Student's Second Amendment shirt prompts First Amendment lawsuit

[kelly1mm]

Source: Washington Post

Snip "At the start of the school year, Johnston High School government teacher Thomas Griffin gave a lesson about free speech, explaining that students’ rights to it were “extremely limited” while on school property, according to a new lawsuit.

He said that he wouldn’t allow students to “wear any clothing that depicts guns, alcohol, or any other ‘inappropriate material,’” the document alleges.

But one student at the Johnston, Iowa, school felt her teacher was “wrong about the scope” of the First Amendment. The next time she had class, she walked in wearing a black T-shirt that read “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” alongside an image of a rifle.

Soon after, she was removed from class and later suspended from school, according to the lawsuit, which her mother filed against the Johnston Community School District and several employees, including Griffin. The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa."
End Snip

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/student-s-second-amendment-shirt-prompts-first-amendment-lawsuit/ar-AA17k7AD?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fc4c62f1d0794300aff711da491f2448


The school district is (rightly) going to lose this case. I always wonder why administrators don't contact their legal department on obviously charged issues before making decisions.

[ripcord]

1. The school district isn't going to win this one

[kelly1mm]

6. Nope. Pretty clear they will lose. Apparently the upper administration tried to

walk it back but by that time the damage was done .....

[old as dirt]

97. Mary Beth Tinker: "Some clothing bans OK"

An Iowa school suspended a student for wearing a T-shirt depicting a gun. Now she's suing

Des Moines Register




snip-------------

Mary Beth Tinker: Some clothing bans OK



Mary Beth Tinker talked about free speech issues to students from various high schools in Iowa during a program making the 50th anniversary of the Tinker vs Des Moines free speech case in 2019 at the State Historical Society of Iowa building in Des Moines.

The student's lawsuit draws many parallels to Tinker vs. Des Moines, which began in 1965 when lead plaintiff Mary Beth Tinker, then a 13-year-old student at what is now Des Moines' Warren Harding Middle School, was suspended along with other students for wearing black armbands after a school board order not to.

Yet Tinker herself told the Des Moines Register she thinks the Johnston district is likely to win if the lawsuit reaches a judgment on the merits.

"Under (the Tinker decision), there is ample room for the censorship of messages that impinge on the rights of others, the often-overlooked second part of the Tinker test," Tinker said in an email, pointing to the Supreme Court's holding that "conduct by the student ... which for any reason ... involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."

Tinker said she believes wearing a shirt to school depicting a gun might constitute such an invasion of the rights of others, not just of other students, but of teachers, staff and visitors to the school.

But another expert, Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said he doubts a court would accept that argument.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2023/02/08/pro-gun-rights-t-shirt-prompts-suspension-iowa-student-sues-schools-second-amendment-free-speech/69881634007/

[TheBlackAdder]

98. I guess PornHub, a GOP Elephant felating itself, Drunken Orgy, PedoBear and other shirts are OK too.

[old as dirt]

2. Fvck the NRA (nt)

[kelly1mm]

3. What does this case and post have to do with the NRA? nt

[dpibel]

35. That meme kinda does the opposite

of the point you're trying to make.

[NickB79]

5. Why should the district lose?

When I was in high school in the mid-90's, I still remember how a kid wore a t-shirt with the Trix Rabbit on it.

The caption said "Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks".

He was removed from class and told to put on a t-shirt from the lost and found bin instead.

Was my school wrong to do so? Were his rights wrongly violated?

[kelly1mm]

8. No, as that was obviously disruptive. Paraphrasing the US Constitution is not. I am not

saying there are NO free speech limitations on campuses, just that this speech is protected, as the upper administration said when they found out what the school had done.

[dpibel]

11. Selectively quoting actually isn't the same

as paraphrasing.

What part of "A well regulated militia" don't you understand?

That's not paraphrasing. That's extracting the words that I think support my position.

But grievance on, as it works for you.

[kelly1mm]

12. Why do you think the superintendent and upper administration tried to walk this back? NT

[dpibel]

14. Well, it's a pretty charged topic, ain't it?

And the people who are most charged about it have lots of guns.

Other than that, however, I'm sure it was just Constitutional shame that motivated them.

