Quote :

"Court Sides With Student In Bush T-Shirt Flap CBS News: 109th Congress (AP) NEW YORK Vermont schoolboy was within his rights to wear a T-shirt depicting George W. Bush as a chicken and accusing him of being a former alcohol and cocaine abuser, an appeals court ruled. Zachary Guiles' school violated the First Amendment when it ordered him to cover parts of the shirt, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said Wednesday. Guiles was a 13-year-old seventh-grader at Williamstown Middle High School in Williamstown, Vt., in May 2004 when he wore the shirt, which he had bought at an anti-war rally, to classes once a week for two months. Complaints from a fellow student and her mother who had different political views caused school officials to take a closer look. Although teachers had told the complaining student that the shirt was political speech and protected by the Constitution, the mother complained to a student support specialist, who decided images of drugs and alcohol violated the school's dress code, the appeals court said. The front of the shirt had Bush's name and the words "Chicken-Hawk-In-Chief" beneath it. Below the words was a large picture of the president's head, wearing a helmet, superimposed on the body of a chicken. To one side of the president on the T-shirt, three lines of cocaine, a razor blade and a straw appear. Elsewhere on the shirt, the president is shown holding a martini glass with an olive in it."

http://cbs13.com/national/topstories_story_242230520.html

It's nice to know there's some sanity left in our court system.

8/31/2006 12:40:59 AM

insulting the president. 6 months in jail.

8/31/2006 12:43:42 AM

that kid sounds like a huge douche

along with the other kid and her mother

along with the school administrators who stepped in

8/31/2006 1:01:55 AM

THey would have done the same thing at ANY school in WAKE county and probably NC

8/31/2006 1:04:54 AM

Can't do that in a public school. electric chair.

8/31/2006 2:17:53 AM

What a difference a decade makes. Back in my day they wouldn't even let you wear a "Big Johnson" t-shirt. It's like they didn't want people to know who the idiots were or something. Back then you just politely turned the t-shirt inside out at the request of some school authority. Nowadays you just piss and moan about freedoms.

I'm not saying give the dude jail time. That's ridiculous. I'm just saying that a certain level of (self) respect should be shown. I just find myself wondering how in the world this ended up in court in the first place.

8/31/2006 7:20:55 AM

Now, if they changed that shit to "I love drugs" and imposed any other person's picture on that shirt...I bet he'd not be allowed to wear it.

8/31/2006 7:23:19 AM

Or worse "I love God"

Imagine the uproar then.

8/31/2006 7:23:53 AM

I'm pretty surprised 7th graders are that political

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 8:33 AM. Reason : are]

8/31/2006 8:33:33 AM

jeeze

8/31/2006 8:35:28 AM

Quote :

"bgmims: Now, if they changed that shit to "I love drugs" and imposed any other person's picture on that shirt...I bet he'd not be allowed to wear it."

Are you suggesting--quite wrongly--that there's some sinister reason behind this fact?

The USSC recognizes the fundamental difference between public and private figures.

8/31/2006 9:03:53 AM

I'm saying that most schools ban the depiction of drug use on clothing.

Why is it somehow different if its in a political context?

8/31/2006 9:12:48 AM

That's probably where the umbrella of political speech came into play.

I didn't read the court opinion, but political speech is among the most broadly protected freedoms by the courts. I won't supply the precedents here, but they are voluminous and I invite you to do some Googling if you're really curious. Most of them, IIRC, were from the sixties.

The fact that Bush is a public--and political--figure is what protects the allegations made by the shirt about drugs and alcohol. The factual basis behind the latter is equally irrelevant to the speculative nature of the former.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 9:23 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 9:20:06 AM

Gamecat, I'm sure you have a point here, but when do you draw the line between political speech and shirts that break school rules based on other counts.

For instance, lets say you have a picture of George Bush bending over an Iraqi boy and raping him. And the caption is "Bush is fucking the Iraqi People"

The depiction of sex and the word "fucking" are probably both against school rules. Does George Bush being famous end the obligation to abide by other school rules?

8/31/2006 9:25:29 AM

Quote :

"bgmims: Gamecat, I'm sure you have a point here, but when do you draw the line between political speech and shirts that break school rules based on other counts."

The line's already been drawn in the beginning of your comparison.

Political speech is protected.

Breaking other school rules without making political speech is less protected.

Quote :

"bgmims: For instance, lets say you have a picture of George Bush bending over an Iraqi boy and raping him. And the caption is "Bush is fucking the Iraqi People" The depiction of sex and the word "fucking" are probably both against school rules. Does George Bush being famous end the obligation to abide by other school rules?"

