Posted on 08/30/2006 9:00:34 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
A US student who sued school officials after he was made to censor his T-shirt that labelled President George W Bush "Chicken-Hawk-In-Chief" and a former alcohol and cocaine abuser won an appeal yesterday to wear the shirt to school.
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favour of Zachery Guiles, who through his parents claimed his free speech rights had been violated.
School officials made him put duct tape over parts of his T-shirt that showed a Bush image surrounded by cocaine, a razor blade, a straw and a martini.
Guiles, who as a seventh grader in 2004 wore the T-shirt to Williamstown Middle High School in Vermont once a week for two months after purchasing it at an anti-war rally, appealed the case after a lower court ruled in favour of the school.
The school argued the images were offensive because they undermined the school's anti-drug message.
The T-shirt read "George W Bush" and "Chicken-Hawk-In-Chief" with a picture of the president's face wearing a helmet superimposed on the body of a chicken.
The back of the T-shirt showed lines of cocaine, a martini glass and smaller print that accused Bush of being a "Crook", "Cocaine Addict", AWOL", "Draft Dodger" and "Lying Drunk Driver".
The appeals court said while the T-shirt "uses harsh rhetoric and imagery to express disagreement with the president's policies and to impugn his character", the images depicted "are not plainly offensive as a matter of law".
The court agreed with the lower court that ruled Guiles' suspension from school should be expunged from his record.
What are you doing about that?
Dress codes are the norm, and many, many schools are using manditory uniforms.
There is zero tolerance at my children's school. When my son was beaten up by bullies, the boys were given three chances to reform their behavior. When this didn't work the principal sent home a letter recommending that the little brutes' punishment should be a paddling. The parents agreed, the students were paddled and they have never touched my son again.
My children's school recognizes two holidays during the school year, Christmas and Valentine's Day. They also study Martin Luther King historically (on his day) and how it relates to Georgia, Atlanta, and his father's church.
No student is allowed to carry a cellphone.
The student guidelines for behavior are also enforced while the children ride the school bus.
There are many good things going on in schools today. My children are expected to learn what you learned, what I learned and even more. The bar is set high for them!
Lockers were searched if and whenever the principle felt like it. You could not leave the school grounds during lunch without special written excuse from your parent.
If you were tardy a certain number of times, you got detention. If you were a smart mouth, you were sent to the principle's office and were usually given detention. Parents were notified of all of the above, which meant you were in more trouble at home.
We were taught history, geography, government, english, math, reading/literature, science and basic health/hygiene.
This you is true for my children, too.
It starts with the parents. It is their responsibility to keep such a shirt out of their child's wardrobe.
wow no dress code in that school I see. We do not permit any items of dress that mention or show drugs.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) is considered the overriding precedent for school free speech cases. That case ruled that students do not "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door" and that schools can only prohibit speech if they can show there is a "substantial" disruption. So on those grounds, the school would appear to have had no case against the kid, since I see no substantial disruption alleged.
However, there have been some limits placed on Tinker. Bethel v. Fraser (1986) ruled that lewd and vulgar language (but not political speech) could be limited by school administrators, since it is inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education." So the question here would have been whether the depiction of drug paraphernelia on the kid's shirt could plausibly be considered akin to lewd and vulgar language as also being inconsistent with those fundamental values.
Who paid for his lawyers?
This was an appeals court.
There have also been schools that enforce strict dress codes, even uniforms. There have been many that prohibit baggy pants, gang logos, underwear showing, boys wearing dresses, teachers in halter tops, "racist" logos, and of course patriotic things. Clothes is not speech, and schools have the obligation to have dress codes.
My 14 year old defends Islam. :::sigh:::
****
Your child might take the time to view this exceptional computer slide show on today's version of anti=semitism which is creeping in to so many minds.
http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html
I highly recommend that every parent have their children view this production.
Except that the Supreme Court has ruled that clothing can be and is worn to express ideas and opinions, and therefore is considered speech.
With regards to school uniforms, to my knowledge the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue. But the key point in many of these school speech cases is that the school must be "viewpoint neutral" in whatever speech limitations they impose. They cannot selectively target certain viewpoints.
The most recent federal case I know of that addressed school uniforms was a 2001 case in the Sixth Circuit (Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board). They ruled that "the school board's uniform policy will pass constitutional scrutiny if it furthers an important or substantial government interest; if the interest is unrelated to the suppression of student expression; and if the incidental restrictions on First Amendment activities are no more than is necessary to facilitate that interest".
Would it be okay for a kid to wear an anti-Clinton shirt? Unless there's an overall dress code that forbids political speech, then the court was right.
It would be OK only if the school allowed such. The school said it was not allowed and the libs on the court disagreed. And as far as I'm concerned, the schools should be able to discern what is appropriate political speech and what is inflammatory. Let the teachers and PTA and school officials work it out. The courts have no business butting in.
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.