[kelly1mm]

15. yes, which is why the teacher and the principal should have went up the chain

to legal and/or the superintendent before issuing the suspension. They could have avoided this as the superintendent (legally correctly) determined this was protected speech. Now the school and this teacher will be made an example of.

[dpibel]

16. "should have gone"

It's amazing to me that you so easily dismiss the gay-bashing T-shirt as clearly not protected.

But it's so clear to you that the gun one is.

I think there's a logical step missing here.

[kelly1mm]

18. Well I guess we will see when the school district settles (most likely) or they go to trial

and likely lose.

[dpibel]

20. Well I guess we won't

We will see how the court rules on the gun shirt.

There will be no ruling on your beliefs as to the dicks shirt.

[kelly1mm]

33. There probably will not be a ruling. Just a (taxpayer paid) settlement to this female

student who's rights were violated.

[onenote]

109. +1

[ripcord]

23. Yes we certainly don't want to encourage kids to quote the Constitution

[dpibel]

36. Show me the part of the Constitution

that says, "What part...don't you understand."

Then we can talk.

Y'all pretending that an overtly confrontational slogan that happens to include four words from the Constitution is somehow sacrosanct is pretty rich.

[kelly1mm]

48. Then why did the superintendent try to walk back the discipline as soon as they found out about

it?

[tritsofme]

49. I don't know about "sacrosanct" but it is certainly protected speech.

[Polybius]

80. Interesting

I'm around your age and remember a mail-order shirt that said "Silly rabbit, trips are for kids." It was at a time when raves were huge and tripping saw a resurgence.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Same state where Gov. Reynolds promised to ban LGBTQ materials in schools last week?

Last year, Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law a bill that bans schools from teaching the U.S. or people can be systemically racist or sexist. Waukee Community School District doesn't allow BLM signs in classrooms, but neighboring districts do.


https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2023/02/02/gov-reynolds-republicans-promise-action-on-lgbtq-issues-in-schools-at-parental-rights-forum/
https://www.axios.com/local/des-moines/2022/02/07/teaching-black-history-month-under-iowas-new-law

[kelly1mm]

9. State governments can limit the speech of their employees on the clock. Note that the

ban does not limit STUDENTS free speech rights, just the employes. Even then, it may be unconstitutional - we will have to see. But it is NOT the same at all.

[sinkingfeeling]

21. Kind of eliminates the right to free speech if educators lose theirs. Long ago the SCOTUS said,

It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech . . . at the schoolhouse gates."
--U.S. Supreme Court, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

[kelly1mm]

24. Then it should be easy! Educators can talk about LGBTQ rights and students can wear gun shirts.

we will see what the courts decide.

[sinkingfeeling]

26. Yes, it should be that easy.

[kelly1mm]

28. Great, so why again did the school suspend this student? nt

[sinkingfeeling]

29. Kind of the same reason this happened...

Last fall, a teacher in Iowa was put on administrative leave after he included the Pride flag in a presentation about images that described him and told students — when asked — that he was bisexual, according to the Des Moines Register.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/education/2021/09/07/iowa-students-stage-walkout-winterset-junior-high-teacher-placed-leave-bisexual-lgbt-pride-flag/5755797001/

People apply their opinions to the rights of others. And some states are encoding their personal/religious views into laws.

[kelly1mm]

30. So taxpayers get to pay for both these cases. I think we can agree that neither of these

were good decisions on the part of the administration, correct?

[sinkingfeeling]

32. Correct.

[dpibel]

55. What's your prediction?

It appears to me that you believe gun shirt students win and LGBTQ rights educators lose. Do I have that right?

[kelly1mm]

62. Yes, based on the current makeup of the Court. Not that that is my preferred outcome. nt

[dpibel]

66. Well, you're speaking pretty strongly in favor of one

and seem pretty disinterested in the other.

[kelly1mm]

72. I am speaking pretty strongly in what I would think the Courts would do in both.

And I thought we were both in agreement that the school will settle this case with the student being able to wear the shirt and with a few dollars for college as a settlement? I SERIOUSLY doubt the LGBTQ+ teachers will be getting a settlement. Do you agree?