It doesn't end the obligation completely, but the school is legally handcuffed to a large extent. The school has to be able to show that the shirt causes undue interruptions in its activities.

The conflation of obscenity and political speech in your example muddies the issue hugely--even beyond the extent of the real case we're discussing. As it is, rules limiting speech purely on the grounds of obscenity are perfectly well allowed. The courts have a greater interest in protecting political speech than obscenity, however, which is at the heart of the matter.

8/31/2006 9:33:53 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty surprised 7th graders are that political"

They're not. Most of them are just parroting back whatever mommy and daddy tell them to say.

Quote :

"It doesn't end the obligation completely, but the school is legally handcuffed to a large extent. The school has to be able to show that the shirt causes undue interruptions in its activities. The conflation of obscenity and political speech in your example muddies the issue hugely--even beyond the extent of the real case we're discussing. As it is, rules limiting speech purely on the grounds of obscenity are perfectly well allowed. The courts have a greater interest in protecting political speech than obscenity, however, which is at the heart of the matter."

Every day I become more and more convinced of the wisdom behind having a school uniform. Define anything that isn't the official school uniform as against school policy and all of these problems go away. Of course, it introduces some other problems, but at least it stops the extremely stupid battles over what forms of speech are and are not allowed on T-Shirts

8/31/2006 9:40:06 AM

Man, all those guys from high school could have gotten away with a "Big Johnson Rocks the Vote" t-shirt. But that still doesn't overcome the fact that people back then didn't piss and moan about their fundamental freedoms being trampled on at every drop of a dime or anytime someone said the "no" word.

Here's to simpler times.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 9:43 AM. Reason : -]

8/31/2006 9:43:05 AM

Its retarded to seperate political speech from any other kind of speech.

8/31/2006 9:46:37 AM

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there. Yeah. I'm a big fan of protecting political speech in public schools--and wouldn't particularly mind if the kid was allowed to wear his shirt if he'd just duct tape the cocaine shit. I even think he might deserve to be punished by the school.

In my mind, it wouldn't be too difficult to show that this causes an undue interruption of normal school activities.

Something about school uniforms has always--even as a child--struck me as fascist and...well...too Catholic.

Of course, that brings up a humorous but meaningless point: If you don't like your kids seeing political speech on shirts, you can always send them to private school.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 9:59 AM. Reason : choice]

8/31/2006 9:58:51 AM

^

Quote :

"The appeals court said the school had no right to censor any part of the shirt. "The pictures are an important part of the political message Guiles wished to convey, accentuating the anti-drug (and anti-Bush) message," the appeals court wrote. "By covering them defendants diluted Guiles's message, blunting its force and impact.""

And they are right about that, showing cocaine is no less political than the image of the president.

And the "undue interruption of normal school activities" is just an excuse to limit certain kinds of political speech. Youre just letting it be known that you dont think students have any actual right to speak but that they should be allowed to make fun of some distant elected official or policy. (Im pretty sure you would also recognize that they cant be allowed to make fun of the principal or disagree with school policies such as being quiet in the classroom or listening to the teacher.)

8/31/2006 10:24:12 AM

why would a seventh grader need to make a political statement in a school full of people who can't vote?

8/31/2006 10:29:06 AM

Because they may someday.

Next question...

Quote :

"Clear5: And they are right about that, showing cocaine is no less political than the image of the president."

Upon yet another reading of the article, and finally digging up some precedent myself, I've got to reverse course on this one. They're right. I hadn't thought of the cocaine on the shirt in that context.

Quote :

"Clear5: And the "undue interruption of normal school activities" is just an excuse to limit certain kinds of political speech."

I disagree with your singular interpretation. It can be an excuse. It can also also be a recognition of the fact that having a pro- and anti-war rally every day for six months jeopardizes the school's ability to perform its stated priority: to educate.

Quote :

"Clear5: Youre just letting it be known that you dont think students have any actual right to speak but that they should be allowed to make fun of some distant elected official or policy."

That's simply not true.

I was letting it be known that students may unduly interrupt normal school activities by wearing pictures of blow to class. They restrict jerseys and spaghetti straps from many schools for the same reasons.

But as I've already conceded, the political nature of the coke in question does take precedent.

Quote :

"Clear5: (Im pretty sure you would also recognize that they cant be allowed to make fun of the principal or disagree with school policies such as being quiet in the classroom or listening to the teacher.)"

?

