Posted on 10/28/2006 5:34:47 AM PDT by radar101
Lawyers for a former Poway High School student who was pulled out of class for wearing an anti-gay T-shirt have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review an early ruling in the case.
Papers filed yesterday by the Alliance Defense Fund urged the court to take up an April ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said high school administrators were justified when they removed Tyler Chase Harper from class.
In 2004, Harper, then a sophomore, wore a shirt on which he wrote, “I will not accept what God has condemned,” and on the back, “Homosexuality is shameful 'Romans 1:27.' ” The incident occurred during a day set aside by a student group to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians.
School officials said the shirt was offensive, could have led to disruptions at school and violated the school's dress code. Harper has sued the district saying his free speech rights were violated. The case is still pending in San Diego federal court.
Meanwhile, his lawyers had asked U.S. District Court Judge John A. Houston to issue an injunction preventing the school from enforcing its dress code while the case proceeded. Houston ruled against Harper on the issue.
That ruling was upheld by the federal appeals court in April, which wrote that school districts could ban speech that is “demeaning” to core characteristics of other students, said Tim Chandler, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing Harper. The organization is a national pro-Christian legal group.
“The 9th Circuit carved out a new category of protected speech,” Chandler said, “That has the potential to transform what schools across the country can do with their speech codes.”
Jack Sleeth, a lawyer for the Poway district, disagreed. He said the appeals court decision followed the law set out under previous Supreme Court decisions regarding student speech.
Sleeth said the request to review the ruling is premature, and the high court might wait for the entire case to work its way to them.
That is why I said if the students requested. Meaning that there was no compulsion from the teachers. Remember it is the 9th district that found parent's had no standing in court to sue a school district that foisted Islam on students.
I am not talking about teachings on comparitive religion but actually compelling students to actually role play being Muslim. I think they were also taken to a Mosque. I am sure some other Freeper can give more extensive detail.
They tolerate Christianity, but it's a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. ; )
Please define offensive or disruptive.
What you find offensive, others may find acceptable.
Lacking school uniforms, any non-revealing outfit should be acceptable.
Is it defined where you work? Is it spelled out in detail what you may wear and what you may not?
School is to prepare the students for the real world. The real world does not allow clothing that is offensive or disruptive to the work environment.
If the principal or teacher decides that the clothing is offensive or disruptive, then the clothing is offensive or disruptive. We pay big bucks for their judgment -- let them exercise it.
RP,
Sorry but you are wrong. We do not pay teachers for their 'judgement'. We pay teachers to teach.
If we want to control what the children wear in a work enviroment. Then let's pay them to attend school.
Without school uniforms, the only one who should be able to restrict what a kid wears is the kids parents!
We used to. Isn't maintaining order and discipline in the classroom a part of teaching?
Give back to the teacher (and principal) the power to exercise their judgment in maintaining an institution of learning, not a fashion show or a forum for political and social statements.
Legally, someone could wear that shirt. Would it be wise? Probably not.
Also, there is a big difference between wearing something obscene into a courtroom, where the judge has total authority, and wearing something political into a public classroom.
The school may establish rules such as shorts/skirts must reach the knees etc. And schools may make restrictions regarding obscene or vulgar speech. But schools may NOT make restrictions on political speech.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Schools may establish dress codes.
You obviously stopped reading when you got to the word 'shirt'.
Let's try again: "Legally, someone could wear that shirt. Would it be wise? Probably not."
Most judges would be unhappy with the shirt. And would call the bailiff.
However, I know one judge who's been on the bench for years who would most likely laugh and pose for pictures.
No matter WHAT the judge ordered you to do - if you refused, you'd be held in contempt...whether it was take a shirt off, put a shirt on, leave the court, stand on your head, etc.
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 3, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court today asking the court to expedite its decision on whether to hear a case involving a California high school student prohibited from wearing a T-shirt at school expressing his biblical views on homosexual behavior. “The opportunity of students to exercise their First Amendment rights should not be lost because the students graduate before the court rules,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “One of our clients has already graduated and the other will soon. We hope the court will expedite its decision so that she has the opportunity to exercise her constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.”
Sixteen-year-old student Tyler Harper filed suit against the Poway School District for violating his freedom of speech rights, after the school told him he could not wear a t-shirt with the words, “Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned” on the front and “Homosexuality is Shameful” on the back. “Additionally, by deciding to hear the case now, the court can consider it at the same time as Morse v. Frederick, a similar case also before the court. The 9th Circuit, which ruled on our case, ruled on that case, too, but in a conflicting manner,” McCaleb explained. The motion filed with the court today argues that “these cases send conflicting messages: speech that may be offensive or derogatory toward Christians is permissible under Frederick, but speech that may be offensive or derogatory toward homosexual conduct is not permissible under Harper. Similarly, speech that conflicts with a school policy against pro-drug messages is permissible under Frederick, but speech that conflicts with a school policy against ‘harassment’ on the basis of sexual orientation (i.e. any negative or offensive speech) is not permissible under Harper. These cases provide the Court an ideal opportunity to clarify an increasingly muddled area of constitutional law.”
A US federal appeals court in April upheld a 2004 ruling by U.S. District Judge John Houston in San Diego that found in favour of the school board. The ruling said Harper’s shirt was “denigrating” to homosexuals and their lifestyle, and “injurious to gay and lesbian students and interfered with their right to learn.”
Read full text of the motion filed today in the Harper v. Poway Unified School District
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperExpedite.pdf.
Court Upholds School Ban on “Homosexuality is Shameful” T-Shirt
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html
California Student Sues School over Punishment for Wearing "Homosexuality is Shameful" T-Shirt
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04060310.html
ADF attorneys ask U.S. Supreme Court for expedited consideration of “T-shirt” case
WASHINGTON — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court today asking the court to expedite its decision on whether to hear a case involving a California high school student prohibited from wearing a T-shirt at school expressing his biblical views on homosexual behavior. “The opportunity of students to exercise their First Amendment rights should not be lost because the students graduate before the court rules,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “One of our clients has already graduated and the other will soon. We hope the court will expedite its decision so that she has the opportunity to exercise her constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.”
“Additionally, by deciding to hear the case now, the court can consider it at the same time as Morse v. Frederick, a similar case also before the court. The 9th Circuit, which ruled on our case, ruled on that case, too, but in a conflicting manner,” McCaleb explained. The motion filed with the court today argues that “these cases send conflicting messages: speech that may be offensive or derogatory toward Christians is permissible under Frederick, but speech that may be offensive or derogatory toward homosexual conduct is not permissible under Harper. Similarly, speech that conflicts with a school policy against pro-drug messages is permissible under Frederick, but speech that conflicts with a school policy against ‘harassment’ on the basis of sexual orientation (i.e. any negative or offensive speech) is not permissible under Harper. These cases provide the Court an ideal opportunity to clarify an increasingly muddled area of constitutional law.”
The full text of the motion filed today in the case Harper v. Poway Unified School District can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperExpedite.pdf. ADF attorneys filed their appeal with the Supreme Court on Oct. 27 (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3902).
Well, they finally did it -- a teen seeking attention via a t-shirt has finally made it to the big time.
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.