Posted on 04/20/2006 7:02:14 PM PDT by newzjunkey
SAN FRANCISCO – A suburban San Diego teenager who was barred from wearing a T-shirt with anti-gay rhetoric to class lost a bid to have his high school's dress code suspended Thursday after a federal appeals court ruled the school could restrict what students wear to prevent disruptions.
The ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed only the narrow issue of whether the dress code should be unenforced pending the outcome of the student's lawsuit.
A majority of judges said, however, that Tyler Chase Harper was unlikely to prevail on claims that the Poway Unified School District violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion for keeping him out of class when he wore a shirt with the message “homosexuality is shameful.”
Tyler Chase Harper sued the Poway Unified School District in San Diego federal court after the principal at Poway High School refused to let the student attend class wearing a T-shirt scrawled with the message “homosexuality is shameful.”
Harper was a sophomore at Poway High in 2004 when he wore the T-shirt the day after a group called the Gay-Straight Alliance held a “Day of Silence” to protest intolerance of gays and lesbians. The year before, the campus was disrupted by protests and conflicts between students over the Day of Silence.
After Harper refused to take off the T-shirt, Poway High School's principal kept Harper out of class and assigned him to do homework in a conference room for the rest of the day. He was not suspended from school.
On Thursday, the three-judge appeals court panel said “the school is permitted to prohibit Harper's conduct...if it can demonstrate that the restriction was necessary to prevent either the violation of the rights of other students or substantial disruption of school activities.”
The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Sydney Thomas for a 2-1 ruling, didn't decide the merits of the student's lawsuit, which will be heard in federal court in San Diego.
Judge Alex Kozinski wrote a blistering dissent, arguing that the high school had in effect authorized a heated debate over sexual orientation when it allowed the “Day of Silence.”
“Harper's T-shirt was not an out-of-the-blue affront to fellow students who were minding their own business,” Kozinski wrote. “Rather, Harper wore his T-shirt in response to the Day of Silence, a political activity that was sponsored or at the very least tolerated by school authorities.”
Jack Sleeth, a school district attorney, said that the 9th Circuit ruling supports the district's prohibition against T-shirts with messages that are offensive to some.
“When it violates the rights of other, then it can be prohibited,” Sleeth said. “It is that simple of an issue.”
Robert Tyler, an attorney for Harper, said he may wait until the main case is decided before determining if further appeals are necessary.
“Mr. Harper's speech was censored,” Tyler said. “There wasn't any disruption, but there was concern that it was politically incorrect.”
The case is Harper v. Poway Unified School District, 04-57037.
The 9th should be split into three circuits and allow GWBush to appoint all the judges for the two new circuits.
Not exactly. It is not virtually calling their lifestyle anything. It is actually calling the lifestyle wrong and immoral because that is what the student wearing the t-shirt believes.
Oooops, sorry, I meant that for canuckistan1
Following a letter by an attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri warning Superintendent Jim Bogle that court precedents dating back nearly 40 years require public schools to allow students to express political views by means of their clothing, a number of Crocker students came to school Tuesday wearing either the original “S.A.B.” T-shirts or new T-shirts. The new shirts said “freedom of speech” on the front and “students have rights too” on the back. http://www.waynesvilledailyguide.com/articles/2006/04/19/news/news03.txt
Is the ACLU going to rush to the defense of Tyler Chase Harper in the defense of his freedom of speech?
1. Any favorable mention of Christian belief (to include public prayer)
2. Any criticism of darwinian evolution
3. Any criticism of homosexuality or the homosexual lifestyle
In fact, the ACLU stifles speech far more often than it defends it.
I've been in favor of school uniforms since Bush-41 was in office.
Depends on whether you distinguish the orientation from the activity. The activity can be reasonably condemned as shameful but I would caution going into the territory where the orientation, even considered an innate disorder is shameful. You might be able to control what (or who) you do but it's pretty established the burden of homosexual urges, desires or affections are not taken upon oneself of free will. Someone homosexuals would agree it is shameful which is what tears them up inside as they struggle with it.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston, exec director of the SoCal aclu. No conflict of interest there.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/1998/100232/
List and maybe both lists. Freedom of speech, ACLU, Day of Silence - it's got everything.
When they don't allow speech they are just forcing you to act in violence.
As the attorny for the kid put it, what's at trial here is political-correctness, not hate speech or disruption. Sadly, this decision is more rather than less reflective of the popular will of Southern CA. So much for the sanctity of majority rule.
Then why wasn't the Day of Silence prohibited, you lying dumb sh*t?
Jack Sleeth, a school district attorney, said that the 9th Circuit ruling supports the district's prohibition against T-shirts with messages that are offensive to some.
“When it violates the rights of other, then it can be prohibited,” Sleeth said. “It is that simple of an issue.”
Apparently I missed the leftist civics lesson that covered the judge given alienable selective right to not be offended...
Oddly enough if he wore a t-shirt with the words "Christianity is Shameful", this would never have happened.
“When it violates the rights of other, then it can be prohibited,” Sleeth said. “It is that simple of an issue.”
Depends on whether you distinguish the orientation from the activity.
The context of the terms of this debate leave no ambiguity as to their meaning on either side. "Homosexuality" by the pro-gay side here, obviously means "gay, out and proud." Both sides know this. People aren't "silent" about issues they are truly silent about.
When I was in school, kids wouldn't have been allowed to wear T-shirts to school, let alone ones that said anything on them. Things are so casual these days that there's no going back from T-shirts, I suppose, but a school could certainly forbid ANY wording on them. That would be progress, appearance-wise, at least.
"How about wearing a shirt that says "extra-martial sex is shameful"?"
I'm not sure what it means. It's shameful to have non-combatant sex? What is it trying to say?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.