Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Jeremiah Laments
1491 Followers
David A. LaSpina
557 Followers
David A. LaSpina
557 Followers
Terry A. Hurlbut
2953 Followers
Terry A. Hurlbut
2953 Followers
Avenging Turnip
1219 Followers
Avenging Turnip
1219 Followers
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
Closed AccountAug 15, 2010
If school districts are that worried about "controversy", then they should include in the dress code something that prohibits all writing or images on clothing. Otherwise, they are SOL.
Personally that may not be a bad idea and to include severe punishment for kids who dress ghetto.
beratebirthersAug 16, 2010
I'd just call it obscene and charge the kid. Would teach the parents a few lessons about brainwashing too.
norman619Aug 16, 2010
Brainwashing? Is that what you call the teaching of your own values to your children? Silly me. Here all these years I thought that was called raising your child.
ayeroxorAug 16, 2010
I'd sue you, and I'd win. The case law stands behind the child having the same freedom of expression that any other American has.
absurdistAug 16, 2010
"The case law stands behind the child having the same freedom of expression that any other American has."
I would point you to the "Bong Hits For Jesus" case...
vidorianAug 16, 2010
A parents responsibility is to keep their children informed of all sides and let them make their own decisions on an issue.
My 17 year old has been shown all sides while growing up and he shares some but not all of my values. And even though i may disagree I'm happy he is informed enough to argue an issue with anyone.
An example of this is he is against abortion but sees a need for it in rape and incest situations. I believe it is murder and is even against the constitution because it denies life liberty pursuit of happiness. I have a firm belief in power higher than ourselves, he is agnostic.
If you are religious then i ask you to reread raise up a child in a way that he should go. I interrupted that as raising a child according to the type of person he is we are all individuals. We all have different personality profiles and should raise them as individuals not as mind numbed robots. After all choice is the largest right that all humans are given.
Raising a child is not about what we want but what they need.
bigshark101Aug 16, 2010
Yeah it is brainwashing.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
@absurdist: The SC made clear that the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case had to do with meaningless expression designed to attract attention (and could possibly be "encouraging drug use") and that was why it was punishable.
The Supreme Court said they would have acted differently if the student was, for example, supporting or opposing the legalization of marijuana, or supporting or opposing Christianity. This is a message with political meaning.
Even if some don't like what it means, that is irrelevant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
@Vidorian: I'm glad to hear that you respect your child, especially since so many people take offspring as an opportunity to instill their crazy into a human being. High five, sir.
norman619Aug 16, 2010
katana0182:
I'd like to point out the constitution does not exclude any particular for of expression from protection.
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
@norman619: I didn't say I agreed with the SC decision. I don't. I think that the speech should have been considered protected. I'm just stating what the SC said.
At least to me, "The Congress shall make no law", means "NO LAW".
siszamAug 17, 2010
Teaching your children that it's wrong to murder infants by puncturing their skulls, suctioning their brains out and suctioning limbs off is not brainwashing. The pro murder people have convinced you to deny reality. You're online. Go look at the bodies of infants torn apart and discarded. No sane, rational person can see the facts and not say abortion is murder. Educate yourself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
@Siszam: You do realize that is not the only form of abortion. No one would agree that late-term abortions are a good thing. You are altering reality to fit your distorted one.
spacem00seAug 16, 2010
Its called common sense. If a t-shirt is disruptive, then you will be asked to remove it. If you cant, then you will be sent home for the day.
norman619Aug 16, 2010
The problem with that is there will always be people wherever you go who are overly offended by views which are opposite of their own. It is THESE people who need to learn to grow up and accept the truth that not everyone shares their values.
ayeroxorAug 16, 2010
"If a t-shirt is disruptive, then you will be asked to remove it"
That's un-American and unconstitutional. Case after case, the case law shows that minors/students DO have constitutional rights including freedom of expression. The first amendment was not created to protect popular speech.
spacem00seAug 16, 2010
Sorry, but the shirt was highly offensive and meant to troll the school board. Did you know it was "National Pro-life T-shirt Day"...? Did you know that this T-Shirt was worn on purpose to push a political cause? Did you know that the mother was given many resources from pro-life groups to lawyer up and sue the school? Did you know there was an existing dress code that forbid the t-shirt she wore?
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=cc39c1fe-ad65-41c7-87f0-1b79221cfb63
Kids are at school to learn, not to exercise their constitutional rights. To allow this type of disruption is to handcuff administrators who are tying to educated children while under a huge magnifying glass.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joshreflekAug 16, 2010
"Kids are at school to learn, not to exercise their constitutional rights"
i hope you aren't in charge of anything important.
i fully support kids being able to wear what they want to school.
as for the "be less offensive than" line, id say its behind the FIRST AMENDMENT.
the constitutional right this child is using, never ceases to be in effect. certainly not just because you say so.
bbtwebAug 16, 2010
but you have to admit, this is ridiculous that the settlement was even $50,000. Seriously? Even the potential "emotional distress" (if you can even remotely call it that) that the kid had to "deal with" from not being allowed to wear that shirt does not equal a $50,000 award. What kind of precedent is that potentially setting? That's like a parent telling her kid "Go to school wearing this shirt and walk in front of the principal who will make you change it and then we can sue to pay for college!"
ishiguroAug 16, 2010
And now the school, will be like, "hey don't tell that kid to change their shirt or we'll end up handing out cash."
oninboninAug 16, 2010
It's the American way, unfortunately.
soc7Aug 15, 2010
School Uniforms.
