Boy punished for T-shirt with gun image

[beevul]

Boy punished for T-shirt with gun image

LANCASTER, Pa. - The family of a middle school student who was given detention for wearing a T-shirt bearing the image of a gun has filed a federal freedom of speech lawsuit against the school district.

The shirt bears the image of a military sidearm and on the front pocket says "Volunteer Homeland Security." On the back, over another image of the weapon, are the words "Special issue Resident Lifetime License — United States Terrorist Hunting Permit — Permit No. 91101 — Gun Owner — No Bag Limit."

Officials at the Millersville school told him to turn his shirt inside out. When Miller refused, he got two days of detention.

His parents, Donald and Tina Miller of Holtwood, have accused the Penn Manor School District in a lawsuit of violating their son's First Amendment rights with a "vague Orwellian policy" that stifles both patriotism and free speech.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_us/t_shirt_gun


And here:





Family Sues School District After Son Gets Detention for Wearing T-Shirt With Gun Image

A 14-year-old Pennsylvania schoolboy is fighting back after being sent to detention for wearing a T-shirt bearing the image of a gun in honor of his uncle fighting in Iraq.

Officials at Penn Manor High School in Millersville, Pa., gave Donald Miller III two days of detention in December after he refused to turn his shirt inside out. But Donald and his parents say the shirt is a symbol of patriotism, and they've taken the case to federal court.

Donald's shirt showed a military weapon and the words "Volunteer Homeland Security" on the front. The back of the shirt displayed the words "Special Issue — Resident — Lifetime License — United States Terrorist Hunting Permit — Permit No. 91101 Gun Owner — No Bag Limit" over another image of the weapon.

"Donald Miller wears the T-shirt to make the political and emotional statement that he supports his uncle, and all our armed forces, as they bravely exercise their duty to defend this great nation," Miller's attorney, Leonard G. Brown III, wrote in the federal complaint cited in the Sunday News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336793,00.html


The schools stated position does not seem to support thier actions:


"But an attorney for the school district said school must create a safe environment for students in the post-Columbine era, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy."


I'd like for anyone that supports the schools actions to explain how this kid wearing that shirt effects a safe environment in any way shape size or form.

[chelsea0011]

1. A policy of having to change the Tee shirt I think would be enough

[ET Awful]

3. He was given the opportunity to turn the shirt inside out and refused.

Detention is perfectly acceptable punishment.

Hell, even when I was in high school (over 20 years ago), shirts like this would get you in trouble and you had the option to turn the shirt inside out or go home and change.

The kid chose to ignore the school policy, was given a chance to rectify the situation and chose to be a twerp instead.

[hamnose]

2. big deal

stupid shirt, not very patriotic but who cares? I mean if the school doesn't have a dress code which prohibits t shirts with words or advertising which in this oppressive society I highly doubt. I don't see why he shouldn't wear his dumb shirt. What school still allows children to wear t-shirts with writing on them? It isn't allowed here: doesn't matter what the shirt says. Then I see Oh! this is a fox news story. End of controversy.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. Exactly

Don't look for Fox to run the story of a poor little high school boy to wear his gay pride shirt with "I Have Two Mommies" or "I Support Gay Marriage".

It's situational speech and Fox is notorious for their own version of political correctness especially as it relates to .... guns.

[zbdent]

4. it's not really the image (but of course, the NRA won't tell you that)

it's probably the thought process behind the message ...

Keep track of this kid ... if he doesn't sign up for the military at first chance ... harass him for being a TOTAL F*CKING HYPOCRITE AND A COWARD ...

[J R]

5. I totally agree...

Let's all find out who he is, and make sure he finds his way to a military recruiter on his 18th birthday... ;-)
Junior Wingnuts apparently excel in chicken hawk hypocrisy, just like the Big Wingnuts...
People like this little redneck are the future of the GOP.

[bossy22]

6. close minded

are we?


i dont really care for the shirt much, infact i dislike that whole "Terrorist hunting permit" crap (bumperstickers included)...but if the school doesnt have a dress code then its just wrong to single out ideas which the principle "dislikes" and try to oppress them...i believe in the freedom of expression- even if i dont agree with the expression.

the way the public school system works these days are disgusting- if you dont think like they think- you get your self a free trip to the counseling office and then a thorough "straigtening out"

i once had an incident like this back in high school- and i was an 18 year old senior at the time.

[zbdent]

7. Wasn't that long ago that a lot of RWers were decrying freedom of expression

in schools ... saying that the students' rights end at the door ... a lot of them decided that "freedom of expression" was okay as long as it was not saying anything bad about Bush ... so I would think that, by this kid's upbringing, he should be more than happy to have his "freedom of speech" squashed ... that's the nature of the RWers ...

[bossy22]

8. and they are wrong

but does that mean two wrongs make a right? this is petty arguement based on a RW v LW battle. Most of life is not about RW v LW....

freedom of expression should be allowed in our nations public schools- regardless if it is RW or LW.

I find it disgusting that people on "our side" of the aisle cry foul on the other side; while they do the same exact thing.

[EricTeri]

9. Hammer. Nail. Head

Either you support freedom of speech, or you dont. There really is no middle ground.

[virginia mountainman]

12. The Bill of Rights is ALL, or nothing...

If WE, can pick and chose which "rights" to defend, so can the other side....


We are DEMOCRATS, WE STAND FOR THEM ALL, anyone that does not, IMHO is NOT a democrat.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

30. All or Nothing?

How so?

Are you saying there is a constitutional right to yell fire in a theater when there is not and then shield yourself in the all or nothing First Amendment right?
Are you saying there is a constitutional right for a church to have a tax exempt certificate when it endorses a political candidate from the pulpit based on an all or nothing First Amendment right?
Are you saying there is a constitutional right for a television station to broadcast adult content at 6 pm based on an all or nothing First Amendment right?
Are you saying that a student has a constitutional right to yell at the top of his lungs in a classroom based on an all or nothing First Amendment right?
Are you saying that a student has a constitutional right to paint his political speech on a school wall and shield himself using the all or nothing First Amendment right?

Of course not. (Or at least I hope not.) That's because so called rights often come into conflict with other very real rights.

My favorite quote is the quote from the movie... the American President.... in which Michael Douglas says "Stand up and defend the rights to say something you would spend a lifetime opposing and then you have the definition of a patriot' or something like that. It's a good quote.

I oppose the student's speech, but I think he has a right to wear his shirt. I just don't buy this 'all or nothing' nonsense, because I think there are legitimate reasons when and under what circumstances a right should be restricted when it conflicts with the rights or safety of others.

I also think many supporters of the student's right to wear that shirt would change if the message was different (ie pro/anti abortion, pro/anti gay rights, etc.)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

32. See Post 30

It's not 'all or nothing'.

[SteveM]

11. Reminds me of "Bong Hits for Jesus" case. Pot & Guns: a prohibitionist's orgy.

[SteveM]

10. Harass a 14-yr-old for being a "TOTAL F*CKING HYPOCRITE AND COWARD"?

At what age is the cut-off for your "discipline?"

[iverglas]

13. imaginary friends again?

What was said:

if he doesn't sign up for the military at first chance ... harass him for being a TOTAL F*CKING HYPOCRITE AND A COWARD ...

Your "reply":

Harass a 14-yr-old for being a "TOTAL F*CKING HYPOCRITE AND COWARD"?

It must have been meant for someone, but I'm failing to see how it could be been meant for the person who said "if he doesn't sign up for the military at first chance" ... unless the US is up to some new trick and enrolling 14-yr-olds in the military now ...

[SteveM]

65. "Keep track of this kid..." The harassment starts early.

[iverglas]

14. First Amendment rights

I hope one of the kid's classmates decides to stand up in assembly and sing La Marseillaise at the top of his/her lungs during the principal's announcements sometime soon.

Surely this kids' parents will be leading the parade to protest the violation of that kid's First Amendment rights when s/he is given detention.

[L1A1Rocker]

15. Try again

Maybe you can come up with an analogy that actually makes some since.

[iverglas]

16. hmm, I doubt it

Maybe you can come up with an analogy that actually makes some since.

But if you'll send me a jar, I'll bake you a since pie. I assume it takes like a cross between quince and ... uh ... something.

That's it. Quince + something = since.

Meanwhile, back in the literate world ...

A child chooses to disrupt the learning environment for other students in a school by behaving like an obnoxious little toad. The child is disciplined. Lovers of free speech everywhere hire a bandwagon and climb on it. Makes perfect, uh, since to me.

[L1A1Rocker]

17. Didn't think you could. Thanks for the admission.

[beevul]

18. "A child chooses to disrupt the learning environment ..."

"A child chooses to disrupt the learning environment for other students in a school by behaving like an obnoxious little toad."


Thats really quite a creative characterization you have there. Quite creative indeed.

Meanwhile, lets compare characterization YOURS, with that of those who were in this learning environment you claim this kid chose to "disrupt".

The start
The incident happened Dec. 4, according to the federal complaint. But the story actually begins last spring.

That's when Miller's uncle, Brian Souders, shipped out to Iraq. He had been stationed at Fort Benning, Ga., and bought the shirt at the base post exchange, or PX, and gave it to Donald as a gift.

With his uncle on the front lines of the "War on Terror," Donald said he wanted to show his support. And so one day toward the end of eighth grade, he wore the shirt to school — and was admonished by Penn Manor Middle School officials. Donald didn't want to get in trouble, so he turned the shirt inside out.

But he didn't think that was right. In early December, he wore the shirt to Penn Manor High School. No one said a word about it all day, he said, until his final period, when a classmate complained to the teacher.

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/217898

Thats some mighty blatant "disrupting" considering in aproximately 6 hours not one person said didly. Yes indeed, looks as if he caused quite a ruckus and disrupted the learning environment around him in 100 feet in all directions, all day long, as was his plan all along. NOT.


"That's it. Quince + something = since."


Judging from that last post, I'd say you'll have no trouble at all coming up with the "something" for that recipe though this would make it come out easier:

[iverglas]

20. disruption = ruckus?

Maybe you could lend me your dictionary. Mine seems to be malfunctioning. I don't see anything about causing disruption being equal to causing a ruckus.

But then, I generally acknowledge the right of all students in a public school to receive an education in a non-hostile, non-threatening, non-discriminatory environment. And I recognize that T-shirts blaring overtly hostile, threatening or discriminatory messages are likely to interfere in some students' exercise of that right. And I see no need for any student to make any political statement on his/her clothing in an academic setting in order to exercise his/her right of free speech.

If the child were being prevented from stating a political opinion in a school context that involved the expression of political opinions, there could well be a problem. A teacher who tolerated / encouraged the expression of one opinion in a class and suppressed the expression of another would indeed be acting improperly. Not by violating the right of free speech, of course; by discriminating.

