High School Student Forced To Remove NRA Shirt, Because Pictures Of Guns Are Scaaaaary
from the the-pen-is-mightier-than-the-10mm-pistol dept
Being a strong, if not fanatical, supporter of free speech sure does make you occasionally jump in bed with strange folks. See, I think the National Rifle Association is largely a group of privileged blowhards who have gone so far past their original purpose as to be a caricature of their former selves. Any virtuous purpose it may have served has been pushed from the public eye by the kind of actions that make me think the NRA is being run by under-fed six-year-olds that found mommy and daddy's liquor cabinet.
And now, for my next magical trick, I'm going to defend a high school student's right to wear an NRA shirt to school. A sophomore from Orange County, California was ordered to remove an NRA t-shirt that included an image of a deer, an American flag, and the silhouette of a hunter.
Canyon High’s principal emailed Bullwinkle’s father, stating, in part, that “The shirt had a gun on it, which is not allowed by school police.” Note that the principal invokes, ominously, the authority of the school police – it’s the police, not administrators, who are enforcing this rule! Nevermind that administrators wrote the dress code and that the principal, according to CBS, enforced it. Pass the buck on the shirt about shooting bucks, if you will.I don't care if you're the biggest gun-control supporter out there, you should think this is stupid. And, frankly, it's hard to divorce the school's actions from political leanings, because I'd bet everything I own that this young man wouldn't have been asked to remove a shirt with the US Army National Guard logo, which has a gun on it, or perhaps one of the US Army's secondary logos, which include swords. What this is, plain and simple, is a reactionary stifling of speech due to a combination of public opinion against the NRA and silly cautionary rules for expression in schools due to recent shooting incidents. And that isn't acceptable. In fact, courts in the past have said that kind of thing is likely a first amendment violation.
Besides all that, the school's dress code is hilariously broad.
Clothing or Jewelry that promotes or depicts: gang, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, violence, criminal activity, obscenity, the degrading of cultures, ethnicity, gender, religion and/or ethnic values. (In general, anything that is divisive or offensive to a staff member).Oh, great, let's leave the definition of disallowed clothing up to the whims of a potentially easily-offended faculty. What could go wrong? You know, other than faculty claiming offense at something they dislike but is not offensive.
Let's be clear: the NRA may suck, but it doesn't make a habit out of promoting general violence and school shootings. It has its problems, to be sure, but the NRA is a legitimate lobbying organization. The t-shirt had a picture of a hunter, not an AK-47 spitting bullets into a series of small puppies. To pretend that there was any danger worth censoring a student's speech in any of this is as ridiculous as it is dangerous.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, nra, students
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Much like any other political organization.
Free speech is free speech. I'll defend your right to be an ass, but I don't have to like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't agree at all in this instance. Promotion of weapons designed to kill people should not be allowed in schools or even TV etc.. We are not talking about free speech. We are clearly talking about the promotion of guns. What if his T-Shirt promoted "rape drugs" or even just cigarettes?
Oh wait... cigarettes are regulated in their promotion, in Murica.
FDA regulate the ingredients in tobacco products and the way they are distributed, sold and marketed.
Honestly from an outsiders view... I am not surprised you equate "free speech" to "free to promote".
You guys have nearly all drugs advertised and promoted on your TV's FFS.
That alone is amazing. We only have the occasional "off the shelf" Flu, Migraine, "upset stomach" type medicine advertised and promoted. You know... the stuff that doesn't need a medical professional to prescribe it.
"Free speech" is NOT "right to promote"
Disagree?
Then I am sure Marlborough have some great t-shirts, pens etc... to give to your kids.
Americans are literally getting more ridiculous by the day.
Mindless peoples controlled by poll-testing absurd ideas that are twisted to Orwellian meaning. Snap out of it ffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, they kill people. They can also be used to hunt for food, to scare off pest animals from farmland, to defend against invaders.
I am saying that as someone who hopes earnestly never to have to handle a gun in his entire life. I don't like guns myself, but I can recognize their value.
I'd also like for you to back up your assertion that nearly all drugs are advertised on TV. The statement, all drugs, would also include all illegal ones, like cocaine and heroin. They are also drugs. When was the last time they were advertised on TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nit-picking a valid argument to attempt a win.
Point is that the drug's manufacturers of drugs that you can not buy without prescription are advertising those drugs that you can not buy to you.
Because you know best, you have a medical doctorate and all the symptoms the drugs say they defeat?
It's a ridiculous promotion
Misuse of legal medications kills more US citizens than die in car crashes.