[Scrivener7]

102. There is a difference between preference and analysis.

A few in this thread, bizarrely, do not seem to be able to make the distinction.

[old as dirt]

10. Obama Reads Shooting Victims Names in Speech

[kelly1mm]

13. What does this have to do with violating students free speech rights? nt

[ripcord]

19. I'm sad to say many here don't agree or understand the freedom of speech

Many honestly thing they have a right not to be offended and we fought conservatives that believed exactly the same thing. That is the reason we have so many laws that protect the 1st amendment, because liberals fought for the right to use offensive speech.

[old as dirt]

95. House Democrats stage sit-in on House floor (C-SPAN)

[Scrivener7]

103. And, to express their lack of understanding, are behaving like

children stomping their feet in anger.

This thread, which deals with an important topic, has become very weird.

[ck4829]

106. Pretty sure their free speech rights were violated by people with guns

[old as dirt]

17. Iowa school children deserve to feel safe. (nt)

[kelly1mm]

22. No, they actually don't. If a child in their own mind feels unsafe in the presence of,

lets just say, white people, does that child have a right to ask the administration to ban white people from their school so they can feel safe?
How does a t-shirt paraphrasing the US Constitution make anyone feel unsafe anyway?

[old as dirt]

25. That's your opinion,

No, they actually don't.

I disagree.

[kelly1mm]

27. OK. Thats legitimate. However how do you think the Courts will rule? Although based

on the superintendent already trying to walk this back as noted in the article I seriously doubt they will bring this to trial. A quick settlement is the way this will end.

[dpibel]

39. What you mean is

"a T-shirt using a phrase from the US Constitution to make an in-your-face challenge."

But that doesn't sound near as righteous, does it?

[kelly1mm]

40. Why do you think the Superintendent tried to walk this back as soon as they

found out about it? Do you not think the school will settle this case with taxpayer money?

It does not matter if it was an 'in-your-face challenge" it is still protected by the 1st amendment.

[dpibel]

47. But you so easily rule

that "Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." is not protected by the 1st amendment.

What is your principled distinction between the two?

And what, just out of curiosity, is your fixation on "taxpayer money"?

That's what gets spent when bad cops shoot innocent people, for instance. Are you equally sad about that?

For that matter, are you pretty sure that the settlement you believe will be so automatic will be paid with TAXPAYER MONEY and not with, say, the proceeds from an E&O policy?

[kelly1mm]

51. You failed to answer either of my questions to you. You obviously don't have to. But I will

ask again:

Why do you think the Superintendent tried to walk this back as soon as they found out about it?

Do you not think the school will settle this case with taxpayer money?

Once you answer those questions I will consider answering yours.

[dpibel]

53. Wow. Your rules, eh?

I suspect that Superintendent "tried to walk this back" because it looked like a giant shitstorm coming down the road, what with all kinds of people being really vocal about the Second Amendment being the quintessence of the Constitution. Frankly, if I were looking for the most reliable treatment of First Amendment jurisprudence, a school superintendent might not be my first choice. The fact that you think this is dispositive is a tiny bit droll.

As I said in a response to another of your iterations of this, which you are now copy/pasting in this thread, I am not quite sure, and neither are you, that any settlement will involve taxpayer money (beyond, possibly, an insurance premium, which was being paid anyway). But to your belief that a settlement constitutes per se proof of a First Amendment violation, I would point you to the fact that utterly meritless suits are settled for nuisance value pretty much every day courts are open.

So your stone cold certainty that a settlement will occur does not actually prove what you seem to believe it does.

So, boss. I just answered your questions. Where's that leave you?

[kelly1mm]

58. Thanks for your reply! I do not find the superintendents actions dispositive but I

do think they were taken with advice of council. That advice could have been 'it's not worth it to fight this' or it could have been 'that is pretty sure protected speech' - but as both of us seem to agree this will be settled before trial and either paid with taxpayer money or insurance. Either way the people who were (allegedly) in the wrong, the teacher and principal, will not be paying.

There is a SC case I recall about 'Bong hits for Jesus' that i am basing my opinion on the 'sorry homos, dicks are for chicks' t-shirt' scenario you proposed. It basically said that schools can limit speech (even off school grounds if a 'school related' activity) if it was materially disruptive. I don't think this t-shirt rises to that level.