Where anyone got the idea that there is "free speech" in a classroom just escapes me. Classrooms are for learning. Not for expressing opinions, unless students are expressly invited to do so as part of the learning process.


No one said a word about it all day, he said, until his final period, when a classmate complained to the teacher.

But hey, that student doesn't matter. It's the one wearing the vile right-wing slogans who matters. Even though no one did one single thing that interfered with the purpose why he was at school: to learn. Nope, he loves his guns, so he's in the right. How far on the right he was, both on the specific issue he was choosing to impose his opinions on his classmates about and on his entire approach to the social relationships in which rights arise -- me me me me me -- well, I'd say it didn't matter to some, if I didn't think it was more the heart of the matter ...

[beevul]

22. Reed Richards is that you?

Cuz you sure are stretching a bunch here...

"Maybe you could lend me your dictionary. Mine seems to be malfunctioning. I don't see anything about causing disruption being equal to causing a ruckus.

But then, I generally acknowledge the right of all students in a public school to receive an education in a non-hostile, non-threatening, non-discriminatory environment. And I recognize that T-shirts blaring overtly hostile, threatening or discriminatory messages are likely to interfere in some students' exercise of that right. And I see no need for any student to make any political statement on his/her clothing in an academic setting in order to exercise his/her right of free speech.

If the child were being prevented from stating a political opinion in a school context that involved the expression of political opinions, there could well be a problem. A teacher who tolerated / encouraged the expression of one opinion in a class and suppressed the expression of another would indeed be acting improperly. Not by violating the right of free speech, of course; by discriminating.

Where anyone got the idea that there is "free speech" in a classroom just escapes me. Classrooms are for learning. Not for expressing opinions, unless students are expressly invited to do so as part of the learning process."

Right. And maybe you could lend me YOUR dictionary.I don't see anything about causing a disruption being equal to one person making a complaint out of HUNDREDS that didn't, over the course of 6 plus hours.

But then I generally recognise that wearing the shirt in question does not amount to hostile threatening or discriminatory. Care to assert otherwise in any direct sense?

"And I see no need for any student to make any political statement on his/her clothing in an academic setting in order to exercise his/her right of free speech."

Let me ask...what does NEED have to do with students, or anyone else for that matter, making political statements?


Look here. You are the one that claimed that "a child CHOSE to disrupt...". Evidence to the contrary was presented to you. Own it.

I'll look for you to be championing dress codes in all schools now, since "Classrooms are for learning... Not for expressing opinions..." and only a dress code will prevent any expressing of ALL opinions through the expression of them on an article of clothing...rather than just those opinions that might not be popular with YOU or with society. And it would help fight that whole individuality thing you apparently have such a problem with too.

"But hey, that student doesn't matter. It's the one wearing the vile right-wing slogans who matters. Even though no one did one single thing that interfered with the purpose why he was at school: to learn. Nope, he loves his guns, so he's in the right. How far on the right he was, both on the specific issue he was choosing to impose his opinions on his classmates about and on his entire approach to the social relationships in which rights arise -- me me me me me -- well, I'd say it didn't matter to some, if I didn't think it was more the heart of the matter ...

The other student doesn't matter? Really? Who said that? Can you perhaps post a quote? That other student was incapable of wearing a shirt the following day that expressed his or her own opinion on that issue or any other? Or someone was preventing it? Thus far though, that other student only demonstrated the interest in preventing the message of the wearer of said shirt from being seen. And you appear to agree with it. Vile right-wing slogans? Where? Satirical patriotism maybe...but right wing messages? Come on now...Even though he did not one single thing that interfered with the purpose why others were at was at school: to learn. Nope, he has a shirt with a depiction of a firearm on it, so he's in the wrong. Nevermind that it has little to do with guns as far as HE is concerned, that its the SCHOOL that makes a big deal about it because of guns, though it IS telling that you would spin it as such.

And he was imposing his opinions on his classmates? Is that like how you are imposing your opinion on the readers of DU?

Oh, I get it, he was EXPOSING them to his opinions. Such a terrible thing...because as we all know that NEVER happens in schools among students and thier peers. Well...through articles of clothing...in schools with dress codes..anyway.

God forbid ANYONE be an individual, unless they agree with...well, whatever you say they should...is that about right?

[iverglas]

23. somebody forcing you to spend your time at DU?

And he was imposing his opinions on his classmates?
Is that like how you are imposing your opinion on the readers of DU?

See the difference between DU and a public school? Maybe if you move a little in this direction you will.

The purpose of DU is to provide a forum for the expression of political opinions. See the difference between DU and a public school? Maybe if you move a little in this direction you will.

Maybe somebody can make up this slogan Tshirt and find some kid to wear it to school. Shouldn't be hard:

United States Child Molesting Priest Hunting Permit
Gun Owner - No Bag Limit

Like that one? No RC kid should feel at all singled out or intimidated by the display of that sentiment.

Maybe:

United States Date-Raping Teenaged Boys Hunting Permit
Gun Owner - No Bag Limit

Addresses a serious problem of genuine concern to students.

How about:

United States War Crime Committing US Troops Hunting Permit
Gun Owner - No Bag Limit

That might be my favourite. Just as good as the others. An opinion. Speech. With a factual background for good measures.

How about:

United States War Crime Committing President Hunting Permit
Gun Owner - Bag Limit One

Seems pretty reasonable -- it's political, it's an opinion. It's speech. It belongs in the schools.


Of course, I don't actually think any of them belong in the schools -- despite how much I might agree with the analysis that prompted the sentiment. Because I think they're designed to intimidate. And I don't think intimidation is a function of public schools.

Nor, of course, is the notion that the use of firearms to solve social and political problems is appropriate an opinion that should be displayed in public schools.

I'm sure I went wrong here somewhere. I'm also sure I'll never see where it was. My concern for the actual children who have to attend public schools and their right to be treated equally and not to be intimidated or discriminated against in those schools just seems to blind me to the importance of one snot-nosed little brat being able to do whatever the hell he wants whenever and wherever he wants. It's a character flaw, I'm sure.



Let me ask...what does NEED have to do with students, or anyone else for that matter, making political statements?

Try asking me what need has to do with students, or anyone else, making political statements during class hours on public school property where their statements are not relevant to the learning process that they are supposed to be engaged in, and you might be asking an honest question.


I don't see anything about causing a disruption being equal to one person making a complaint out of HUNDREDS that didn't, over the course of 6 plus hours.

If I sit next to you at work blaring a radio set to the football game and you don't complain to anyone in authority, have I disrupted your work? I guess not. Never mind that you don't want to be perceived as a complainer and might be worried about what would happen out in the parking lot if it became known that you were the one who had made the complaint.

How about if you wear a Tshirt to work depicting Mohammed as a mad bomber, and I'm a Muslim? Have you disrupted my work? Of course not. There is no reason whatsoever for me to be uncomfortable that such sentiments are tolerated in my workplace. And if I do find it difficult to feel at ease in that atmosphere so that I can do my work properly, but don't complain because I pretty much figure things would only get worse it I did, well then I don't have anything to complain about.

Me, I just wouldn't go making such a big deal out of the fact that a bunch of schoolchildren didn't complain about something. By your reckoning, obviously it's only a very rare schoolchild who is ever beaten up or robbed by a classmate, because it's only very rarely that a complaint is made to school authorities. Admirable feat of logic, there, chum. Or something, anyhow.


I'll look for you to be championing dress codes in all schools now, since "Classrooms are for learning... Not for expressing opinions..." and only a dress code will prevent any expressing of ALL opinions through the expression of them on an article of clothing...rather than just those opinions that might not be popular with YOU or with society.

Actually, I think "United States Terrorist Hunting Permit" is probably pretty popular with your society. Don't know about popularity with you; I'm not in the habit of pretending to make big ugly assumptions about other people, or basing my arguments on insulting characterizations of my interlocutors.

I gather that dress codes that involve prohibiting clothing with speech on it aren't uncommon. And I don't think I have any problem with that. If someone wants to be a walking billboard, they are entirely free to do it in places where other people are free to leave. The other children in a public school are not free to leave. And they're entitled to an intimidation-free, discrimination-free learning environment.

[beevul]

24. Swell try...well...not so swell but a try nonetheless.+

Of course, I don't actually think any of them belong in the schools -- despite how much I might agree with the analysis that prompted the sentiment. Because I think they're designed to intimidate. And I don't think intimidation is a function of public schools.

So you THINK they're designed to intimidate...Whom exactly do you THINK they designed to intimidate? Anyone that really belongs in a public school at all perhaps? I didn't think so.

Try asking me what need has to do with students, or anyone else, making political statements during class hours on public school property where their statements are not relevant to the learning process that they are supposed to be engaged in, and you might be asking an honest question.

Now you get to decide what is or is not an honest question eh? I reckon that must come in real handy when one is posed that the answers of which would harm your argument. Real handy indeed.

If I sit next to you at work blaring a radio set to the football game and you don't complain to anyone in authority, have I disrupted your work? I guess not. Never mind that you don't want to be perceived as a complainer and might be worried about what would happen out in the parking lot if it became known that you were the one who had made the complaint.

And as soon as a deciding not to hear-and-listen to a thing, becomes possible - like deciding not to look at a thing is, you might have a valid comparison made...unless of course you are going to sit here and claim that sight and sound work the same. Are you?

How about if you wear a Tshirt to work depicting Mohammed as a mad bomber, and I'm a Muslim? Have you disrupted my work? Of course not. There is no reason whatsoever for me to be uncomfortable that such sentiments are tolerated in my workplace. And if I do find it difficult to feel at ease in that atmosphere so that I can do my work properly, but don't complain because I pretty much figure things would only get worse it I did, well then I don't have anything to complain about.

And as soon as the action which you are failing to make a comparison to becomes related to religion in a comparable way in the comparison your failing to make, you might have a point...Unless of course your going to say that someone in that classroom belongs to a religion that worships terrorists or requires that individual to abstain from seeing an image of a firearm. Are you?

Me, I just wouldn't go making such a big deal out of the fact that a bunch of schoolchildren didn't complain about something. By your reckoning, obviously it's only a very rare schoolchild who is ever beaten up or robbed by a classmate, because it's only very rarely that a complaint is made to school authorities. Admirable feat of logic, there, chum. Or something, anyhow.