United States now consumes 80% of the world's opioid pain medications
United States now consumes 99% of the world's hydrocodone (semi-synthetic opioid)
HURR FUCKKING DURRR, If you cant see the obvious correlation then all hope is lost.
Drug ads were illegal on television in U.S. until 1997.
The US and New Zealand are the only two countries where direct to consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
""I'd also like for you to back up your assertion that nearly all drugs are advertised on TV. The statement, all drugs, would also include all illegal ones""
Nit picking via a deliberate fallacy of my intended meaning via misquoting what I said. It didn't even address my points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I can't promote my ideals... how is that NOT suppression of free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
Promoting things to children... Most definitely should not protected under "free speech". If you think it should then you have serious problems.
Are pedophiles allowed to promote pedophilia to your kids ?
"Free speech" does not mean you can say what you want to whoever you want without consequence. There are borders of what is and what not is acceptable to "freely say". Ignoring the borders of acceptable "free speech" ignores reality.
TL;DR
Use the "free speech" argument in court when you threaten to kill someone.
"free speech" does not trump "reality of society" and grant you ability to say whatever you want to whomever you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
Promoting a tool designed to kill people.
How the fuck is that not like promoting murder ?
Even hunting is murdering animals... no?
My mind is based in reality. A scary place is where you are oblivious and willfully ignorant to the manipulation of perception of your kids... Just because they cry "free speech" and tell you it is a literal concept even when factually it is not.
BTW... "Literal free speech" is also a nasty concept. There are some things that people shouldn't be allowed to freely say.
Meh... think whatever you want, it's not my kids being brainwashed by the NRA promotion to kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
A friend of mine was closing a restaurant. She and two other were left in the store. The other two left after finishing up their tasks, but my friend had some book-keeping to finish. When she finished, she left the restaurant, and headed to her car. There she saw a guy start to follow her. She asked him (at a distance) what he wanted, and he didn't answer but started to move towards her. She pulled out a hand gun (she has a CC permit) and said "I have a gun". The guy decided to turn around and run. She got in her car and drove off.
The next day there was a news article of a rape that took place in that neighborhood. The person they caught matched the description of the person following my friend.
You say a gun only kills... but a gun protected my friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
FTFY
Hunting/killing animals is... life. If you eat meat, you have to kill the animal one way or another. Some tools make it easier than other tools. How can you say that some tools are OK, but others are not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
FTFY.
I've fired a gun a few times in my life. It was always at targets. Was that misuse of the tool?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
No, it's not.
"Murder" is a specific legal term, with a specific legal definition, which is: the unlawful killing of a human being.
Since animals are not human beings, they cannot be murdered, by definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
> be allowed to freely say
And let me guess who gets to decide what those things are... you?
Thankfully we don't have to live based on your dictatorial whims. Nor is our childrens' right to speak dependent on the whims and political preferences of whomever happens to be running their school at any given moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
With great power comes great responsibility.
Use it wisely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
If I want to wear my Futurama T-shirt... I can. Paramount (that big evil corporation) makes plenty of them.
If I want to wear the one with Bender saying "Kill all Humans". I can.
If I want to wear a shirt that says "Derp!" with a picture of {GWBush || Obama}... I can.
If I want to wear a shirt that says "Jack Kevorkian for White House physician"... I can.
If one wants to wear a shirt with Pedobear, or the "Super Adventure Club"... fine.
Free speech *HAS* been used in court on threats of killing somebody... that's why we have to find if the threats are creditable. People have made death threats to both Bush and Obama... they still walk free because those threats aren't creditable.
as for "'free speech' doesn't trump 'reality of society'"... That is *EXACTLY* what it does. Society doesn't have the right to silence people they disagree with. Society has the right to ignore them... but not to silence those they disagree with. All of the movements... Civil rights in all forms, started by people saying things that society didn't agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
Threatening and stating a fictional plot are different. They check if a "plot" was credible. A threat is checked for intent were the means are irrelevant unless plotted.
Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater
�The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic � . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.�
1919 U.S. Supreme Court written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
'free speech' doesn't trump 'reality of society' ... end of
Your are literally delusional to think otherwise.
Sure we can argue over the boundaries of what should and should not be protected with "free speech" but denying the existent of the boundary is not relevant. It exists and is a fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
People have not been arrested for making death threats against GW Bush... Even when caught on Television. Google it.
Wearing an NRA T-Shirt isn't promoting any violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
Wearing an NRA T-Shirt in school is promoting a tool that is designed to kill people, to children. The children have no choice but to be subjected to this promotion. The parents of the children have no choice either.