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 10:29:26 AM

I'm assuming that this was the offending t-shirt:

http://www.legitgov.org/T_shirt_bush_chickenhawk_image_011704.html

8/31/2006 10:52:47 AM

Quote :

"I was letting it be known that students may unduly interrupt normal school activities by wearing pictures of blow to class. They restrict jerseys and spaghetti straps from many schools for the same reasons. But as I've already conceded, the political nature of the coke in question does take precedent."

Then why shouldnt the political nature of spaghetti straps also take precedent?

Surely it has a political message when a girl wears it as an expression of her sexuality in disagreement with school policies that ban such expression.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 11:03 AM. Reason : ]

8/31/2006 11:02:49 AM

Clear5, its arguments like that that ruin it for everyone else

Keep overtly political statements, like the wearing of that shirt (or a nazi shirt, for instance)
away from subtly (read: made up) statements by girls who want to break dress code

8/31/2006 11:12:24 AM

Quote :

"Clear5: Then why shouldnt the political nature of spaghetti straps also take precedent?"

I'd argue it's because this issue is more related to local definitions of obscenity than any federally recognized form of "political speech." That would certainly explain the lack of cases argued before the court over the matter.

Ultimately, I question whether spaghetti strap bans hold any real merit myself. Primarily because I'm ignorant about whether or not undue interruption of school activities due to them can be or has been established.

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 11:20:08 AM

Quote :

"I'd argue it's because this issue is more related to local definitions of obscenity than any federally recognized form of "political speech." That would certainly explain the lack of cases argued before the court over the matter."

I think it has more to do with absurdity of it.

Why people dont also recognize the absurdity of believing someone who can be forced, under penalty of law, to go to school has any freedom of speech within those halls is beyond me.

8/31/2006 11:31:38 AM

Oh come off it.

The absurdity of it is precisely what would make it end up in court.

8/31/2006 11:39:11 AM

^well your explanation is lacking, since local definitions of obscenity often come under court scrutiny

8/31/2006 11:41:41 AM

I think Im with Gamecat on this...

People in general should be allowed to wear whatever they want to (as long as they conform to indecency laws an such...which too can be debated)

however...in a school setting....it has long been established that clothing that causes a disruption to a normal school environment has been not allowed...thats definitly the case here...the T-shirt caused a problem...the kid should have been told to take it off/turn it inside out....or he should have been sent home....its that simple...

dont turn this into a political thing...politics has little to do with this....the shirt was an interruption and the kid should not be allowed to wear it

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 11:45 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/31/2006 11:44:24 AM

Depictions of drug use on tshirts should not be allowed in school, no matter what the context is

8/31/2006 11:47:26 AM

Quote :

"Clear5: ^well your explanation is lacking, since local definitions of obscenity often come under court scrutiny"

They have, and the courts will continue to defer to the localities ad infinitum because they'd need a reason not to. My explanation might have been lacking but you can find the precedents to back this up. The phrase "I don't know how to define obscenity but I know it when I see it" encapsulates the reasons the federal courts defer to the localities pretty damned well.

What's truly lacking is evidence that allowing political speech on shirts causes undue disruption of normal school activities, which would need to be established in any claim that requiring uniforms is warranted.

Quote :

"trikk311: it has long been established that clothing that causes a disruption to a normal school environment has been not allowed"

No it hasn't.

It has to cause an undue disruption of normal school activities.

That's not the same thing as "causing a disruption."

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 12:01 PM. Reason : ...]

8/31/2006 12:01:37 PM

Quote :

"Now, if they changed that shit to "I love drugs" and imposed any other person's picture on that shirt...I bet he'd not be allowed to wear it. 8/31/2006 7:23:19 AM bgmims All American 2629 Posts user info edit post Or worse "I love God" Imagine the uproar then."

exactly

8/31/2006 12:15:45 PM

100% inaccurate.

You could put any political figures face on the shirt.

8/31/2006 12:17:09 PM

Well considering people on a message board in NC are arguing about a t-shirt some Vermont kid wore to school, I'd say that it probably caused a disruption there as well.

8/31/2006 12:20:45 PM

what about shirts depiting jesus? or even worse, what about people trying to pray in school?

8/31/2006 12:21:23 PM

What about shirts depicting Jesus? What about people praying in school?

Both were common all over my public high school.

---

Quote :

"jbtilley: Well considering people on a message board in NC are arguing about a t-shirt some Vermont kid wore to school, I'd say that it probably caused a disruption there as well."

Quote :

"Gamecat: It has to cause an undue disruption of normal school activities. That's not the same thing as "causing a disruption.""