Except were not talking about someone getting beat up, raped or robbed or shot here. Were talking about someone wearing a shirt - something that could be anonymously reported to authorities as something the one doing the reporting did not like, with out fear or reprisal or retribution. And yet people just weren't lined up to do that. Were talking about someone wearing a shirt. One that attacks no ethnicity, religion or faith. I'm not making a big deal of anything here. YOU are. YOU in fact are the one that used the word "disruption", in case you had forgotten. So, where was this disruption? Care to quote the school claiming he disrupted anything? Care to quote even 1 person claiming he disrupted anything? Of course you wont, because the whole "disruption" discussion, is a creation, your very own. The SCHOOL does not even claim he disrupted anything. Yours is one of the single most absurd comparisons I have ever seen. Several hundred kids were exposed to the shirt, would seem to be a reasonable deduction, between the 30+ in each of the 6 or more classes the kid was in and the fact that they're part of the 1840 enrolled students that walk to and from classes in between periods:

STUDENT ENROLLMENT
Seniors…………………………441


Juniors…………………………464


Sophomores……………………461


Freshmen………………………474


Total………………………….. 1840

http://www.pennmanor.net/schools/hs/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=51

And this is supposed to compare (even cleaning up your analogy for you a little bit)to several hundred students getting beat up by the same person on the same day but only one reporting it because? Like I said before. You are really reaching.Hundreds aparently didn't have enough of a problem with the shirt in question to complain about it BUT thats not supposed to be a big deal...yet ONE person complains at the end of the day and THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A BIG DEAL? Ok then... :sarcasm: The admirable feat of logic belongs to you, I believe.

Actually, I think "United States Terrorist Hunting Permit" is probably pretty popular with your society. Don't know about popularity with you; I'm not in the habit of pretending to make big ugly assumptions about other people, or basing my arguments on insulting characterizations of my interlocutors.

No, you sure aren't. Instead you say things like "A child chooses to disrupt the learning environment for other students in a school by behaving like an obnoxious little toad" and will slickly label it as an assessment rather than an assumption. Even though the facts of the matter are contrary to that assessment, your "opinion" of him notwithstanding. The fact that this was printed "They are, said Miller, 14, patriotic sentiments in a time of war. He feels pretty strongly about these things", just doesn't matter to you.

I gather that dress codes that involve prohibiting clothing with speech on it aren't uncommon. And I don't think I have any problem with that. If someone wants to be a walking billboard, they are entirely free to do it in places where other people are free to leave. The other children in a public school are not free to leave. And they're entitled to an intimidation-free, discrimination-free learning environment.

Yes...those "dress codes that involve prohibiting clothing with speech on it" may not be uncommon...And as expected, you don't seem to be disagreeable to them. Then you go off the tracks though. You see, I AM a father of 2 girls. One of which is still in school...high school more specifically. Being such, I am exposed to all kinds of current information, such as kids transfering out of classes because they wish to be away from certain individuals because of those individuals religious and/or political beliefs. I very much doubt that her school is any exception. Not only that, but kids at least in these parts , have thier choice of between 2 to 5 diffferent schools. So don't hand me any of this "do it in places where other people are free to leave" business.


Beyond that, you say "they're entitled to an intimidation-free, discrimination-free learning environment". I DEFY you to show how the apparel in question would "intimidate" any one person, then explain in detail HOW exacxtly it would do so. Until you can and do, its just you erring on the side or restriction, yet again, due to the nature of it involving a firearm in some "fashion". (pun intended)

[iverglas]

26. ha

Whom exactly do you THINK they designed to intimidate? Anyone that really belongs in a public school at all perhaps? I didn't think so.

I actually have no idea what you're getting at there, but I find it interesting that you apparently have an opinion about who does and doesn't belong in a public school. I don't. Except for people who decline to follow legitimate rules for behaviour in a public school.

I just happen to think that someone who openly advocates vigilantism is intending to intimidate. And probably not just the people s/he is advocating that the vigilantism be directed at. Advocates of vigilantism, perhaps especially those whose speech includes references to firearms, tend to intimidate people who oppose vigilantism. Their targests can shift so easily.


And as soon as a deciding not to hear-and-listen to a thing, becomes possible - like deciding not to look at a thing is, you might have a valid comparison made...unless of course you are going to sit here and claim that sight and sound work the same. Are you?

Gosh, I wouldn't dream of it.

I also wouldn't dream of suggesting that if Person A puts his/her head in the sand, Person B and his Tshirt cease to exist.

If this little punk's Tshirt was not intended to have any effect, exactly why was he so bent on wearing it to school?

Of course, if you wish to continue pretending that displaying a depiction of a firearm on one's person with the words that accompanied it in this instance is not designed to be intimidating, and that there is no reason for a school to ban depictions of firearms as this one appears to do, you go ahead.


Except were not talking about someone getting beat up, raped or robbed or shot here.

You are 100% right there.

We were talking about schoolchildren complaining or failing to complain to school authorities.

What I offered you was what's called an a fortiori argument -- .

If schoolchildren decline to complain about being beaten up or robbed by classmates (I said nothing about being raped or shot, so those are your own fantasies), what conclusion should we draw from the fact that schoolchildren declined to complain about feeling intimidated by a classmate's speech? If schoolchildren do not complain about being beaten up or robbed by classmates, they are all the more likely not to complain about feeling intimidated by a classmage's speech.


So don't hand me any of this "do it in places where other people are free to leave" business.

Lordy. Yes, the onus should be on the intimidated student to transfer out of his/her school. I assume this applies to female students who are sexually harrassed or assaulted, students who are harassed or assaulted because of their race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation ... or does it only apply to weinies who are upset by wannabe vigilantes wearing their colours in class?


Something you may really not grasp is that enforcement of conduct rules in schools is not complaint-dependent, and that violation of conduct rules is not the personal problem of the victims of violations. School authorities have a responsibility to enforce rules, regardless of whether any student in the school thinks so or not. That have that responsibility in the interests of individual students and the interests of the school community as a whole. So basically, after all that sound and fury, you just have no point at all.


typo fixed

[beevul]

27. That Reed Richards impersonation again...that reaching...

actually have no idea what you're getting at there, but I find it interesting that you apparently have an opinion about who does and doesn't belong in a public school. I don't. Except for people who decline to follow legitimate rules for behaviour in a public school.

I'm sure you don't. Me, I'd say that someone who fits the definition of a terrorist just might not belong in a public school. And strangely enough, if one were to take the message on the shirt as strictly a non satirical message - as one would have to to interpret it as something well and truly intimidating - one would have to acknowledge that the intendeed targets of said intimidation would be those previously mentioned terrorists.

I just happen to think that someone who openly advocates vigilantism is intending to intimidate. And probably not just the people s/he is advocating that the vigilantism be directed at. Advocates of vigilantism, perhaps especially those whose speech includes references to firearms, tend to intimidate people who oppose vigilantism. Their targests can shift so easily.

And I just happen to think that if you had wheels youd be a wagon. Well I don't really, but i thought id counter your "I think..." with one equally as meaningless. And I also happen to think that someone that can not take into account the satirical nature of the message of the shirt, well the opinion of that person would be about as useful to the debate as the sand in my cats litterbox. And it is strange too, that while YOU make this argument, the school does not. Thier objection is to the depiction of a firearm on a piece of clothing.

Of course, if you wish to continue pretending that displaying a depiction of a firearm on one's person with the words that accompanied it in this instance is not designed to be intimidating, and that there is no reason for a school to ban depictions of firearms as this one appears to do, you go ahead.

Hahahaha...ermm...hahahahaha. And you just keep pretending that the "displaying a depiction of a firearm on one's person with the words that accompanied it in this instance" is designed or intended in ANY WAY to intimidate anyone likely to be present at that school. If you really want to attempt to make that case, then go ahead, just try. But don't sit here and pretend for the audience that its some sort of given. And ...ya know...do try to come up with something more than just you own little opinion, please. Oh and BTW, thats another argument the school did not make.

What I offered you was what's called an a fortiori argument -- .If schoolchildren decline to complain about being beaten up or robbed by classmates (I said nothing about being raped or shot, so those are your own fantasies), what conclusion should we draw from the fact that schoolchildren declined to complain about feeling intimidated by a classmate's speech? If schoolchildren do not complain about being beaten up or robbed by classmates, they are all the more likely not to complain about feeling intimidated by a classmage's speech.

Well hey thats nice. What I offered you was some correction to the application of it. Such as pointing out that if your going to compare several hunderd kids seeing the same - in your opinion offending article of clothing -to kids getting beat up ...that maybe it ought to be the same amount of kids getting beat up by the same person doing the beating, for purposes of comparison. And what do you know? When that is done, the absurdity of the argument containing that comparison becomes quite clear, no matter how accepted the methodology might be.

Lordy. Yes, the onus should be on the intimidated student to transfer out of his/her school. I assume this applies to female students who are sexually harrassed or assaulted, students who are harassed or assaulted because of their race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation ... or does it only apply to weinies who are upset by wannabe vigilantes wearing their colours in class?

Actually, I was rather thinking that the onus would be on the person whom thinks that a shirt/message of the type in question is worth even complaining about, to suck it up and deal with it...maybe even wear a message of thier own, on thier own. The whole transferring thing...is simply a refutation of the whole "place in which an offended person can not leave" argument which YOU made,, not me. Now your going to try and throw the "sexually harrassed or assaulted, students who are harassed or assaulted because of their race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation" in, and set the other goal post at "weinies who are upset by wannabe vigilantes wearing their colours in class", when the issue at hand is really nothing of the sort. The school makes no such argument. You are the only one doing that. And I fail to see any intimidated individuals here. Not a one. Can you point one out perhaps?

Something you may really not grasp is that enforcement of conduct rules in schools is not complaint-dependent, and that violation of conduct rules is not the personal problem of the victims of violations. School authorities have a responsibility to enforce rules, regardless of whether any student in the school thinks so or not. That have that responsibility in the interests of individual students and the interests of the school community as a whole. So basically, after all that sound and fury, you just have no point at all.

Thats a good thing, since identifying any victim in this case, would be a laughable exercise. Me, I'd say that without a victim like there would have been in the case of say "sexually harrassed or assaulted, students who are harassed or assaulted because of their race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation", as opposed to someone whos upset by thier misinterpretation of "wannabe vigilantes wearing their colours in class", that the whole issue is laughable. I'd also say that an element of school authorities said responsibility is to make sure the rules they enforce are fair and enforced fairly, and I very much doubt that either elements are present in this case. Parents have the responsibility of making sure they are doing that job, and turn to the courts if need be, to compel them to, as has happened in this case.

But then, I don't side with authority by default, iether. I hold authority questionable and responsible at all times, and recognise that it needs to have ITS limits stated and restated, rather than those of the people.

[iverglas]

28. well I guess I know what you think now

Couldn't really help but, could I? If only I cared. I just find your opinions about what children should do if someone behaves in a way that makes their school environment hostile to them and disruptive to their learning ... boring. And irrelevant. And unimportant. And inconsequential. Unpleasant as they are, of course, demonstrating the complete lack of concern for other human beings that they do. But really just not worth spending another moment's thought on, particularly when they're just the same old thing over and over.

