Discreet Dolls

Liberal Loons

T

The Crunge

New member
Apr 21, 2008
802
0
0
Toronto
www.runnersworld.com
The U.S. Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), famously said "Students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

The Constitutionality of the school principals action entirely hinges on the standard of whether the shirt would unreasonably disrupt normal school functions. Although the U.S. Supreme court has not revisited the issue of Political Free Speech in Schools since the Tinker decision, a number of lower courts have addressed the issue in cases similar to this.

In Castorina v. Madison County School Board the 6th Circuit held that wearing a shirt with a Confederate Battle Flag printed on it to school was protected political free speech.

In a U.S. District Court Case from the Southern District of Ohio which was not appealed, Nixon v. Northern Local School District Board of Education, the Court prohibited a school from preventing a student from wearing to school a T-shirt with a Biblical passage and the statements “homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder, some issues are just black and white” printed on it.

Even more closely yet to the Obama T-shirt case. In a case from Vermont Guiles ex rel. Guiles v. Marineau, the 2nd Circuit (and denied certiorari) held that a boy, who was thirteen at the time the case was brought, had the right to wear a T-shirt to school on which were printed statements critical of President Bush such as “Chicken-Hawk-in-Chief” and stating that the President was on a “World Domination Tour.”

Humm, how do you think the principal will try to distinguish what he did from Guiles? I believe the Dalton boy and his family have a very good chance of teaching the Aurora, Colorado School District some lessons about Political Free Speach.
 
Aardvark154 said:
The U.S. Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), famously said "Students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

The Constitutionality of the school principals action entirely hinges on the standard of whether the shirt would unreasonably disrupt normal school functions. Although the U.S. Supreme court has not revisited the issue of Political Free Speech in Schools since the Tinker decision, a number of lower courts have addressed the issue in cases similar to this.

In Castorina v. Madison County School Board the 6th Circuit held that wearing a shirt with a Confederate Battle Flag printed on it to school was protected political free speech.

In a U.S. District Court Case from the Southern District of Ohio which was not appealed, Nixon v. Northern Local School District Board of Education, the Court prohibited a school from preventing a student from wearing to school a T-shirt with a Biblical passage and the statements “homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder, some issues are just black and white” printed on it.
Click to expand...

A very tricky line. Free speech or inciting hatred. Would you also agree that a child in school wearing a tee-shirt with a swastika was simply free speech? Or one saying that homosexuals will go to hell? Or only Whites deserve to be Americans? Where exactly do you agree to draw a line?
 
Asterix said:
A very tricky line. Free speech or inciting hatred.
Click to expand...
That it is, that's why we have courts. As to the situation in Colorado the most analogous case is not Nixon but rather Guiles.
 
Aardvark154 said:
That it is, that's why we have courts.
Click to expand...

Yes, but courts, especially the Supreme Court, have also traditionally trailed reality in the US, from the days of slavery to today. And it's been on both sides. One of the most liberal Supreme Courts in US history agreed unanimously to intern Japanese citizens in the US and strip them of their possessions. One of the most conservative Supreme Courts decided that a Black person was legally worth 3/5ths of a White. The fact that it comes down from a court, even the Supreme Court, doesn't make it just.
 
Asterix said:
The fact that it comes down from a court, even the Supreme Court, doesn't make it just.
Click to expand...
That philosophically may be true. But, as is said about representative government, it may be messy but there is no better way.
 
Asterix said:
A very tricky line. Free speech or inciting hatred. Would you also agree that a child in school wearing a tee-shirt with a swastika was simply free speech? Or one saying that homosexuals will go to hell? Or only Whites deserve to be Americans? Where exactly do you agree to draw a line?
Click to expand...

While I agree its a tricky line to cross, 'hate messages' such as painting swatsikas on Jewish temples are clearly illegal and while these are acts of vandalism, marches of neo nazis are permitted in the US due to free speech implications. As long as no specific law is broken it seems to me that just about anything on a tee shirt should be allowed unless specifically prohibited by the school's dress code.
 
Hasn't Hammas already given Obama their endorsement?

Stupid shirt though.

OTB
 
I've got to wonder why anybody would want to draw so much attention to themselves in that environment and act as a lightening rod for political/social debate.

As for symbols and swastikas...symbols take on new meanings depending on context. If a guy wore a t-shirt with a swastika on it and walked down Yonge St in 1912, nobody would have a clue it meant anything other than as a pattern design. If he did the same thing in 1932 people might have thought he was German. If he did it in 1942 he'd have been arrested as being an enemy symapthizer. If he did it in 1962 he's be considered a neo-nazi racist and insulted by passers by. If he did it today I doubt he's get very far without being roughed up by someone.

Another example: in the 1950's as a fan would you want to wear Maple Leafs garb in Montreal outside the Forum on game night? Would you have wanted to wear Canadiens garb outside Maple Leaf Gardens on game night? Ouch!

Since public schools are mostly staffed by left-wing liberals (for better or for worse), and they grade you, would you want to wear a shirt to school saying my teachers in this school are liberal loons? I guess some people would.
 
No one seems to have latched on to the fact that this small-minded coward used his 11-year-old son to be his political billboard. Free speech or no free speech, that act in itself is repulsive.
 
The Crunge said:
No one seems to have latched on to the fact that this small-minded coward used his 11-year-old son to be his political billboard. Free speech or no free speech, that act in itself is repulsive.
Click to expand...
That's a personal belief - e.g. "how could any right minded person believe 'X'." Not, "it is clearly illegal for them to do 'X'." This goes to the very heart of the First Amendment: sometimes people have a right to say or do things that we find pretty appalling.
 
Aardvark154 said:
That's a personal belief - e.g. "how could any right minded person believe 'X'." Not, "it is clearly illegal for them to do 'X'." This goes to the very heart of the First Amendment: sometimes people have a right to say or do things that we find pretty appalling.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. People have a right to act appallingly and people have a right to be appalled by people who do appalling things.

Taking off your lawyer's hat, are appalled or unappalled by what this man did via his 11 year-old son?
 
The Crunge said:
Absolutely. People have a right to act appallingly and people have a right to be appalled by people who do appalling things.

Taking off your lawyer's hat, are appalled or unappalled by what this man did via his 11 year-old son?
Click to expand...
Obviously most eleven year olds don't hold widely devergent political views from their parents.
 
The Crunge said:
Absolutely. People have a right to act appallingly and people have a right to be appalled by people who do appalling things.

Taking off your lawyer's hat, are appalled or unappalled by what this man did via his 11 year-old son?
Click to expand...

Would you be equally appalled if he had a "Impeach Bush" tee shirt on?

OTB
 
onthebottom said:
Would you be equally appalled if he had a "Impeach Bush" tee shirt on?

OTB
Click to expand...

Yes! You don't use your 11-year-old son as your political poster. Period! Maybe it's not illegal, but its cowardly and immoral....IMHO.
 
The Crunge said:
Yes! You don't use your 11-year-old son as your political poster. Period! Maybe it's not illegal, but its cowardly and immoral....IMHO.
Click to expand...

But the public schools are full of liberal loons, that much he has right.

OTB
 
onthebottom said:
But the public schools are full of liberal loons, that much he has right.

OTB
Click to expand...
....and private schools are overstocked with conservative con-artists, probably because they couldn't pass the public school standards and competency tests!....;)
 
onthebottom said:
But the public schools are full of liberal loons, that much he has right.

OTB
Click to expand...

Yeah, all those liberal loons with their school prayer demands and their sex abstinence courses. They ought just stop that nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom
Back