You may disagree, but as I think we both agree that in this particular case the student can continue to wear the shirt and will be getting a check (and have the discipline removed from her record)

Is that ok as a response 'boss'?

[dpibel]

71. " I don't think this t-shirt rises to that level."

And that's the crux of the matter.

You believe that innocent, wide-eyed young people should be able to be all in your face about guns.

That's your opinion.

And no: I don't take it as a give that this case will be settled. You take that as a certainty and draw conclusions from your certitude.

I wasn't accepting your premise. I was simply pointing out that you were trying to bolster your argument with the words "taxpayer money," when I'm not at all sure those words apply.

I'm trying to think where I keep hearing people caterwauling about "taxpayer money." I'm sure it will come to me if I meditate on it long enough.

By the by: You seem to think that the teacher and the principal should pay. Did I understand that correctly?

Finally, you again state your predicted outcome: poor student gets to express her gunny little self and is richer than Jesus as if it proves your point. Again, outcomes that happen to avoid bigger trouble down the road do not necessarily constitute proof positive of anything.

[kelly1mm]

73. Yes, I do not believe the t-shirt in question rises to that level. Do you really

think the current Court will say that it does if it goes that far? Do you really think the school will take this to trial when the superintendent already tried to walk it back? I don't know if you are involved in the legal system but I am and this fact pattern is screaming settlement. Now that may be because the cost of litigation makes it not worth it or just fearing an actual case going to trial which enshrines students can wear gun shirts willy-nilly, we almost definitely will never know as I will bet 10-1 that this never gets to a jury.

My prediction is that the student will be allowed to wear the shirt and she will get a payout. Do you think that is more likely than not?

[dpibel]

74. "take this to trail"?

Honestly. You really need to rethink the dispositive nature of the superintendent's actions.

I think the school will do what its attorneys deem prudent.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, which is pretty possible, all things considered, you believe that students can wear gun shirts willy-nilly as matters stand. So why would a school worry too much about having that enshrined in the Supreme Court Reports?

As I said above, I don't think for a minute your are a First Amendment absolutist. You've proven the contrary in this discourse.

I do, however, have a pretty strong suspicion you're a Second Amendment absolutist.

And that, maybe, is what this is really all about.

I do admire your energy and, frankly, your ability to engage in a ridiculously long colloquy without either of us descending into reportable behavior. That's a good thing, no?

The last word is yours. I think I've said all I have to say at least twice.

[kelly1mm]

75. No, students cannot wear gun shirts willy nilly. For example if they had a shirt that showed a gun

Last edited Sat Feb 11, 2023, 03:32 AM - Edit history (1)

being fired at kids hiding under desks that would not be allowed constitutionally. I also said I was 'pretty much' a free speech absolutist. There is a concept in the law called 'time, place and manner' restrictions on free speech. I agree with that concept but am probably on the side that believes those restrictions should be narrowly drawn. That is why I agree that the 'no faggots, dicks are for chicks' t-shirt can constitutionally be banned from schools but if the students want to wear that off school grounds/school activity that cannot be banned, nor can they be punished by the school for doing so.

I am not a 2nd amendment absolutist (assuming you mean NO restrictions). I believe in background checks, in limits to fully automatic firearms, and in restrictions on heavy weapons, among other restrictions.

And really, you are pointing out a typo? wow! (I do appreciate your being civil, mainly! lol)

[old as dirt]

31. Smug George Santos shows off assault rifle lapel pin on the House floor, angering Dems

[kelly1mm]

34. What does this post have to do with the article or the students free speech rights being

violated?

[old as dirt]

37. He's doing the same thing as this student.

Just not in a school, that's all.

[kelly1mm]

38. And? Both are protected under the 1st Amendment. Nobody attempted to

make him remove the pin or issued any type of sanction, right? I am not seeing your point. Could you elaborate?

[old as dirt]

42. Your defense of assault rifle lapel pins on the House Floor is noted. (nt)

[kelly1mm]

46. I am pretty much a free speech absolutist, like most liberals (used to be). nt

[dpibel]

57. That's a semi-absolutist, I believe...

You believe that "Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks" is patently, clearly, obviously, unarguably not protected speech.