If I knew what a Reed Richards was, maybe I'd be as amused as you seem to be by your repeated reference to it. Sadly, I don't, so I guess the apparent insult kinda didn't quite hit its mark.



inserted that missing word

[beevul]

33. Likewise...

If only I cared. I just find your opinions about what constitutes behaving in a way that makes a school environment hostile and disruptive to learning ... boring. And irrelevant. And unimportant. And inconsequential. Unpleasant as they are, of course, demonstrating the complete lack of concern for the rights of other individuals that they do. But really just not worth spending another moment's thought on, particularly when they're just the same old thing over and over.


Oh, and I DO find it interesting that you continue on with this argument. One that the school never made... I wonder why that is...

[iverglas]

35. "One that the school never made"

What the school said, from the opening post:

"But an attorney for the school district said school must create a safe environment for students in the post-Columbine era, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy."

And from the sort of place would would expect to see an issue being made of this sort of thing:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336793,00.html

Kevin French, an attorney for Penn Manor, said the school district must create a safe environment, and Miller's T-shirt violated school policy.

"Students who come to school enjoy limited First Amendment rights," French told the Sunday News. "But the school district has the right to enforce policies that protect students."

Maybe if I stood where you're standing, I'll see how that differs from what I'm saying. (Note that Thing X can cause a problem in Y way, and that doesn't preclude it from also causing a problem in Z way.)

Maybe if I ever want to stand where you're standing ... well, if the means are available, I'll shoot myself.

[beevul]

36. Your reaching Reed...

Thats a swell try it really is.

""But an attorney for the school district said school must create a safe environment for students in the post-Columbine era, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy."


Yes, they are arguing that the image of the gun on the shirt VIOLATES A POLICY, not that it has any relation one way or the other to a safe environment.

"Kevin French, an attorney for Penn Manor, said the school district must create a safe environment, and Miller's T-shirt violated school policy."

"Students who come to school enjoy limited First Amendment rights," French told the Sunday News. "But the school district has the right to enforce policies that protect students."


Same thing. The claim that a policy was violated. I don't disagree with that. I do disagree with that policy, and its clear that NO CLAIM is made that the image of a firearm effects safety ONE IOTA. They're beibng sued over it for crying out loud. If they could demonstrate that the image in question would really effect the actually safety of the learning environment, they would, for the court of public opinion. And so would you. But YOU aren't, and they aren't. And I'm pretty sure its quite simply because you, and they, they can't.




They're IMPLYING it is, rather than CLAIMING it is, because the CLAIM that the image effects safety one way or the other would be laughable on its face.



Lets just go over a list of things you have claimed on this subject which the school has not, shall we?

"A child chooses to disrupt the learning environment"

"Because I think they're designed to intimidate"

"someone who openly advocates vigilantism"

"Maybe if I stood where you're standing, I'll see how that differs from what I'm saying."

The school has made none of the above claims, but other than that, it really doesn't, and thats just the point. Once again, the school actually CLAIMS NONE OF THE ABOVE. The claim that they "must create a safe environment" which everyone of course agrees with. They claim in the same breath that the shirt violated a policy, NOT that it effected the safety of the environment at all. But they did claim it in the same breath. A sort of sly innocence by association, is what that is. Now, IF you think you can make the case that the image in question EFFECTS THE SAFETY OF THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT rather than just implication via asociation as the school lawyer applies and expecting it to be taken at face value as the school does, LETS HEAR IT.

Me, I have no illusions as to why the school isn't doing that...but I do wonder what you don't understand about it...or is it something else...

[iverglas]

40. maybe if we paint the breadcrumbs fluorescent orange

The claim that they "must create a safe environment" which everyone of course agrees with. They claim in the same breath that the shirt violated a policy, NOT that it effected the safety of the environment at all.

Yup, those two things, said in the same breath, are entirely and completely and totally and 100% UNRELATED.

The policy is just something the school authorities dreamed up on a whim. There's no reason for it at all. It's probably just a matter of aesthetics.

The fact that both of the passages I quoted and you re-quoted refer to a "safe environment" and "policies that protect students" is the purest and merest coincidence.

Maybe I'll book a trip to the dark side of the moon so I can join you in that place where it's impossible to see what's in front of one's face. I don't know what universe I would have to go to, to be someone who wanted to actually make myself look that foolish in public, though.


Now, IF you think you can make the case that the image in question EFFECTS THE SAFETY OF THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT rather than just implication via asociation as the school lawyer applies and expecting it to be taken at face value as the school does, LETS HEAR IT.

I think I can make the case that the school is entitled to make policies that school authorities believe are in the best interests of the school and its students, as long as they do not discriminate improperly in doing so. The school could make a policy that students wear orange overalls in class, if it felt like it. Although that would discriminate against me. I look appalling in orange. And as long as it didn't prohibit the wearing or turbans or hijabs with the overalls.

There. I just made the case. Depending, of course, on what the relevant legislation/regulations say about the matter. If the policy/rule-making authority delegated to the authorities that made this policy/rule impose more restrictions on what they can do, then that could be another matter. I'm surprised that everybody squawking about this policy hasn't dug the enabling legislation/regulations up so we can have a gander at them. Did the school authorities have this authority, or not?


They're beibng sued over it for crying out loud.

Hahahaha. Like those gun manufacturers got sued, right? Where's that guy suing for $10 million for the dry cleaner losing his pants when you need him?


If they could demonstrate that the image in question would really effect the actually safety of the learning environment, they would, for the court of public opinion.

If they HAVE to demonstrate any such thing, which I very much doubt they have to do, I assume they will do it in the proper forum, rather than possibly prejudicing their defence against the little punk and his pushy parents.

[beevul]

41. Uhh..no you don't...

"Yup, those two things, said in the same breath, are entirely and completely and totally and 100% UNRELATED.

The policy is just something the school authorities dreamed up on a whim. There's no reason for it at all. It's probably just a matter of aesthetics.

The fact that both of the passages I quoted and you re-quoted refer to a "safe environment" and "policies that protect students" is the purest and merest coincidence.

Maybe I'll book a trip to the dark side of the moon so I can join you in that place where it's impossible to see what's in front of one's face. I don't know what universe I would have to go to, to be someone who wanted to actually make myself look that foolish in public, though."

No one is claiming those things are related. Including you, thus far. If your going to make that claim, then make it. The school is not saying "it is our policy that the image on that shirt is not allowed because it effects the safety of the environment". Do you understand that? They are NOT saying that. They WOULD say that if they could make it stick, but they can't so they aren't. And apparently, nor are you, and perhaps for the same reasons.

"The fact that both of the passages I quoted and you re-quoted refer to a "safe environment" and "policies that protect students" is the purest and merest coincidence."

No, really it isn't. Its quite cleverly contrived usage of the written word the same way as the repukes use it in relation to "terror". Are you going to stick up for thier use of it too? What else is no coincidence is that neither you or the school will come out and say exactly how the specified image in question effects the safety of the environment, or how disallowing it protects students, or what it protects them from. Me, I think a policy that forbids the image in question, yet can not DEMONSTRATE the justification for forbidding the image in question, or how forbidding the image in question might effect the safety of the environment, or protect anyone - is a bad policy. I fail to see how anyone in thier right mind can disagree.

"If they HAVE to demonstrate any such thing, which I very much doubt they have to do, I assume they will do it in the proper forum, rather than possibly prejudicing their defence against the little punk and his pushy parents."

Yes...a world where those that restrict things and do not have to justify restricting the things they choose to restrict in some demonstrable way or be held accountable for those restrictions by the very people entrusting them to do the right thing - - and those that support them - can just restrict whatever they feel like on a whim, without fear of having to explain themselves...well except to little punks and their pushy parents when they decide to sue. What were they thinking, who on earth gave them the idea that they had any avenue of redress for their grievances...

A paradise - yours.

[iverglas]

44. but I just did -- see the post added in reply to the opening post

No one is claiming those things are related. Including you, thus far.

Tough luck, eh? Here, I'll give 'em to you again, all neat like.

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/217898

In the post-Columbine era, said Kevin French, an attorney for Penn Manor, school districts are duty-bound to create a safe environment for students, a place where intimations of violence aren't permitted. District officials aren't trying to impugn Miller's patriotism, said French. But when someone brings even the image of a gun to school, he says, that violates school policy.

"The shirt in question contains the image of a firearm and clearly advocates illegal behavior," he (the district solicitor) wrote.

... Penn Manor Superintendent Stewart said he had "nothing to add to the comments of our solicitor. ... It's the district's position the wording on the T-shirt advocated violation of the law and acts of violence. The district feels it's taken an appropriate stance in terms of T-shirts or anything a student would wear that advocates acts of violence."

Advocating illegal acts of violence, some would say, is contrary to the policy of providing a safe environment for students. Perhaps you wouldn't say that. But then, does anyone care? You could say the moon was made of green cheese, if you chose.

Snork. Have you ever considered reading something that doesn't appear at FoxNews or WorldNetDaily?

[beevul]

45. Yay. Pat yourself on the back now...

You have provided evidence that the school actually made a direct claim of...something.

"It's the district's position the wording on the T-shirt advocated violation of the law and acts of violence. The district feels it's taken an appropriate stance in terms of T-shirts or anything a student would wear that advocates acts of violence."

Really now. Does the message in question, on the shirt in question specify a place for this so called "violation of the law and acts of violence"? How can the school make the claim it is illegal then hmm?

Outside that, it shows a "liscense to hunt terrorists". If i go out in public with a picture of my drivers lisence on it...or better yet...a comical fake one...am I advocating driving? Of course not. And not 1 damn person would say otherwise...except those that had some peculiar bone to pick with the picture of the chevrolet on the other side of the shirt opposite the drivers lisence...because they had some irrational fear or hatred or even dislike of...automobiles in my example.


and gee whiz whats this from your link...the same egghead that you quoted also says:

Still, attorney French, speaking on behalf of the district, said the Millers and Penn Manor "are talking about two different things." The Millers, and Brown, want this issue to be about freedom of speech, he said.

Penn Manor is talking about guns.

In light of incidents of violence in schools," said French, both district officials and district parents tend to come down on the side of caution. "Students who come to school enjoy limited First Amendment rights," French said, "but the school district has the right to enforce policies that protect students. And all this has to be understood in the context of what's happening today — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University."


Well gee whiz Iverglas. Which is it?

Snork.

Have you ever considered supporting any side in a debate that didn't include authority?

[iverglas]

47. that's just sad

Really. I guess there's not much else you could have done though. Acknowledging you'd made a complete dingdong of yourself wouldn't do.

[beevul]

49. Yes. Sad because it demolishes your argument.

"Acknowledging you'd made a complete dingdong of yourself wouldn't do."