It's a valid disagreement we have.
You won't change my mind on thinking that it's a bad thing and it shouldn't be protected under free speech. Free speech is a convenient excuse to get away with lots of things. NRA promotion in a school? nah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
> "The most stringent protection of free speech
> would not protect a man in falsely shouting
> fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The
> question in every case is whether the words
> used are used in such circumstances and are
> of such a nature as to create a clear and
> present danger."
> 1919 U.S. Supreme Court written by Justice Oliver
> Wendell Holmes Jr.
That case was overruled by Brandeburg vs. Ohio, genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
The overruled case clarifies with additional tests, retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
> tests
No, Brandenburg *overruled* Schenck, throwing out the clear and present danger test altogether and replacing it with an entirely new test. It didn't clarify or add, it threw out and replaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People HAVE went to jail for threatening Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does "free speech" give you the right to threaten someone ?
> threats of killing somebody... that's why we
> have to find if the threats are creditable.
> People have made death threats to both Bush
> and Obama... they still walk free because
> those threats aren't creditable.
The threats were certainly creditable. They may not have been credible, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nowhere did I say that guns do not have a valid purpose.
Nowhere did I attempt to Impose my morality on others.
If anything...
Promoting guns to kids is IMPOSING the promoters morality of "guns are good" on others.
The whole idea of promotion is that it is inescapable. You cannot help but notice the adverts between tv shows. You cannot help but notice the posters up everywhere. It literally imposes a message that a child is in no way developed enough to fully comprehend or question.
If stopping people who are forcing their promotion on kids is more evil than the promotion... I hear you. I wouldn't want to stop a healthy eating promotion. Stopping the promotion of guns to kids is no where close to the evil of promoting guns to kids.
The kids don't belong to the NRA. Why should the NRA be allowed to force their promotion on your kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> morality of "guns are good" on others.
So should kids be prohibited from wearing clothing that promotes *any* politicial or social issue, or just the issues you don't particularly agree with?
Should pro-gay rights t-shirts be treated the same way you believe NRA t-shirts should be treated? How about global warming (pro or con)? Or illegal immigration? Or abortion? Or even just candidates during an election?
Do we strip kids of the right to express *all* political and social opinions or just the ones you don't like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You send your kids to school to learn.
Not to have some corporation promote their wares. Not to have some politician promote their ideology. Not to have some religion promote their belief.
I do see your line of questioning. It's a good line....so
Should "kill all blacks" t-shirts be protected as "free speech" ?
Even if worn by the students who are 90% white.
It's school. It's a place for facts. Not a place to promote.
Promoting tools that are designed to kill does make it worse in my eyes. Think it's the part were they are designed to kill that does it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> ideology.
What if it's the kid's own ideology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you -like too many real murican's- know nothing of what 'free speech' is supposed to entail...
short story: you MUST allow the worst, most despicable speech from your worst enemy, or you are NOT for free speech...
please read up on my boy chomsky's tireless work in this regard...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no literal "free speech". It's an abstract concept that relies on there being no consequence to ANY speech.
If 10 people were in a room and they couldn't see each other. If those 10 people only spoke one language and each language was different... then free speech exists in that room. Consequential "free speech" in it's purest form.
We are dealing with the reality of "free speech" rules and regulations. We SHOULD all know that literal "free speech" is not a realistic ideology, would probably destroy society and make individuals lives a living hell. Alas... some people seem to think that they can say whatever they want and it's "consequence free speech".
Not to say that we shouldn't try to have as much freedom to speech as we can. We should. We just can't ignore the consequences of speech which are very much real.
Sticks and stones didn't break her bones... but the verbal threats and abuse made her commit suicide.
Interesting subject btw... I will read up on that. Thx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i *am* saying:
A. many -if not most- people -muricans or not- have a stunted view of 'free speech'; essentially, they define it to mean: 'you can say whatever you want as long as it isn't *too* icky...'
*that* is NOT 'free speech' in just about any objective definition you could find, and yet sheeple still 'believe' in it...
B. in 'reality', we *barely* have any significant opportunity for warts-and-all free speech: not on *MOST* of the venues of the inertnets (rampant censorship); at work (shut up, droid, and don't say ANYTHING); at school (shut up, kid-with-no-rights, and take off that tee shirt that says ANYTHING); in public (shut up, citizen, and get back in your 'free speech' cage); and, you don't even have to be paranoid to wonder who is listening to your phone/tee vee/radio/'puter/whatever in your own dog damn castle ! ! !
as far as i'm concerned, true free speech is THE bedrock right upon which all others are predicated: no speech, no voice... literally and figuratively...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speech has consequences
"Literal free speech" as an ideology as "your right to" requires no consequence, for that to exist in harmony with people... that is the point.