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 12:28:19 PM

The question becomes though at what level is political speech not allowed? From my own experiences in highschool (and I realize that none of these were persued to the court level) do you think the court would have overturned my school's ban on a shirt that said "Art is not Pornography" with a nude model on it? Or the "Abortion is Mean" t-shirt they also banned? Both are very much political statements, but are they allowed? How about political statements about local government activities? And then as always, theres the question of is a shirt about a school policy or decison (which was the context for the art shirt above) a political statement?

From my own point of view, I think the kid should have been allowed to wear the shirt, but since we do allow for the banishment of certain political views from schools (see what happens if someone wears a shirt that says "Fags Suck" for example) what exactly are the criteria for determining what to ban?

Edit:
-------

Wasn't there in fact a big todo a few years ago over a girl wearing a confederate flag as a prom dress? What was the outcome of that?

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 12:32 PM. Reason : sadf]

8/31/2006 12:31:06 PM

i think i agree with Gamecat here. Any public figure on a tshirt is fine, but the fact that it included drugs on it should make it cross the line.

8/31/2006 12:35:53 PM

TaterSalad

That's the point I made all along. I could care less what political viewpoint someone wants to espouse so long as the conditions of the shirt/viewpoint don't break school rules.

8/31/2006 12:48:17 PM

Quote :

"What's truly lacking is evidence that allowing political speech on shirts causes undue disruption of normal school activities, which would need to be established in any claim that requiring uniforms is warranted."

Im not arguing for school uniforms or anything of the like. Im arguing against the idea that these minors should have any constitutional rights, especially on school premises.

They are under some form of legal guardianship and must obey thier guardians or schools with respect only to legislated federal and state law. Constitutional rights should not enter into the equation.

8/31/2006 12:51:55 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: The question becomes though at what level is political speech not allowed?"

The court's answer: When it causes an undue disruption of normal school activities.

I bolded the problems with it.

Step 1) We have to establish first what they mean by "normal school activities." This part is the most straightforward.

Step 2) We have to find out at what point the disruption meets the court's definition of "undue." I think this issue is central here, and gives Constitutional scholars and lawyers job security.

The court has tried to protect two so-called compelling interests of the State: (1) to educate its students in its schools, (2) to protect their right to free speech in general, political speech in this case.

The court has said that the school has no absolute authority over the student, so eliminating (2) is out. Likewise, the institutions of public education were established to educate, not provide a forum for debate, so eliminating (1) is also out. Leaving us in a very murky, gray area.

The issue is that the institution becomes increasingly less dedicated to education with every extension of free speech that is permitted within its halls, and increasingly more "absolutely authoritarian" over the student with each limitation it imposes.

So at what point does free speech create conditions that unduly disrupt the school's ability to educate? Or said a little differently, to what extent is political speech allowed to disrupt normal school activities?

Without an answer to Step 1, it's rather impossible to say.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: From my own experiences in highschool (and I realize that none of these were persued to the court level) do you think the court would have overturned my school's ban on a shirt that said "Art is not Pornography" with a nude model on it?"

I would certainly hope so. I'd like to see more clashes between obscenity laws and the right to free speech for reasons like that one.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Or the "Abortion is Mean" t-shirt they also banned?"

...not that it'd be damning or anything, but did it cause a fight?

I ask more out of curiosity than anything else.

I think that shirts like that absolutely should be allowed, and I'd hope the courts would agree. I believe policies that encourage the debate of political differences are light years ahead of policies that discourage them.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: How about political statements about local government activities?"

I'd think they'd allow these for the most part, disallowing only on a case-by-case basis, again depending on the definitions of "undue disruption" and "normal school activities."

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: And then as always, theres the question of is a shirt about a school policy or decison (which was the context for the art shirt above) a political statement?"

Oh, I'd argue it is. And I'd be on the side of the person who made it. I think we did something similar in HS, but weren't prevented.

I think a ban in the other case might've been out of fear that it'd lead to a wider reaction against the school's administration that could have unduly disrupted its functioning. A pre-emptive strike if you will. Not legally justified at all, but that's probably why they did it.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: From my own point of view, I think the kid should have been allowed to wear the shirt, but since we do allow for the banishment of certain political views from schools (see what happens if someone wears a shirt that says "Fags Suck" for example) what exactly are the criteria for determining what to ban?"

They're ambiguous, but we're talking about the law here.

I react to the ambiguity by saying not to ban period. If people want to beatify the president on a T-shit, that should be allowed. If people want to have a picture of John Kerry standing with Osama bin Laden on a T-shirt, that should be allowed as well.