Acknowledgment by you that that you present the uncanny appearance of an authority worshipping statist wouldn't iether...


Guess that makes us even.

[iverglas]

50. if it's really necessary ...

I don't know why you need the public humiliation, but whatever.

Really now. Does the message in question, on the shirt in question specify a place for this so called "violation of the law and acts of violence"? How can the school make the claim it is illegal then hmm?

I don't know. How can the school make a claim it never made? It must be a trick question.

The school hasn't claimed that anything is illegal -- except the killing of human beings, which is what the T-shirt advocates.

Hunting human beings is illegal: killing human beings without a lawful excuse or justification is illegal. Any punishment imposed by anyone without due process is illegal.

If you want to pretend that the T-shirt didn't express approval for all of those acts, feel free.

If you want to pretend that the slim loophole that the T-shirt didn't contain an express instruction for someone to do what it was approving obviates what it was in fact doing, and makes it acceptable under the school policy, feel free.

I would really be embarrassed to say things that dumb, myself.

If I wear a T-shirt that says "Assassinate George W. Bush" but fail to specify a time or place when it should be done, well obviously I'm not advocating an illegal act of violence. I guess.

Outside that, it shows a "liscense to hunt terrorists". If i go out in public with a picture of my drivers lisence on it...or better yet...a comical fake one...am I advocating driving? Of course not.

Ah, c'mon. You really aren't going to convince me you're that stupid, no matter how hard you try.

You go right ahead and advocate driving. Driving isn't actually a depraved and illegal act, and people really do get licences to do it, y'know? And if you can find someone who would interpret a fake, comical driver's licence on a T-shirt as advocating driving ... well, you may have found a person stupider than you're trying to portray yourself as being.

Still, attorney French, speaking on behalf of the district, said the Millers and Penn Manor "are talking about two different things." The Millers, and Brown, want this issue to be about freedom of speech, he said.

Penn Manor is talking about guns.

Funny how there are no quotation marks around that last bit.

I don't doubt that Penn Manor is talking about guns -- it is talking about a T-shirt advocating the killing of human beings with guns. Duh.

This would not be the first incident in which T-shirts at Penn Manor provoked controversy — in 1997, a group of about 30 Penn Manor students wore white T-shirts to school to proclaim white supremacy.

Nice little place, this Lancaster PA. Remind me to take the long way around if I'm ever in the neighbourhood.

[beevul]

52. You finally get it? This can not be. It must have been an accident.

"And if you can find someone who would interpret a fake, comical driver's licence on a T-shirt as advocating driving ... well, you may have found a person stupider than you're trying to portray yourself as being."


Right, and if you can find someone that would interpret a fake, terrorist hunting licence on a T-shirt as advocating the killing of anyone...well...you'd either be looking in the mirror or be looking at some Penn school staff/and/or thier lawyer.

Point>Set>Match.


Which was the entire point of me saying what I said, in the first place. I'm glad you get it now...


Oh and in case you miss it in the 6 or so places its quoted in another reply to you:

"But an attorney for the school district said school must create a safe environment for students in the post-Columbine era, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy."


I don't need to even attribute that to a source at this point do ?

[iverglas]

54. try these

T-shirts reading:

United States White Supremacist Snuffing Permit.
Switchblade Owner.
No bag limit.

United States Blonde Bimbo Raping Permit.
Penis Owner.
No bag limit.

United States Pervert Priest Head Smashing Permit.
Baseball Bat Owner.
No bag limit.

All with appropriate illustrations, of course. Feel free to make up your own, using groups you happen to hate and like to demonize. Or just hope that nobody mistakes you for one of those groups, say a white supremacist. I mean, you're white, so the mistake could be an easy one.

All would be welcome at your schools, and you would object loudly if school authorities took action to have them removed.


And just in case you missed it:

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

[beevul]

56. Stretch-O...

T-shirts reading:

United States White Supremacist Snuffing Permit.
Switchblade Owner.
No bag limit.

United States Blonde Bimbo Raping Permit.
Penis Owner.
No bag limit.

United States Pervert Priest Head Smashing Permit.
Baseball Bat Owner.
No bag limit.

All with appropriate illustrations, of course. Feel free to make up your own, using groups you happen to hate and like to demonize. Or just hope that nobody mistakes you for one of those groups, say a white supremacist. I mean, you're white, so the mistake could be an easy one.

All would be welcome at your schools, and you would object loudly if school authorities took action to have them removed.

Hahahaha. You keep trying...your persistant...I'll give you that.

The problem with all your examples is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ANY OF THOSE LISENCES OR PERMITS IN REALITY. They ARE NOT REAL or VALID, therefore they SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS IF THEY ARE.

ok, I'll do it. I'll make up my own! I'll make a shirt that says "Special issue Resident Lifetime License — United States Martian Hunting Permit — Permit No. 91101 — Gun Owner — No Bag Limit". Whats the problem with that? Whats that you say? Theres no such thing as martians but there ARE terrorists? Yeah, there are no such things as martians, and there are no such things as "lisenced terrorist hunters" no matter how much you think that the shirt in question advocates doing so. The damn shirt IF it were to advocate ANYTHING, would be advocating LISENCED HUNTING OF TERRORISTS. Since those lisences are imaginary..make believe...satirical in nature...so would the hunting be. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Do you think its just possible that this is the reason the shirt is legal and its makers are not being prosecuted for inciting crime or the like?

If I make a shirt that says "Special issue Resident Lifetime License — United States Rogue Nation Hunting Permit — Permit No. 91101 — Nuke Owner — No Bag Limit" I would expect not to be hassled over it. And I see no difference between it, and the shirt in question. I am no more a nuke owner than the kid is a gun owner. The lisence is no more real in one case than in the other which is to say not real at all. Neither shirt advocates any particular thing, except to those that can not see the satire due to thier prejudices. Period. Aparently that includes you.

And just in case you missed it:

Driving is not illegal.
Killing people is illegal.

And IN case you missed it:

So the fuck what.



And IN case you missed it:

So the fuck what.



And IN case you missed it:

So the fuck what.



And IN case you missed it:

So the fuck what.


That really makes no difference when one comes to the conclusion that driving is NOT being advocated.

[iverglas]

42. a sample

I only have so much googling time. It's Pennsylvania, although it's not the exact school board. This site seems to sample various policies from various boards.

http://www.w1w.cc/psba/Districts_Policies/R/RidgwayArea/POLRIDG221.pdf

RIDGWAY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 221
SECTION: PUPILS
TITLE: DRESS AND GROOMING
ADOPTED: January 8, 1995
REVISED: April 12, 2004

221. DRESS AND GROOMING

1. Purpose

The Board recognizes that each student's mode of dress and grooming is a manifestation of personal style and individual preference. The Board will not interfere with the right of students and their parents to make decisions regarding their appearance except when their choices affect the educational program of the schools or the health and safety of others.

2. Authority

The Board authorizes the Superintendent to enforce school regulations prohibiting student dress or grooming practices which present a hazard to the health or safety of the student him/herself or to others in the school; materially interfere with school work, create disorder, or disrupt the educational program; cause excessive wear or damage to school property; and prevent the student from achieving his/her own educational objectives because of blocked vision or restricted movement.

Students may be required to wear certain types of clothing while participating in physical education classes, shops, extra-curricular activities, or other situations where special attire may be required to ensure the health or safety of the student.

3. Delegation of Responsibility

The Superintendent shall develop procedures to implement this policy which designate the building principal to monitor student dress and grooming in his/her building; in the preparation of a dress code which may specify prescribed dress and grooming practices, but may not amplify the rationale for prohibition established by Board policy; instruct staff members to demonstrate by example and precept
wholesome attitudes toward neatness, cleanliness, propriety, modesty, and good sense in attire and appearance; and ensure that all rules implementing this policy impose only minimum necessary restrictions on the exercise of the student's taste and individuality.

...

5. The following clothing items are never permitted in school during regular school
hours:
...
d. Clothing that depict drug/alcohol/or sex related materials.
e. Clothing that depict inappropriate language or pictures.
...

[smb]

64. Sounds Familiar

They're IMPLYING it is, rather than CLAIMING it is, because the CLAIM that the image effects safety one way or the other would be laughable on its face.

So the image is linked to safety the same way Saddam was linked to the 9/11 Attacks.

[virginia mountainman]

19. Lots of hypocrites in here...

How would you feel if your kid was treated like this, if he was wearing an Obama, or Hillary T shirt????


It is the same thing, think about it.

[iverglas]

21. "the same thing"

Yes indeed. This:



(jeez, lucky I hadn't adblocked images from foxnews)

is just exactly like this:



or this:




I mean, one states a position on the choice to be made within the electoral system of the country, in which system every member of the society has a voice equal to anyone else's.

The other advocates killing human beings without due process.

Yes, they're just exactly alike.

One expresses a political opinion. The other advocates a crime, with the very obvious subtext of ethnic/religious hatred. Identical in every way.

Nonetheless, if the school policy was to prohibit all clothing illustrating political opinions equally, then how would I feel if my kid were instructed not to wear such clothing? Bored, I guess.


I'm not persuaded that clothing illustrating political opinions, any political opinion, is appropriate for public schools. But if any were to be allowed, I would think that expressions of support for candidates for nomination for the presidency of the country would be about the most acceptable. Possibly even to be encouraged, to generate interest in and adherence to the democratic process and electoral system of the country.

And I'm not seeing any slippery slope from there down to clothing illustrating incitements to homicide. Sorry. Maybe if I stand over there where you are?


Apparently the objection to the shirt was less principled than mine, and hinged on its depiction of a firearm.

So?

[virginia mountainman]

25. Still the same..

All could be thought of as a political statement...

No matter how much you want it too, a t-shirt photo of a gun is not going to hurt no one... Unless of course, it catches on fire.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. Notice how NOT One DU Gun Supporter has CONDEMNED the notion that

....... a hunting license is a license to kill.

The solution to bad speech is more speech, but I'm still wondering how this shirt does anything other than make having a hunting license sound like a license to kill which it is not.

Only reinforces the stereotype that gun advocates are nuts.

----------------------------------------------------
correction: I just read bossy22 post in which he doesn't much care for it, which is not as good as a condemnation but at least it's going in the right direction.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. Ask Yourself: Would You Defend the Student if He Wore a T-Shirt that Said

"All Gun Owners are Terrorists."

Would you have initiated a column defending the same student?

Would Fox even have run the story?

Would you have initiated a column defending the same student if the shirt said:

"I have a gun. Don't mess with me.'
"I have a gun and I use it on *ssholes."
"I'll blow anyone away who breaks the law."










.

[beevul]

37. Yes, Yes, Don't know, No, No, No.

All answers obviously dependingh on how satirical in nature the meaasges originally were, of course.