"Literal free speech" requires no consequence of speech
Sure literal free speech exists but the consequences are real. You will get beat up if you go into a bar and start mouthing off at everyone. You will get arrested if you threaten someone.
As an ideology of "people should have the right to say whatever they want wherever they are", it isn't realistic. It completely ignores that words have consequences.
A) Hit me
B) No
A) Hit me you pussy
B) No
A) Hit me or I will shoot your parents
B) WHACK... *punches A*
So in the "free speech" utopia (A) is 100% innocent and (B) just committed assault.
For (B)... "Defending his parents" is not even a valid defence as (A) is allowed to say whatever he wants.
Words have no consequence because of the ideological premise that ignores the reality that words do have a consequence.
"Free speech" applied literally is disastrous for society. There needs to be a boundary.
There always has been a boundary since humans first communicated.
There will always be a boundary.
Words do have consequences. Ignore those consequences if you want.
The real question is that of the boundaries and the consequences you can control. "Political speech" should not have consequences of law. Someone "threatening to kill you" ... yeah, the law should get involved. I don't want someone threatening to kill you. If they then, did kill you and I did nothing... then I have failed you and Society agrees. Words have consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speech has consequences
I believe that under US law right now (certainly not a free speech utopia), that is accurate.
It might take a judge to determine if "hit me, you pussy" constitutes "fighting words" or not -- I don't think they are, though. If they are, that would simply mean that both people are innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Speech has consequences
Coca-Cola $1 but it's really not Coca-Cola "free speech"
Good secure house for sale $200,000...but it's really structurally condemned "free speech"
You are a pedophile...but no evidence "free speech"
In the "Literal Free speech" utopia the threat and request to be hit is irrelevant. (B) commits assault. (A) is 100% innocent.
That is a scary society to live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speech has consequences
Actually those would be covered under fraud and negligence. In the real world they're crimes not because of the words used but because of the actual actions involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speech has consequences
> right to" requires no consequence
Not under American law. In the context of American law free speech does not mean speech without consequence. It means speech free from government interference and censorship. You still have to deal with the consequences of saying incendiary things (losing your job, social exclusion, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Speech has consequences
I am debating against the ideology of literal free speech. The idea that people should be free to say whatever they want, whenever they want.
A lot of people expect that "free speech" is and should be a literal right without exceptions. Reality doesn't agree because of the consequences of speech which as you say are very real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Speech has consequences
At least you're honest I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We are clearly talking about the promotion of hunting. You could easily replace the gun with a crossbow, or a slingshot, and it would not change the message one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Voltaire
Also, I have to say there are times I don't agree with the NRA but I am a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and will loudly use my first to protect my 2nd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember, people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember, people
Everything could be used as a weapon. If it has any other use, it shouldn't be banned for that potential. A t-shirt is probably on the level with a plastic knife (up the nose, into the brain).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, OK, OK, I got it. Bear with me for a moment here.
A picture is worth a thousand words, right?
And some times words hurt, right?
Well, there's your problem! The school is just trying to protect the students from getting hur...
You know what? Screw it. I can't do this...it is just too retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, I like that idea, Tim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
NRA shirt promotes GUNS.
it's also an NRA T-Shirt, not his own speech, it's not his speech to be free. the NRA shirt expresses the speech of the NRA, if he has of made his own shirt with "NRA is great" then that is his own free speech or freedom of expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
With an argument that sloppy and idiotic, you must be a lawyer . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
By using the same symbolism created by others he is telling others he agrees with it does he not?
That is a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
You know that "well regulated militia"?
Well the NRA represents the closest thing to that ideal in modern America.
Your fear of scary guns doesn't really alter that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, I like that idea, Tim
> Patriotism, the Country, protection, apple pie,
> hero's.. and so on. NRA shirt promotes GUNS.
> it's also an NRA T-Shirt, not his own speech,
> it's not his speech to be free. the NRA shirt
> expresses the speech of the NRA, if he has of
> made his own shirt with "NRA is great" then
> that is his own free speech or freedom of
> expression.
This has to be the most uninformed, illogical, insipid, and flat-out wrong analysis of 1st Amendment law I've seen in quite a while.
Well done!
(Please tell me you're not a product of the public schools, otherwise I'll weep for the future of the nation.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this mean that a Miss Piggy emblem could be banned by a Muslim teacher?