Oh. I guess that's your "pretty much." So you're a free speech absolutist except when you don't agree with the speech.

Got it.

[kelly1mm]

59. Not protected in school, protected outside of school for student and adults. nt

[dpibel]

68. If you cannot articulate your reasoning

as to why one is protected in school and the other is not, I am not thinking that you are taking a purely principled stance.

[onenote]

110. William O. Douglas would not be welcomed here by many DUers.

[kelly1mm]

113. No doubt. Especially if the topic is even tangentially related to firearms apparently. nt

[tritsofme]

50. Your ignorance of the First Amendment is also noted.

[old as dirt]

56. Here's a poll on the question.

Do Iowa's school children deserve to feel safe in their schools?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217636770

[kelly1mm]

61. 5 whole votes and no context? LOL! nt

[Scrivener7]

105. No. That's not a poll on the question at all. It is quite cringe-worthy, though.

[progressoid]

41. "The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the First Amendment when they suspended the..."

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the First Amendment when they suspended the student — a minor identified only as A.B. — based on the shirt, which it says “did not materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school or invade the rights of others, did not promote illegal conduct, and was not lewd, indecent, or vulgar.”

Uh, yeah she did disrupt the work and the discipline of the school. It seems that it may have been the whole point of wearing the shirt. She knew it wasn't allowed and likely did it knowing full well that it would cause a disruption.

[kelly1mm]

44. Why did the superintendent try to walk back the discipline as soon as they found out about it?

Do you not believe the school district will settle this case with taxpayer money and wipe the discipline from the students record (if it has not already done so)?

[progressoid]

52. Politics.

Schools are abused by bullying parents and right wing media who will torment the school and it's employees just to score political points. Add to that the various gun humping organizations that would love to donate their legal services to aid in that abuse and it becomes cheaper and less complicated to quietly make it go away.

[kelly1mm]

54. So the student can continue to wear this shirt going forward and have a bit of taxpayer

(or taxpayer funded insurance payout) cash to pay for college .... maybe not the best look for the school.

Or perhaps the superintendent knew this was a violation of the 1st amendment.

[progressoid]

63. And?

My point was that their assertion that wearing the shirt didn't "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school" is false. It clearly did disrupt.

1st amendment, 2nd amendment, and whatever settlement occurs notwithstanding, wearing the shirt was disruptive.

[kelly1mm]

64. Exercising one's 1st amendment rights is often disruptive. Still protected. nt

[progressoid]

67. I'm not disputing that.

I'm disputing their claim that it was NOT disruptive.

[kelly1mm]

69. Ok great! Hopefully next time other schools will not jump the gun (pun intended) going

forward.

[onenote]

111. When school administrators try to censor a graduation speech and the speech is still given

Do you think the student that intentionally ignored the censorship should be punished?

[Freethinker65]

43. I think the slogan on the shirt with the image of the rifle is distracting and threatening.

That is its purpose.

What part of the freedom to assemble (with an angry mob gathering on the shirt) do you not understand? would also be distracting and confrontational in an educational setting.

[kelly1mm]

45. Why did the superintendent try to walk back the discipline as soon as they found out about it?

Do you not believe the school district will settle this case with taxpayer money and wipe the discipline from the students record (if it has not already done so)?

[Freethinker65]

70. Not worth the time and money to fight it? They didn't want more threats from FoxNews viewers?

Let the matter go to SCOTUS. If they allow kids wear distracting 2nd amendment shirts to class, they will need to let kids wear distracting first amendment shirts, etc. Perhaps the current SCOTUS will consider it a next step to destroying public education, a GOP goal.

[kelly1mm]

76. So the student has their record cleared, they get to wear their T-shirt whenever they

want and the student gets a few dollars for college? Not such a good look for this teacher/principal. At least the superintendent had some common sense .....

[Hekate]

60. Don't schools have dress codes any more?

[onenote]

112. Are you in favor of dress codes?

What should be allowed, not allowed?

[Scrivener7]

118. When gang colors became a problem in schools I worked in, they

moved to school uniforms.