For example. I actually have a shirt similar to that, except mine is official looking blue with official looking yellow letters and says "if you see me running try to keep up" in much smaller letters.



I see the shirt in question in a similar light. Aparently though, there are those that can not seem to, because it has a depiction of a firearm on it, or because they have no sense of humor at all.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. Do You Think "Humor" Depends on the Audience?

Would you wear that t-shirt to the airport and do you think people would think it's funny?

[beevul]

39. Possibly...

However...I don't believe it falls on the audience to decide whats allowed or not. Only if its funny or not.


"Would you wear that t-shirt to the airport and do you think people would think it's funny?"


I actually have. The security people...at least the ones I had any interaction with...fell into the "has a sense of humor" camp.

[iverglas]

43. and now, the facts

Drumroll.


In the never-ending effort to help you sort it all out:

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/217898

In the post-Columbine era, said Kevin French, an attorney for Penn Manor, school districts are duty-bound to create a safe environment for students, a place where intimations of violence aren't permitted. District officials aren't trying to impugn Miller's patriotism, said French. But when someone brings even the image of a gun to school, he says, that violates school policy.

Jeez. That sounds so very different from everything I've said, doesn't it??

Hint. The answer is No.

How about a bit more?

"The shirt in question contains the image of a firearm and clearly advocates illegal behavior," he (the district solicitor) wrote.

My doog dog. How could I have been so far off the mark??

"Donald Miller wears the T-shirt to make the political and emotional statement that he supports his uncle, and all our armed forces, as they bravely exercise their duty to defend this great nation," Brown wrote in the federal complaint.

Hell. I wear pants with the bum ripped out to make the political and emotional statement that I support the troops. And what I say is all that matters.

But heavens above, how much wronger could I have been?? --

... Penn Manor Superintendent Stewart said he had "nothing to add to the comments of our solicitor. ... It's the district's position the wording on the T-shirt advocated violation of the law and acts of violence. The district feels it's taken an appropriate stance in terms of T-shirts or anything a student would wear that advocates acts of violence."

Funny how I am always able to find my proof, isn't it? You just have to learn: I am always right and I never lie.

Just say "no" when the right wingers try to hand you that concoction of deceit and misrepresentation and tell you it's because they hate guns and gun-owners next time, won't you?

I mean, really. The fact that you were getting the tale from FoxNews and WorldNetDaily just should've been your first clue.

[beevul]

46. As if you have a monopoly on them...

More trickery of the written word...you have no monopoly of that it would appear, as well.

""The shirt in question contains the image of a firearm and clearly advocates illegal behavior," he (the district solicitor) wrote."

Yes. A fact, then an opinion - "clearly advocates illegal behavior" cleverly underlined by you and described as a fact. How quaint.

"In the post-Columbine era, said Kevin French, an attorney for Penn Manor, school districts are duty-bound to create a safe environment for students, a place where intimations of violence aren't permitted. District officials aren't trying to impugn Miller's patriotism, said French. But when someone brings even the image of a gun to school, he says, that violates school policy."

And ohhh yesss. The claim that he violated school policy. Yes indeed, and I have already agreed that happened. What no one involved here, whether that be you, the school, or your dogs breakfast are doing, is explaining how a picture of a firearm violating a policy is a REASONABLE THING. Of course, that would involve authority being questioned, and having to explain itself and its decisions to the people those decisions might effect...so you'll be having no helpings of that.

Do have a crack at it yourself though, if you think its possible...since you seem to believe its all just so common sense and out in the open.

"Funny how I am always able to find my proof, isn't it? You just have to learn: I am always right and I never lie."

No. Funny how you find something and call it proof, then expect that people bow down and accept your word that it is...what you say it is.

For someone who is always right and never lies, your sure wrong and telling a lie here:

"The fact that you were getting the tale from FoxNews and WorldNetDaily just should've been your first clue."

Last I cecked, http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/217898 and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_us/t_shirt...

are neither fox news or world net daily, and I used fox news as a secondary source. So BZZZZZZZTTTTTT you are both lieing and wrong.

What is it you always say when someone says you did something you did not in fact do? What would someone call you for doing just that yourself?

[iverglas]

48. for fuck's sakes

Yes. A fact, then an opinion - "clearly advocates illegal behavior" cleverly underlined by you and described as a fact. How quaint.

No, you hopeless case.

The FACTS are that the school authorities provided a rationale for their decision, and what the rationale they provided was.

They, according to their statements, DID NOT ban the T-shirt simply because it had a picture of a firearm, as you kept insisting, even now when the falsity of that claim is obvious to the world.

They DID ban it because -- yes, IN THEIR OPINION, since if they didn't form opinions about such things no policy could ever be enforced, for chrissakes -- it violated a policy, by advocating illegal acts of violence.

You repeatedly insisted that the fact that T-shirt advocated illegal acts of violence had NOTHING TO DO with the decision, and I have DEMONSTRATED that it is the very basis advanced by the school board for the decision.

The reason I underlined the passages that I underlined was to draw your attention to the fact that they were virtually identical to what I had been saying all along. The advocating of illegal acts of violence is incompatible with the safe environment that the school is duty-bound to provide. (Advocating illegal acts of violence may not be precisely synonymous with vigilantism or intimidation, note, but there's one great big overlap between them.)


What no one involved here, whether that be you, the school, or your dogs breakfast are doing, is explaining how a picture of a firearm violating a policy is a REASONABLE THING.

And what you need to stop pretending is that ANYONE has claimed that THE PICTURE OF A FIREARM is what violated a policy in this case. So NO ONE HAS TO EXPLAIN ANY SUCH THING.

If you were to say, framing your words as a question, "How does a picture of a firearm violate a policy?", the only proper answer would be MU. Because your question is loaded with a FALSE PREMISE: that anyone has said that a picture of a firearm violates a policy.

The fact that FoxNews and WorldNetDaily told you that the T-shirt had been banned because it depicted a firearm --

Family Sues School District After Son Gets Detention for Wearing T-Shirt With Gun Image

DOES NOT MAKE THAT TRUE.

You are spinning so hard to avoid the real facts and issues in this case it's a wonder you don't puke. I know I'm fixing to.

Your claim has been all along that the punk was disciplined FOR WEARING A T-SHIRT THAT DEPICTED A FIREARM. You have selectively quoted, obfuscated, misrepresented what was said in response to you, and basically played every trick you could think of to avoid acknowleding the real reason why he was disciplined.

The fact that you had previously read and linked to the lancasteronline article and that you then pretended not to have seen what it said and continued to misrepresent the facts is really rather despicable.


Do let me assure you. If a school in my neighbourhood permitted a punk like this one to wear messages like that on school property during class hours, I'd be questioning authority. Loud and long. You'd be proud.

[beevul]

51. Ha.

"You repeatedly insisted that the fact that T-shirt advocated illegal acts of violence had NOTHING TO DO with the decision, and I have DEMONSTRATED that it is the very basis advanced by the school board for the decision."

Once again, If I wear s ahirt that has a "drivers lisence" on the back, and a picture of a chevrolet on the front, am I advocating driving? Forget legality. AM I advocating ANYTHING AT ALL?


"They, according to their statements, DID NOT ban the T-shirt simply because it had a picture of a firearm, as you kept insisting, even now when the falsity of that claim is obvious to the world."
"They DID ban it because -- yes, IN THEIR OPINION, since if they didn't form opinions about such things no policy could ever be enforced, for chrissakes -- it violated a policy, by advocating illegal acts of violence."



Oh bullshit. For one to see any "advocating of illegal acts of violence" in the message on that shirt, one would be REQUIRED not to be able to see it as the satirical thing that the world and anyone with half a brain cell or more sees it as. Do you fucking understand that? Its SATIRE. Jesus h christ on a popsicle stick. No amount of bleating from you or the school administration is going to make that shirt or its message something that it just isnt and never will be, and thats an advocation of violence.

And you have the nerve to call me a hopeless case.

"And what you need to stop pretending is that ANYONE has claimed that THE PICTURE OF A FIREARM is what violated a policy in this case. So NO ONE HAS TO EXPLAIN ANY SUCH THING."




*chuckles*

Methinks you need a neew crystal ball...and to lay off the ibuprofen...its taking a toll on your memory:



"But when someone brings even the image of a gun to school, he says, that violates school policy." -Kevin French, an attorney for Penn Manor


Thats from YOUR post, 3rd or 4th sentence in right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x162369#162735 (or you could just scroll up to post 43 if youd rather)



Now what was it you were saying about pretending, and who is it that is really doing that?


Then you say "You are spinning so hard to avoid the real facts and issues in this case it's a wonder you don't puke. I know I'm fixing to."


"Do let me assure you. If a school in my neighbourhood permitted a punk like this one to wear messages like that on school property during class hours, I'd be questioning authority. Loud and long. You'd be proud."


Of course you would. Its when authority just isn't restricting peoples choices that do not interfere with other peoples choices enough - provided that it meshes with your beliefs and positions ...thats when authority gets your eye, and you go for its ear.... This I knew...but confirmation is always nice.


You need to get back on whatever it is you got off of...and/or get off of whatever it is your on now that you werent before, because you have lost a full magnitude...maybe 2.



Heres how the thinking world sees this Iverglas:

The kid wore said shirt. No problems all day until someone complains...one of hundreds exposed. Kid refuses to turn shirt inside out. School claims: A. that the depiction of the firearm violates policy, and B. that the shirt "advocates violence" even though the shirt is CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY satirical in nature. They do that because they know that simply the image in question ALONE isnt going to stick as violating any reasonable policy. They're grasping at straws to support thier position, just like you are in defending it.


And as far as your insinuations about fox and world nut...well maybe youd feel better hearing it here:

His parents, Donald and Tina Miller of Holtwood, have accused the Penn Manor School District in a lawsuit of violating their son's First Amendment rights with a "vague Orwellian policy" that stifles both patriotism and free speech.

But an attorney for the school district said school must create a safe environment for students in the post-Columbine era, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy.

"There's a much higher level of sensitivity these days," Penn Manor attorney Kevin French said. "But it's based on

http://www.star-telegram.com/462/story/521741.html


or here:

But school districts in the post-Columbine era must create a safe environment for students, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy, said Penn Manor attorney Kevin French.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/philadelphia/20080311_Pa__students_parents_sue_over_detention_for_T-shirt.html


Or here:

But school districts in the post-Columbine era must create a safe environment for students, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy, said Penn Manor attorney Kevin French.

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/NEWS06/803110351

Or here:

But an attorney for the school district said school must create a safe environment for students in the post-Columbine era, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy.

http://www.centredaily.com/128/story/456337.html

Or here:

But school districts in the post-Columbine era must create a safe environment for students, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy, said Penn Manor attorney Kevin French.

http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/yd/pennsylvania/ci_8521149

Or here:

But an attorney for the school district said school must create a safe environment for students in the post-Columbine era, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district's policy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-t-shirt-gun,1,4917886.story


Gee whiz...looks to me like they ALL say the same thing...golly gee whiz.