This sort of rule is more likely to cause violence against the school than avoid it, due to its arbitrary and divisive nature; kids being punished for what they and their parents accept as reasonable behaviour or dress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
so do you believe someone is going to go shoot up a school in protect of this guy being banned from wearing an NRA shirt ? I am just wondering how you think that would work? or is it a veiled threat?
Arbitrary and divisive nature? it's hardly arbitrary I would think, seems quite specific to me, is it divisive because how ? what groups are you dividing ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A rule that basically says "no matter what it is, if a teacher doesn't like it then it can be banned" is specific to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pitchforks and torches should do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
that would never pass legal muster, what it should read, or at least be read as is:
Anything that is (REASONABLY) considered divisive or offensive to a staff member. (or ANY attendees).
the "reasonably" is all important, makes all the difference, it means sure you can ban something, but you have to have a decent reason for it.
And it is IMO reasonable to believe people could be offended by icons of guns in schools in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...and not mentioned in the text quoted from the school's rulebook that you're addressing. I wonder why that is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where is the word reasonably there? Are you just imagining things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...or a fat teacher,
...or a person who dislikes sillinesss,
...or any of at least 6 billion reasons why *someone*/*anyone* can 'object' to ANYTHING for ANY 'reason'...
its bullshit all the way down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate to say it
Its also good to see TD promoting free speech, after the past few months of TD's ignoring it itself. Lets so how long it lasts this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate to say it
Awww, did someone's feelings get hurt again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate to say it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't get it do you?
These are blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although it is an obscenity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Although it is an obscenity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Although it is an obscenity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Although it is an obscenity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Although it is an obscenity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Although it is an obscenity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Although it is an obscenity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Under the first amendment, it is perfectly legal to limit disruptive clothing in schools, and I can see disruption in each of the terms of the code under the lens of "promoting" the negative activities.
On the other hand, the prohibition of anything that "depicts" one any these does seem a bit overbroad. For example, a shirt for "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" will be banned, simply because their primary logo is a key crossing a martini glass. To my mind, then, the inclusion of the "to a staff member" was intended to limit the overbroadness, not to make it more broad, as the author has suggested.
The main problem here is that the dress code has been erroneously extended to prevent protected free speech, e.g. the depiction of guns in a non-violent manner or way that will not cause disruption to the school. Should we be surprised that in a state headed for bankruptcy that the district lawyers would allow it to get this far because they will surely lose and the law states that when they lose, the California law regarding free speech in high schools stipulates that the school (or district) must pay for the legal fees of the prevailing high school student.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many people I can offend with just one drawing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gillete, and Brazilian women, suposeddly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The shirt obviously didn't have any sexual reference at all, so why are people clouding the issue with obscene content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd hate to see what they'd do today over my knuckle tattoo that says Fuck You and my Grim Reaper with an AK on my forearm. Keep in mind I had those two done when I was 13.
Vulgar, yes
Offensive, yes very
My Birth right as an American, you fucking bet it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jewelry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well? Did it have a picture of a gun on it or not?
Not that it matters, except if it didn't the whole thing is even more mornonic.
Many years ago my niece complained about the restrictive policies about what a T-shirt could say at her high school. Then she moved to another school for her last 2 years. We were walking by the T-shirt store where they had one of those shirts "I ama virgin. (This is an old shirt)" I told her she could wear that to school. She said, "naah, this school doesn't care what you wear so it's no fun trying to get them annoyed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I bet they teach American history and government classes too, so a NRA shirt would fall under course of learning as well. Free speech is the first amendment for a reason. It trumps everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those are all situations where the First Amendment, the right to free speech, doesn't apply. The school, being an arm of the government, has to respect First Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is not a case of going against a clear rule, such as no slogans, emblems on shirt, or just no obscene shirts. It is a case of arbitrary decision by a school to ban a shirt because they disagree with its politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
b) For everyone yammering that the school was right, they have already backed down and apologized - http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9273909 (this story is a week old at this point)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE... wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/canyon/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censoring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How far do you go in allowing people to wear what they want?
Near here a guy was removed from a movie theatre for wearing a shirt calling for the legalisation of child porn. Very good decision to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If guns get took away, I suppose crazy people could always build bombs instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, they suck. Specifically they suck because their bullshit undermines their own cause.
"I guess the author isn't a believer in the 2nd Amendment."
Yeah, not even close, chief. I'm a STRONG believer in the 2nd amendment as a matter of personal liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]