It worked well and parents loved it because a uniform (usually heavily subsidized, and we had lots of "uniform trading" events for the parents) eliminated the bullying over wardrobe, was tons cheaper than trying to clothes a kid in regular clothes, and it stopped the kids from thinking/worrying/preening about their clothes during the school day.

It also ended the fights over colors and stopped the few kids who did it from being able to strut their nascent gang affiliations, thus glorifying the gangs among younger kids.

[Hekate]

132. Hate speech & overt threats should not be allowed on clothing, nor Nazi & KKK regalia...

Get the concept?

[Silent3]

65. I have mixed feelings about this

I hate the T-shirt's message, of course, but that's obviously not a reason to restrict this form of speech.

The history of precedents for students in high school is a very mixed bag, however. All sort of limits on clothing have been instituted and upheld, including what T-shirts say, if violations would be considered disruptive or threatening.

Even free speech of adults can be limited to maintain order and decorum -- just try sitting in the back of a courtroom and talking to a friend, even quietly, while court is in session. You'll be shushed harshly, then either ejected and possibly held in contempt if you keep it up.

It is a bit dicey, however, to call a pugnacious assertion of the 2nd Amendment a violation of the 1st. Then again, the gun imagery might be pushing it giving the history of school shootings.

There's also the matter of how much minors enjoy the full rights of adults, if we're talking about students younger than 18.

[old as dirt]

77. This mother is teaching her child to be a bully. (nt)

[kelly1mm]

78. Yes, something can be protected free speech and still be bullying. Free speech

is often disruptive/offensive/infuriating. It is still protected. Non-offensive speech doesn't really need protection ......

[old as dirt]

79. As an Iowan, I'm opposed to bullying our children in school.

Unlike you, I don't see bullying as a right.

[kelly1mm]

81. The superintendent of this school district tried to walk the discipline back after they

found out about it. Why do you think that was? Based on the report linked it is HIGHLY likely that the student will have all discipline removed from her record, be able to wear the t-shirt whenever she wants, and have a few dollars for college paid to her by the schools and/or it's insurance provider. Do you disagree?

You may not see this activity as a right but is seems the superintendent does and don't you think it likely that the Courts, if it ever gets that far, will?

It really doesn't matter what you or I think about bullying/free speech, it is what the Court will decide. Do you really thing this current Court will say this was unconstitutional? If so please petition your local government to spend likely millions of dollars to aggressively peruse this case......

[old as dirt]

82. No, I do not see bullying as a right. (nt)

[kelly1mm]

83. your opinion (like mine as well) does not really matter. What do you think the

current Court would say if it were to get that far (which it almost certainly won't as the superintendent already tried to walk it back)

[old as dirt]

84. Why does my opinion not matter? (nt)

[kelly1mm]

85. Your opinion (just like mine) does not matter because we are not the ones that will be deciding

(most likely) to settle this case with the student. That will be the superintendent and his/her legal counsel. As seen in the article the superintendent has already tried to walk this back. Meaning the superintendent would have allowed the student to wear the 'bullying' t-shirt.

This student will almost definitely get her record cleared, be able to continue to wear the t-shirt in question and get some dollars for college paid for by the school and or the school's insurance. Do you disagree after reading the article?

You (or I) agreeing with that outcome literally does not matter .....

It really doesn't matter what you or I think about bullying/free speech, it is what the Court will decide. Do you really thing this current Court will say this was unconstitutional? If so please petition your local government to spend likely millions of dollars to aggressively pursue this case since you are an Iowa resident.

[old as dirt]

86. So my opinion doesn't matter?

You make me feel like I shouldn't even bother to vote.

Sheesh!

[kelly1mm]

87. Maybe you should start another poll here on DU. Maybe get more than 5 responses

this time. They can answer if you can effect the outcome of this case .....

And again, because you seem to never answer the question, do you think the school board will settle this case and allow the student to continue to wear the shirt? Yes or no? (note the question is not if you agree with that decision, but rather if you think that is the more likely than not resolution to this case)

[Scrivener7]

100. Oh, FFS.

[ck4829]

107. Then why bother?

[SYFROYH]

117. The student merely challenged school authority

There are no reports of other school children feeling threatened or bullied.