You can take your insinuations and go ahead and bake them up in one of those since pies of yours.

[iverglas]

53. okay

For one to see any "advocating of illegal acts of violence" in the message on that shirt, one would be REQUIRED not to be able to see it as the satirical thing that the world and anyone with half a brain cell or more sees it as. Do you fucking understand that? Its SATIRE.

Now all you have to do is explain WHAT the T-shirt was satirizing.

You may want to consult a dictionary before beginning.

YOU think the T-shirt was funny. That doesn't make it satire. It might make you a member of a crowd I would walk 10 miles to get out of, myself, though.

I don't think it's remotely funny (apart from knowing it is not satirical). I think it's pig-ignorant, right-wing to an extreme that just about falls off the spectrum, jingoistic, stupid as dirt filth.


And you can keep dissecting the numerous things said by school authorities and their counsel for as long as you like, but you won't succeed in wishing away the other things they did say by focusing on one thing said, out of context.

Do you think that a T-shirt exactly like that one but with no picture of a firearm would be prohibited?

Do you think that a T-shirt exactly like that one but with only a picture of a firearm would be prohibited?

I'd guess "yes" to both. And I'd consider both decisions to be absolutely reasonable and a proper exercise of school authorities' discretion. And if you or your kid didn't like it, hey, y'all would be free to find a school that welcomed such low-IQ, high-assholery conduct, I guess.

And like I said -- if you or your kid did that in a school in my neighbourhood and the authorities tolerated it, I'd have their heads. So you can take your baseless and vicious allegations and bake them.

Ever get screamed at in the hallway by the principal for violating the school dress code?

I did.

[beevul]

55. Allrighty then...

Now all you have to do is explain WHAT the T-shirt was satirizing.

You may want to consult a dictionary before beginning.

YOU think the T-shirt was funny. That doesn't make it satire. It might make you a member of a crowd I would walk 10 miles to get out of, myself, though.

I don't think it's remotely funny (apart from knowing it is not satirical). I think it's pig-ignorant, right-wing to an extreme that just about falls off the spectrum, jingoistic, stupid as dirt filth.

No, I'm afraid I really don't. You see...in MY country, the burden to justify an interference of a right falls on those wanting to do the interfering, and likewise to those that support it. The lisence on the shirt was CLEARLY not real. It is satire, and noone except stuffy humorless gone-overboard-with-PC-ness busybodies would claim othewise.

And I really could give 2 shits less what you think about the shirt or how it makes you feel or how far youd walk on the heads of pins to get away from anyone that disagrees with you.

Its quite possible you would feel differently...see things differently...if conditions were different for you. For example...if you felt differently about firearms than you obviously do. If your position on authority was different than it is. If you had loved ones serving in iraq. If you had loved ones that disintegrated along with what was the world trade center buildings. If YOUR country had a major city whos skyline was altered forever, and a people that were changed forever because of it.

But you wont ever understand most of those things anymore than I will understand what its like to be a woman. No matter how hard you try, or how hard I try.



"Do you think that a T-shirt exactly like that one but with no picture of a firearm would be prohibited?"

I think a prohibition of it would be attempted, and I think you would support it. Tell me I'm wrong.

Do you think that a T-shirt exactly like that one but with only a picture of a firearm would be prohibited?

I think a prohibition of it would be attempted, and I think you would support it. Tell me I'm wrong.


"I'd guess "yes" to both. And I'd consider both decisions to be absolutely reasonable and a proper exercise of school authorities' discretion. And if you or your kid didn't like it, hey, y'all would be free to find a school that welcomed such low-IQ, high-assholery conduct, I guess."

Color me shocked. And Theres the bonus. Anyone that thinks its A-ok to go to school with a shirt that depicts a firearm on it is guilty of "low-IQ, high-assholery conduct" ...so sayeth Iverglass - High arbiter of such things. And the ohh so republicanesque "love it or leave it"...how you have fallen Iverglas. At one time, you made points and refuted arguments in an effortless and almost majestic way...and now the best you can manage is a repuke retread.



"Ever get screamed at in the hallway by the principal for violating the school dress code?"


They tried. I resisted. All parties including my folks decided it would be best to meet on non school grounds to discuss it - neutral ground. On that neutral ground where the administration had no control of the debate like they wanted to have, they had no leg to stand on, and they went quietly back to doing thier job - which is what any and all overzealous administration and/or government should be forced into doing.

Its called questioning authority. Give it a try some time. You might find it refreshing.

[iverglas]

57. if I had loved ones "serving"in Iraq

I'd shoot myself. Hahahaha. Because there would obviously be something wrong with my genes.

What I wouldn't do is display my assholish right-wing DNA on a T-shirt in a public school. Not that, of course, and as you do say, how *I* feel about any of it is of any importance. So whether I would feel different if I had loved ones "serving" in Iraq is of the most supreme irrelevance. I'm sure we'll agree. But it was still a little odd for you to tell me how little you cared about how I feel about the T-shirt, and then go on a rant about how I might feel different if thus-and-such. I wouldn't, so it doesn't matter.


You see...in MY country, the burden to justify an interference of a right falls on those wanting to do the interfering, and likewise to those that support it.

Gosh, and in MY country we don't actually live under the delusion that no one else in the rest of the world has any rights or knows what to do with them.

As recently posted here:

Section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1984 (Canada), provides:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.


The summary of Oakes
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1986/1986rcs1-103/1986rcs1-103.html
the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada setting out guidelines for assessing interferences in the exercise of rights, goes like this:

Two central criteria must be satisfied to establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The standard must be high to ensure that trivial objectives or those discordant with the principles of a free and democratic society do not gain protection. At a minimum, an objective must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.

Second, the party invoking s. 1 must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components.

1. The measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective.

2. The means should impair the right in question as little as possible.

3. There must be a proportion­ality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective ‑‑ the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be.

You have similar things on your side of the border.

And I apply those tests, and I find that limits on the expression of opinions by children in schools during classroom hours are often permissible, and that this one in particular is permissible. Under other provisions of my Constitution, I would argue that they are required.


Do you think that a T-shirt exactly like that one but with only a picture of a firearm would be prohibited?
I think a prohibition of it would be attempted, and I think you would support it. Tell me I'm wrong.

Why would I tell you you're wrong? I'd look like a right-wing asshole. Since I'm not, there'd be no reason for me to make myself look like one.

I really don't know how a T-shirt could be "exactly like that" and have only a picture of a firearm, of course. If wishes were horses ...

People don't walk around a school festooned in images of firearms unless they're trying to make some kind of point. And it really wouldn't be too difficult to figure it out.

Speech, you see, is the conveying of messages.
That is what SPEECH is.
That is actually WHY it is protected, you see.
If you think that an image of a firearm on a T-shirt
is NOT conveying a message, then IT IS NOT SPEECH.
And it is NOT protected.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/nationalfreedomofspeechweek/questions.shtml

Q. Must I actually speak to be protected by the First Amendment?

A. No. The Supreme Court has held that certain forms of non-verbal speech, called symbolic speech, can be covered by the First Amendment. To be considered symbolic speech, your non-verbal actions must have some meaning or message. For example, wearing a yellow ribbon in support of a solider would be considered symbolic speech. Another example occurred in 1969, in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, when the Supreme Court held that actions of students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War counted as speech under the First Amendment, and was therefore protected.

In 1989, in Texas v. Johnson, the Court said that burning an American flag is also constitutes symbolic speech and therefore is protected so long as it is done in order to convey a message.

Get it at all??????

If wearing an image of a firearm on one's clothing in a public school is SPEECH, then BY DEFINITION it is CONVEYING A MESSAGE.

What is that message????


And the ohh so republicanesque "love it or leave it"...how you have fallen Iverglas.

My dear fellow. Do you really not recognize your own words when they're read back to you? "Love it or leave it" was YOUR proposal for anyone who felt that the environment in a school was interfering with his/her or or his/her children's ability to learn. This was a retread of your proposal. But if you want to call it a "repuke retread", you feel free.


They tried. I resisted.

You resisted getting screamed at by the principal? What did you do, put your hands over his/her mouth?

I was wearing pants when female students were required to wear skirts. Look at that; taking a stance for equal treatment, against oppressive authority. I don't think I'll ask what you were wearing.



typo fixed

[beevul]

58. And I thought you were reaching last night...

Look Iverglas. You have been proven wrong, in this thread better than a dozen times.


You have viciously done the very thing you get so cranky about, in ascribing words and/or actions, to people that did not say or do them...with nary an apology such as you are always crying for when its you wearing those shoes.

And yet you continue.



"Gosh, and in MY country we...blah blah blah"


That sums up the entire first half of your post. Succinctly, your country and its policies are not relivant to this discussion any more than Japan and its policies are. It happened in MY country, and if you want to make any sort of applicable point at all having to do with policy you may as well leave canadian policy out of it mmkay?

"Do you think that a T-shirt exactly like that one but with only a picture of a firearm would be prohibited?" Iverglas

"I think a prohibition of it would be attempted, and I think you would support it. Tell me I'm wrong."Beevul

"Why would I tell you you're wrong? I'd look like a right-wing asshole. Since I'm not, there'd be no reason for me to make myself look like one."Iverglas



Yes...because as we all know only right wingers give even 2 shits about gun rights or freedom of speech where the image of a firearm might be concerned.


"If wearing an image of a firearm on one's clothing in a public school is SPEECH, then BY DEFINITION it is CONVEYING A MESSAGE."

"What is that message????"


Gee I dunno...That the person wearing the shirt supports his uncle...a whom is authorized to be and IS fighting the so called war on terror somewhere around the world using...*GASP* a firearm?

"My dear fellow. Do you really not recognize your own words when they're read back to you? "Love it or leave it" was YOUR proposal for anyone who felt that the environment in a school was interfering with his/her or or his/her children's ability to learn. This was a retread of your proposal. But if you want to call it a "repuke retread", you feel free."

My dear female I said this: "Yes...those "dress codes that involve prohibiting clothing with speech on it" may not be uncommon...And as expected, you don't seem to be disagreeable to them. Then you go off the tracks though. You see, I AM a father of 2 girls. One of which is still in school...high school more specifically. Being such, I am exposed to all kinds of current information, such as kids transfering out of classes because they wish to be away from certain individuals because of those individuals religious and/or political beliefs. I very much doubt that her school is any exception. Not only that, but kids at least in these parts , have thier choice of between 2 to 5 diffferent schools. So don't hand me any of this "do it in places where other people are free to leave" business."

