I hope the kid fights this all the way

[Boxlicker101]

I hope this kid fights this all the way to SCOTUS if necessary:

http://news.yahoo.com/14-old-kid-arrested-over-pro-nra-shirt-071819724.html

It was a violation of his First Amendment in the first place, and now the charges are strictly trumped up. Insist on a jury trial and plead not guilty and don't give a millimeter.

 

[KRCummings]

I hope this kid fights this all the way to SCOTUS if necessary:

http://news.yahoo.com/14-old-kid-arrested-over-pro-nra-shirt-071819724.html

It was a violation of his First Amendment in the first place, and now the charges are strictly trumped up. Insist on a jury trial and plead not guilty and don't give a millimeter.

Kids in school don't have first amendment rights.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So do I. He'll serve as a great example of what happens when you don't listen to your teachers when he inevitably loses this fight.

 

[KRCummings]

So do I. He'll serve as a great example of what happens when you don't listen to your teachers when he inevitably loses this fight.

If Bong Hits For Jesus didn't win then this won't either. That guy wasn't even on school property.

 

[islandman]

Kids in school don't have first amendment rights.

Since when?

If anything, the arresting officer should be fired for being an idiot.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The US Supreme Court has never (to my google knowledge) ruled on the constitutionality of kids school clothing.

Three state supreme courts have upheld laws permitting principals or school boards to decide what johnny can or cannot wear.

I wonder if the OP would feel the same if the boy wore a "Support Gay Rights" T-shirt.

Probably not....that's DIFFERENT.

 

[KRCummings]

Since when?

If anything, the arresting officer should be fired for being an idiot.

Since always. School codes of conduct always trump free speech.

 

[KRCummings]

Since when?

If anything, the arresting officer should be fired for being an idiot.

That does not however mean the officer wasn't an idiot.

 

[islandman]

Since always. School codes of conduct always trump free speech.

I knew this to be true of private schools, but did not know it applied to public schools as well.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The US Supreme Court has never (to my google knowledge) ruled on the constitutionality of kids school clothing.

Three state supreme courts have upheld laws permitting principals or school boards to decide what johnny can or cannot wear.

I wonder if the OP would feel the same if the boy wore a "Support Gay Rights" T-shirt.

Probably not....that's DIFFERENT.

I would feel EXACTLY the same. I have always been a supporter of gay rights, and you can look back through my thousands of posts to verify that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here: Google is our friend. http://www.nesl.edu/research/rsguides/Anthony_Scibetta.html

 

[KRCummings]

Here: Google is our friend. http://www.nesl.edu/research/rsguides/Anthony_Scibetta.html

You know that supports the notion that schools control the speech of students, right?

 

[pointless]

I knew this to be true of private schools, but did not know it applied to public schools as well.

it doesn't.

 

[KRCummings]

I knew this to be true of private schools, but did not know it applied to public schools as well.

Over and over the courts have said the schools have control. I'm sure there are some cases where the students win but generally speaking a student doesn't get the same freedom of speech that an adult has.

 

[pointless]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

yes, i googled it. i'm that bored.

 

[KRCummings]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

yes, i googled it. i'm that bored.

Yes but they have also ruled that students don't get the same level of protection.

 

[KRCummings]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

yes, i googled it. i'm that bored.

To be fair I did overstate the power the courts have given schools. Students have free speech but are limited in ways that adults usually aren't. Clothes in particular have been an issue and in most (but obviously not all) cases the school wins.

 

[cjh]

It's political speech. The Tinker substantial disruption test applies.

As I read the facts, he did not cause the disruption, the school did; it looks like that from their perspective the only way he could have not caused a disruption would have been to remove the shirt, that is, by muffling his speech.

I'd take on the kid's case in a heartbeat.

 

[KRCummings]

It's political speech. The Tinker substantial disruption test applies.

As I read the facts, he did not cause the disruption, the school did; it looks like that from their perspective the only way he could have not caused a disruption would have been to remove the shirt, that is, by muffling his speech.

I'd take on the kid's case in a heartbeat.

You know way more than I do about this kind of stuff so I'll just defer to you. I still think he'll lose though.

 

[cjh]

You know way more than I do about this kind of stuff so I'll just defer to you. I still think he'll lose though.

You are right that a school kid's free speech rights are not as extensive as an adult's when the kid is at school.

It would be an easier case for the school if it had a dress code that forbid all speech on shirts. The problem they have, though, given what little I can glean from the article is that it is trying to suppress political speech without having a reasonable belief that the school would be disrupted.

Confederate flag shirts get regulated all the time, but that is because the administrators can point to prior instances of racial tension arising from display of the flag.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You know that supports the notion that schools control the speech of students, right?

As long as they are not obscene or disruptive and don't promote illegal activities, students do have the right to wear messages on their shirts. The original case I citied, the Tinker case, was about black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, which were political statements.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

The US Supreme Court has never (to my google knowledge) ruled on the constitutionality of kids school clothing.

Three state supreme courts have upheld laws permitting principals or school boards to decide what johnny can or cannot wear.

I wonder if the OP would feel the same if the boy wore a "Support Gay Rights" T-shirt.

Probably not....that's DIFFERENT.

I say the Supremes should rule for the kid in either situation.

Political speech is either protected or it's not...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The initial one-day suspension has been served and is water over the dam, pretty much.

The current issue is about the interaction between the student and the police officer. In the highly unlikely event that this case goes to trial, the defense will relentlessly attack the reasonableness of the arrest essentially asking the question, "Should you face a year in prison simply because you refused to obey an officer's command to shut up." "Was the officer truly 'obstructed' from performing his duties because of the defendant's language?"

People are handcuffed and tossed in the back of a police cruiser all the time while screaming obscenities.

If school employees were the ones to call the cops, however, then their actions are back in the mix and they may get their asses kicked. On the heels of a one-day suspension that appears to have been levied and served peaceably enough, what were the additional and compelling factors which warranted calling the police? If the school doesn't have a good answer to that question, they may be in some trouble.

Furthermore, since the school apparently had no policy against "political messages" on school dress, if I had to choose sides on this one, I'd go with the kid. The criminal charges will be dropped because the cop overreacted, and the kid and his family might very well receive some modest monetary damages.

 

[Sinny]

You are right that a school kid's free speech rights are not as extensive as an adult's when the kid is at school.

It would be an easier case for the school if it had a dress code that forbid all speech on shirts. The problem they have, though, given what little I can glean from the article is that it is trying to suppress political speech without having a reasonable belief that the school would be disrupted.

Confederate flag shirts get regulated all the time, but that is because the administrators can point to prior instances of racial tension arising from display of the flag.

I may be operating on info from an older decision that may be obsolete, but what about the Hazlewood decision limiting free speech? Would that apply here?

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's political speech. The Tinker substantial disruption test applies.

As I read the facts, he did not cause the disruption, the school did; it looks like that from their perspective the only way he could have not caused a disruption would have been to remove the shirt, that is, by muffling his speech.

I'd take on the kid's case in a heartbeat.

The Tinker case specifically allows political speech. The articles of clothing in question were black armbands, worn as a protest to the Vietnam War. SCOTUS ruled they were constituted protected freedom of speech and were therefore legal.

Pornographic pictures or messages telling people to smoke pot would not be allowed, and Confederate flags would be considered disruptive, and would be disallowed, but the shirt in question is none of those things. It's not even partisan politics.