I don’t know if the student will prevail, but throwing out the bullying claim is unfounded.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

119. Hmmm,

you sound familiar.
Something to think about.

[old as dirt]

121. Not clear what you want me to think about.

Hmmm,

you sound familiar.
Something to think about

[MarineCombatEngineer]

124. Just an observation by me.

Have a great weekend.

[old as dirt]

88. Gundamentalism.

[kelly1mm]

89. What does this post have to do with the article or the violation of the students 1st Amendment

rights? This is primarily a free speech issue, not a gun rights issue? Unless you somehow believe that people do not have a free speech right to talk about the 2nd amendment????

[old as dirt]

90. There is no right to bully school children.

That's what this thread is all about.

[kelly1mm]

115. This student will be allowed to continue to wear the shirt, the discipline the school gave her will

be removed from her record and she will be getting a few dollars from the school district and/or their insurance company.

The superintendent already apologized and the district acknowledged the shirt was protected political speech. So if you consider protected political speech 'bullying' then yes, I guess she does have a right to bully kids in school by your particular definition. If you say that it is political but should be banned anyway well I hope no student wears a Black Lives Mater, No Justtice, No Peace, Biden 2024, Trump 2024, ect T-shirt.

[old as dirt]

91. Dem Lawmaker Slams Republicans For Wearing Assault Rifle Pins During Gun Violence Survivors Week

[old as dirt]

92. Emma Gonzalez's powerful March for Our Lives speech in full

[old as dirt]

93. 11-Year-Old Naomi Wadler's Speech At The March For Our Lives (Full) NBC News

[old as dirt]

94. David Hogg Singles Out Politicians At March For Our Lives Rally: 'Get Your Resumes Ready' NBC News

[no_hypocrisy]

96. It's a right that's only activated when protested.

In 1973, my HS history teacher took a student to the Office to be sent home because she wore an applique of an American flag not only on the back pocket of her jeans (over the butt) but also upside down.

I always thought she should have fought back.

[Scrivener7]

99. Most public schools I worked in instituted a uniform when gang colors started

to become a dangerous thing.

Wouldn't that solve Iowa's problem?

[Scrivener7]

101. Kelly, I'm so sorry your thread got hijacked by ridiculousness. It is an important

topic and you were more patient than I could have been.

Thanks for posting.

[kelly1mm]

108. This is a free speech/1st amendment issue, not a 2nd amendment issue. Too many here on DU

are blinded by rage about anything having even a tangential connection to firearms that they seem to be unable to keep to liberal principles. They will decry the police state (rightly) 98% of the time then argue for house to house gun confiscation ..... makes no sense to me.

Perhaps if the t-shirt read 'By any means necessary' or 'No justice, no peace' and had a picture of the firearm more here would consider the point.

Non-offensive, non-controversial speech doesn't need protection .....

[MarineCombatEngineer]

114. +100.

I can't rec. your post, but I can do this:

Like you, I'm a 1st Amendment absolutists also, I may not like speech I see or hear, but I will defend one's right to express it.

[DashOneBravo]

138. +1

[dsc]

104. Every school I have ever worked in banned imagery of weapons on clothing

I have to imagine that has been ruled on before and been accepted.

[onenote]

116. Court rules in favor of students in gun t-shirt case:

https://www.wbay.com/2022/06/22/appeals-court-rules-favor-students-banned-wearing-gun-shirts-school/

[Emile]

120. The kid should not be allowed to wear it.

What next? FUCK BIDEN tee shirts?

[onenote]

122. Take the word Fuck out and consider these scenarios

Student wearing MAGA shirt.
Student wearing anti-MAGA shirt.
Student wearing t-shirt saying vote for Trump
Student wearing t-shirt saying vote for Biden.

ban them all? some? which ones?

[Emile]

123. Why take the word FUCK out of it?

[onenote]

125. Okay, leave it in as two more options

Fuck Biden
Fuck Trump

Ban both?

It appears you don't think the word fuck should impact whether the t-shirt is allowed or not.