That was a response and a fair rebuttal to YOUR claim that schools were places one could not vacate the vicinity for the reasons you stated. That compared to this:

"And if you or your kid didn't like it, hey, y'all would be free to find a school that welcomed such low-IQ, high-assholery conduct, I guess."


Which sounds a lot like this:

""Benna Ruth Solomon, Chicago's deputy corporation counsel, said it's a matter of communities being given the authority to decide how best to ensure public safety. "Our City Council and mayor can be responsive to local residents," Solomon said. "And anyone who disagrees with the ban can find some other place to live."


You authoritarians ...you sure love that language. Then again, the fact that you can see no difference between what I wrote...and what YOU wrote...well that there is telling. And yeah. Its a repuke retread. One that YOU applied and I did not. Simple, end of story. You did it AGAIN. Ascribing to someone or thier words in this case, a meaning that the person that originally said those words did not ascribe to them, themself. You sure can dish it out, and yet you sure can cry when its aplied to you.



"I was wearing pants when female students were required to wear skirts. Look at that; taking a stance for equal treatment, against oppressive authority. I don't think I'll ask what you were wearing."

Thats nice. I was wearing heavy metal tee shirts in the face of teachers and administration the majority of whom thought "rock and roll is the devils music" but I'm sure theres just no comparison in your book.

[iverglas]

59. those poor lost breadcrumbs

f wearing an image of a firearm on one's clothing in a public school is SPEECH, then BY DEFINITION it is CONVEYING A MESSAGE.
What is that message????
Gee I dunno...That the person wearing the shirt supports his uncle...a whom is authorized to be and IS fighting the so called war on terror somewhere around the world using...*GASP* a firearm?

Much as you like to pretend things is what they ain't, I didn't ask you about the ignorant T-shirt. I asked you about WEARING AN IMAGE OF A FIREARM, which was actually what you had asked me for an opinion about.

You appear to be suggesting that an image of a firearm is an expression of support for someone doing ... whatever. Bizarre.


I very much doubt that her school is any exception. Not only that, but kids at least in these parts , have thier choice of between 2 to 5 diffferent schools. So don't hand me any of this "do it in places where other people are free to leave" business.
That was a response and a fair rebuttal to YOUR claim that schools were places one could not vacate the vicinity for the reasons you stated.

No, it was "love it or leave it", in a really flimsy disguise. It was telling children that someone else's "right" to engage in obnoxious behaviour, whatever it might be, is more important than their right to receive an education in peace.


And if you or your kid didn't like it, hey, y'all would be free to find a school that welcomed such low-IQ, high-assholery conduct, I guess.
Which sounds a lot like this: ...

No, it sounded exactly like what you had said (only it was based on something other than pig-ignorant self-interest): that if someone was unable to tolerate every single thing that people allegedly exercising freedom of expression might get up to, they were free to leave.

"And anyone who disagrees with the ban can find some other place to live" sounds like someone performing the duties s/he has been elected/appointed to perform, in the interests of the people whom it is his/her duty to act in.


You authoritarians ...you sure love that language.

You sure are a big brave little fellow.


I was wearing heavy metal tee shirts in the face of teachers and administration the majority of whom thought "rock and roll is the devils music" but I'm sure theres just no comparison in your book.

And there, for once, you are correct.

I'm afraid the heavy metal liberation front was never one of my causes.

Of course, I was also wearing bare feet with my jeans (it having been 1969) and got screamed at for that as well, but I didn't actually consider that really worth mentioning.


Now you go back to reproducing pretty pictures in an effort to pretend -- surely someone will believe you -- that I said anything at all about people who own firearms, when I have said no such thing. Maybe you could take a poll asking how many people own firearms AND send their children to school in T-shirts with images of handguns on them.

[iverglas]

60. oops; forgot

Succinctly, your country and its policies are not relivant to this discussion any more than Japan and its policies are. It happened in MY country, and if you want to make any sort of applicable point at all having to do with policy you may as well leave canadian policy out of it mmkay?

Well, if you want to address an issue from the standpoint of your law/policy, why don't you try doing that?

You have not made a single cogent argument, based on a single point of law, to back up the claim that what the school authorities did in this case is illegal or unconstitutional.

I produced a sample school board guideline from the state in question on the issue in question.

I SAID, in the post that causes you so much distress:

You have similar things on your side of the border.

Do you have the first notion what the rules of constitutional scrutiny for interferences in freedom of speech in the US are??

If you do, why don't you try citing one or two, and applying them to this situation, and seeing what the outcome is?

You could start here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm

Now of course, the child in question was not "punished" for "inciting unlawful action". He was punished for refusing to comply with an instruction from a competent authority claiming to act under a properly delegated power.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm

Free Speech Rights of Students
The issue: When may administrators in public secondary schools and colleges restrict the speech of students?

Introduction

Students do not, the Court tells us in Tinker vs. Des Moines, "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." But it is also the case that school administrators have a far greater ability to restrict the speech of their students than the government has to restrict the speech of the general public. Student speech cases require a balancing of the legitimate educational objectives and need for school discipline of administrators against the First Amendment values served by extending speech rights of students.

In Tinker, perhaps the best known of the Court's student speech cases, the Court found that the First Amendment protected the right of high school students to wear black armbands in a public high school, as a form of protest against the Viet Nam War. The Court ruled that this symbolic speech--"closely akin to pure speech"--could only be prohibited by school administrators if they could show that it would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission.

Speaking as someone who wore black armbands to class (university, of course) during the Vietnam War, I will be personally offended if you try to compare this punk kid's behaviour to mine.

Joseph Frederick, a senior at Juneau, Alaska's Douglas High School, held up a 14-foot long banner at an Olympic torch relay in 2002 that read, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Even though Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk off of the school grounds, high school principal Deborah Morse ordered the student suspended for 10 days for violating the school's policy against promoting illegal substances at an event sanctioned by the school. Frederick sued. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Frederick on First Amendment grounds, former special prosecutor in the Clinton-Lewinsky case, Kenneth Starr, filed a petition for cert in the U. S. Supreme Court.

In June 2007, the Court announced its decision in Frederick v Morse. Justice Roberts, writing for a five to four majority, found that schools have the right to discipline students who present messages that conflict with stated anti-drug policies, even where the evidence of disruption of school activities (a fact that seemed critical in Tinker) might be absent.

I see no basis for a school being permitted to discipline students for conduct not on school property (and not while engaged in a school-sponsored activity, e.g. a museum class trip) that conflicted with a school policy but was not illegal. So I would not see any sound basis for that decision, and I would find the school's actions to be ultra vires -- not within its delegated powers. Whether the student was conveying a message the school disapproved of on the adjoining sidewalk, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet while standing on his head in Siberia.

Dear me. What will you do now??


typo fixed

[beevul]

61. The world according to Iverglas...

First, to make quite clear your baseless and nasty insinutaion IS in fact you ascribing to someone something other than they said...

YOU SAID: If someone wants to be a walking billboard, they are entirely free to do it in places where other people are free to leave.

I SAID:I very much doubt that her school is any exception. Not only that, but kids at least in these parts , have thier choice of between 2 to 5 diffferent schools. So don't hand me any of this "do it in places where other people are free to leave" business.
That was a response and a fair rebuttal to YOUR claim that schools were places one could not vacate the vicinity for the reasons you stated.

See? That there is a RESPONSE...NAY...a COUNTER to someone making an inference that a school classroom was not a place where "other people are free to leave". That inference was made by YOU, and Don't even try to deny it. Quite a different thing than just coming out and saying "And if you or your kid didn't like it, hey, y'all would be free to find a school that welcomed such low-IQ, high-assholery conduct, I guess.". HOW? HOW is it different? Well, when YOU said that, you were NOT countering ME saying someplace or another was a place that someone could not leave freely. See the difference? Too bad. Anyone with a lick of sense would.

Then you weakly attempt to take it a step farther:

"No, it was "love it or leave it", in a really flimsy disguise. It was telling children that someone else's "right" to engage in obnoxious behaviour, whatever it might be, is more important than their right to receive an education in peace."

False dilemna. False premis. False all around. I did not say with those words anything about obnoxious behavior, or its importance. Thats PURELY your attribution of it to those words. See? Your doing it AGAIN. How can you ever possibly complain about someone doing it to you? Did you develop some sort of compulsion to doing it? Not only that, but you have established NOTHING that can be concretely called "obnoxious behavior" nor have you shown that the behavior in question that YOU might label as obnoxious is incompatable with the right to receive an education in peace.

That there effectively destroys 90 plus percent of EVERYTHING you have said in every post in this thread. Just own it and be done with it already.


Heres love it or leave it:


"And if you or your kid didn't like it, hey, y'all would be free to find a school that welcomed such low-IQ, high-assholery conduct, I guess."

ANd then theres your characterization of the following:

"And anyone who disagrees with the ban can find some other place to live" sounds like someone performing the duties s/he has been elected/appointed to perform, in the interests of the people whom it is his/her duty to act in."

Of course, if that person had said "those who disagree with private gun ownership can find another place to live" youd be singing a very different tune.



"You sure are a big brave little fellow."

That adds alot to this discussion.


"I'm afraid the heavy metal liberation front was never one of my causes."

Well...maybe if it were religion in your face trying to rule your every move and thought and you also happened to like heavy metal...they'd have been your adversary too.


"Now you go back to reproducing pretty pictures in an effort to pretend -- surely someone will believe you -- that I said anything at all about people who own firearms, when I have said no such thing. Maybe you could take a poll asking how many people own firearms AND send their children to school in T-shirts with images of handguns on them."


Right, and you go back to pretending that only someone who might be vile a vile right wing person would have any interest in an image of a firearm on a shirt, or the wearing of that shirt.

Maybe you could take a poll about the image in question or the shirt in question. You know, like asking people whether it is something that is OBVIOUSLY real and advocates illegal behavior or Whether it is OBVIOUSLY not a real "terrorist hunting lisence" and is just a shirt (regardless of taste).

Maybe I'll just do that myself.

[iverglas]

62. I see

Nothing in the law to back up your opinion, which was what the post you replied to was asking for.

If I may quote you again: mmkay.

My work here seems to be done.

[beevul]

63. No, you don't.

For you or the schoolboard to believe that the image in question "advocates violence or an illegal act", you would also have to believe that this shirt Advocates setting a fish-hook in the mouth of a terrorist, since that IS an element of fishing when its done with the accompanying tools of fishing whether that tool is used on terrorists, fish, or stewarts:



Unless you really DO believe that, or can demonstrate a REALY good justification for treating 2 parallel shirts and messages SO differently specifically that "one shirt advocates illegal/violent acts and one does not because X", you can blather all you like about what you see as assholishness, or right wingedness, or being selfish or self absorbed, or uncaring or even pink with blue hair, and never make a case that the shirt actually DOES advocate violence or something illegal.