As it is, we need to first agree on what exactly it is that free expression is preventing schools from doing. How to measure it, second. Establish to what degrees different types of speech affect their ability to do so. Then determine what degree of authoritarianism (i.e. limitations on speech) we're willing to extend to the schools in order to maximize their effectiveness.

Crazy idea, I know.

---

Quote :

"Clear5: Im not arguing for school uniforms or anything of the like. Im arguing against the idea that these minors should have any constitutional rights, especially on school premises. They are under some form of legal guardianship and must obey thier guardians or schools with respect only to legislated federal and state law. Constitutional rights should not enter into the equation."

The USSC is unambiguous on this one. You're wrong.

Constitutional rights do enter into the equation.

Justice Abe Fortas Tinker vs. Des Moines: "state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students...are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State."


---

bgmims & TaterSalad

Thing is, when you read the legal opinion, the cocaine is interpreted as part of the political nature of the speech. I had a hard time trying to argue with the idea when I thought about it.

How and why do you separate that element from the rest of the message on the shirt?

[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2006 1:16:49 PM

FUCK THE DRAFT

8/31/2006 1:26:17 PM

Quote :

"Most of them are just parroting back whatever mommy and daddy tell them to say."

try the opposite

8/31/2006 1:43:02 PM

fucking hippies up in VT

8/31/2006 1:47:33 PM

Quote :

"The USSC is unambiguous on this one. You're wrong. "

What? I cant disagree with the supreme court, thats news to me. I think its pretty easy to recognize that their reasoning in these cases is flawed.



[Edited on August 31, 2006 at 1:54 PM. Reason : ]

8/31/2006 1:51:14 PM

I thought you were arguing they were mistaken in application of the precedent.

You're arguing against that precedent.

I understand now.

What extends the absolute authority over the rights of a student to the state?

8/31/2006 2:07:22 PM

Quote :

"Or worse "I love God" Imagine the uproar then."

Quote :

"what about shirts depiting jesus? or even worse, what about people trying to pray in school?"

I'm sick of you fuckers acting like God has been outlawed. BULLSHIT. Kids wear their little bible camp church shirts at school all the time, and nobody says anything. At my high school, there was even a Christian youth group that met at people's houses and shit, and they would pass out fliers for it during class, and they had this retreat thing. The youth group leaders would go eat with people on their lunch breaks between class and come to the sporting events. It wasn't a big deal.

Quote :

"As it is, we need to first agree on what exactly it is that free expression is preventing schools from doing. How to measure it, second. Establish to what degrees different types of speech affect their ability to do so. Then determine what degree of authoritarianism (i.e. limitations on speech) we're willing to extend to the schools in order to maximize their effectiveness."

It all comes back to the parents. The kids are fine. Most of the teachers are fine. It's the parents who come up into the school like, "I don't send Timothy to school so he can be exposed to biased political hate speech! I demand action!" The parents are causing the disruption. And, since parents can get upset over just about anything, the schools typically opt to limit speech as much as possible...

8/31/2006 3:25:25 PM

Quote :

"Or said a little differently, to what extent is political speech allowed to disrupt normal school activities?"

To an extent, I would argue that it shouldn't be allowed to disrupt normal school activities at all. By disrupting the activities you are infringing on the rights of others to have their education. This is especialy easy to argue as more schools impliment "hostile environment" speech policies (where by any speech or action deemed to create a hostile environment for a student is forbidden).

That said, I would also argue that the disruption has to be a real disruption. Just because I don't like what you say, doesn't mean you're disrupting the school process. There were lots of things and people I didn't like in school, but that's life, not everything will be as you like.

Quote :

"...not that it'd be damning or anything, but did it cause a fight? I ask more out of curiosity than anything else. "

It didn't. But it did cause some girl to whine to a teacher, who talked to a department head who went to the principal who decided it created a "hostile environment".

Quote :

"The USSC is unambiguous on this one. You're wrong. Constitutional rights do enter into the equation. ... What extends the absolute authority over the rights of a student to the state?"

To a degree, it seems to depend on which right of the student we're talking about. For example, as far as I can recall (and I admit it's been a while since I read up on the cases) searches of student property were considerably easier to justify in school (though I don't remember whether blanket authority was granted to search book bags or not).

Quote :

"try the opposite"

mommy and daddy are parroting back what the kid tells them to say?

8/31/2006 3:35:30 PM

i dont have any problem with the political aspect of this

however i dont know why the court didnt respect the local school's policy of not allowing drug-related shirts in their dress code

8/31/2006 3:39:57 PM