[Emile]

126. Yes

[onenote]

127. And what about political messages that don't use Fuck

You suggested it shouldn't matter. So does that mean you would also ban the following:

MAGA t-shirt
Anti-MAGA t-shirt
Vote for Trump t-shirt
Vote for Biden t-shirt

[Emile]

128. No

[onenote]

129. So the word 'fuck' on the t-shirt does matter to you.

Which is fine. I think it should as well.

[kelly1mm]

130. So, just to make sure, You believe students can have political messages that are not vulgar?

I ask because the school administration/superintendent already apologized and stated the shirt was protected political speech.

Nothing on her t-shirt was vulgar so I am not sure what your basis for banning it would be, especially if you were not also willing to ban LOTS of other political speech (Black Lives Matter, No Justice No Peace, Biden 2024, Trump 2024, My Body My Choice ......)

[Emile]

131. So to just make sure, you are okay or not okay with vulgar tee shirts?

[kelly1mm]

134. I'm sorry, I must have missed your answer to my question? Should students have a

right to non-vulgar political speech on campus?

As for your question, as it is polite to answer one another's questions in a discussion, I personally think that a narrow set of vulgar words or phrases or images (as defined by USSC decisions) even if political in nature, can and should be banned from school grounds.

The words and images on this t-shirt do not meet the standard of vulgarity that the USSC has outlined.

[Emile]

135. I'm sorry but you barged in on a conservation

I was having with another. I answered that question up above, so why are you so judgemental? Is it okay for school kids to wear tee shirts with vulgar language?

[kelly1mm]

136. As I answered above, no I do not think students can have t-shirts with vulgar messages as

the USSC has defined the term. The message on this student's t-shirt came no where near the USSC established definition of vulgarity.

[old as dirt]

133. Here in Iowa, historically, "Trump" has been used as a racial epithet against Black and Brown kids.

Perry Basketball Players Targeted By Degrading ‘Trump’ Chants

PERRY, Iowa — Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s name is still being chanted long after the Iowa Caucuses, but some are using his name to degrade a diverse school’s basketball team.

Perry High School bucks the trend of what is typically found in a rural Iowa setting.

“We are really more of an urban school in a rural setting. Here at the high school, we are 48 percent minority,” said Perry High School Principal Dan Marburger.

They embrace that diversity and it shows on the basketball court with players of Latino, Native American and African American heritage.

“It’s all about who you are as a person and that’s what is great about a small town like Perry,” said head basketball coach Ned Menke.

But that diversity isn’t being celebrated by everyone.

At Monday night’s game against Dallas Center-Grimes, opposing fans used Trump’s disdain for illegal immigrants to target several players of Latino descent.

“We are all aware of racism, it’s alive and well in small portions but it’s alive and well and it’s just hurtful to see that’s what they resort to,” said Kevin Lopez, Perry Student Section Leader.

Chants like “Trump, Trump, Trump” and “USA” were said.

According to players, chants like, “Trump, Trump, Trump,” were said and they were trying to intimidate Perry players by reciting things Trump has said about what he plans to do with immigrants and their children if he is elected.

It’s cut the community and players like senior Shammond Ivory deep.

“It’s honestly disrespectful. That’s how I take it. I hear it during the game, on and off the court. Everywhere I go,” Ivory said.

It’s been a constant almost all season for Perry.

“We had an Instagram issue two weeks ago with a conference school, and I’ll say the school administrators took care of it very well,” Marburger said.

But the Blue Jays have found a way to turn the other cheek and turn it into motivation.

“As soon as I hear something like that, it just triggers me and it makes me strive for more and to do it for my team, coaches and my community,” Ivory said.

A checklist of sportsmanship traits immediately greets all those that walk into the Perry gymnasium. They hope opposing teams follow suit, and if they don’t, players hope their game on the court can change their hearts and minds about race.

“It’s not about color. We are all equal,” Ivory said.

Dallas Center-Grimes Activities Steve Watson confirmed the chants at Monday night’s game and said the issue has been addressed at the school. He declined to comment on whether or not any students were disciplined.

Last Monday, Perry Coach Ned Menke was given the Iowa High School Association’s Character Counts Coach of The Year award.

https://who13.com/news/perry-basketball-players-targeted-by-degrading-trump-chants/