing, and yelling out everything from "AMEN!" to "SHUT UP!"

It was great. It was perfect. These kids who hadn't paid that much attention to the issues before went home that night and actually paid attention to the news so that they could argue with us more the next day. Multiple teachers and parents congratulated us on a job well done. (Oh, and no one got beaten up, despite the fact that my high school is in the swingiest of swing states, and had a student body including, to my certain knowledge, everything from extreme religious conservatives to gay anarcho-communists.) It really makes me sad that people here think that teenagers are necessarily incapable of discussing and forming political opinions before their eighteenth birthdays, because every student in my high school during my four years there certainly seemed to do so just fine.