Closed AccountAug 15, 2010
As long as they are locally mandated, that would be fine. A nice strict dress code that prohibits writing and images would be fine in conjunction with having all shirts tucked in. Of course,... no bustin a sag, no athletic shoes that carry the name of a sports star, etc.
eavesdropAug 16, 2010
School uniforms are stupid and a waste of time and money.
aplusjimagesAug 16, 2010
Technically webreforms was suggesting a stricter dress code, just like most businesses have. "bustin a sag" I haven't it called that for a long time.
meribianAug 16, 2010
It isn't like there were any swear words or porn images on it, so it shouldn't matter. People should just ignore the shirt and continue teaching.
hfactorAug 16, 2010
Why? Maybe they just need to stop giving a f**k about what pupils wear.
norman619Aug 16, 2010
Ummm... no there are limits and the schools should clearly spell out what those limits are.
travelsonicAug 16, 2010
But you don't need uniforms to have those limits.
deathweaver108Aug 16, 2010
because school should prepare kids for the real world. And in the real world people give a f**k.
rexofromeAug 16, 2010
If I wore that tee shirt to work I'm sure I would be sent home. Welcome to the real world.
zloba00Aug 15, 2010
Any shirt that supports either side of any particularly contentious issue is inappropriate at school simply because it will be disruptive.
elperegrinoAug 16, 2010
catchy - they should put that on a t-shirt
mitcheypooAug 16, 2010
;)
apackofmonkeysAug 16, 2010
To be fair, the shirt was 100% factual. It merely stated and showed that a fetus was developing, and then disappeared. No matter what side of the abortion issue you fall on, the shirt is true. Any conclusions are drawn exclusively by the reader.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
"this is a shirt with a mans head blown off"
"this shirt shows a woman blowing a man and then him blowing it on her face"
those are factual as well
apackofmonkeysAug 16, 2010
RTFA. If the shirt contained pictures of the actual ripping apart of a fetus, your analogy might work. However, the pictures are simply of a normal, living fetus. How can you be offended by that?
basalcellbosskAug 16, 2010
"the pictures are simply of a normal, living fetus"
That is a picture of a *child*. A naked child.
It is the WORST form of pornography. Pictures of naked children.
And here you are defending it. You should be ashamed.
/stanhope
magus_melchiorAug 17, 2010
The kids are there to learn, not to be activists.
tarantulusAug 16, 2010
maybe if a contentious issue comes up they could... you know... educate the kids about it?
meribianAug 16, 2010
And in come stupid angry parents that are afraid their children will be more knowledgeable and understanding.
marx2kAug 16, 2010
They already got sued for this. I doubt that unsanctioned abortion debate is not going to get them sued.
tarantulusAug 16, 2010
ouch! "unsanctioned debate"?
you need permission from parents to TALK to students nowadays? f**king hell america, what have you become.
nudarAug 16, 2010
I think you mean indoctrinate.
norman619Aug 16, 2010
nope. They should encourage discussion of things like this when they come up not punish or pretend these things don't exist. The school's job is to educate. I would hope that education would include teaching our children opposing views should be tolerated and openly discussed in a civil manner. One of my English teachers in high school always did that whenever some controversial subject came up. He felt it was so important that he would put the day's lesson aside and allow us to debate and discuss the topic. For the most part I felt high school was a waste of time but there were a few teachers who did teach me important things beyond what we get taught from books. If most teachers were like those few I think I would have gotten far more out of my time in the public education system. Too bad all they do is reward mediocrity and tech PC bulls**t.
lunchbox37Aug 16, 2010
I completely agree with you and with that teacher's method of fostering debate. However, that teacher's classroom is a very controlled environment; 'debate' in the hallways after another student sees this t-shirt is not. High school students can and should be encouraged to have debates about really hot-button issues, but shirts like this are not made to to encourage or foster a debate. They're just political shock-jock apparel like (actually, real) punks wear shock-jock apparel to rebel against what they see as bad societal norms.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gigigugitAug 17, 2010
Sounds like you learned alot of english
(yep, alot)
isukeyoAug 16, 2010
Wow, really! Let's teach our kids to avoid contentious issues. Let's teach them it's better to ignore things that make us uncomfortable. This isn't kindergarten, it's high school. Kids at that age should be discussing issues like this. I feel sorry for your kids if you have any!
nbcchicagoAug 16, 2010
not high school, elementary school.
derangedpenguinAug 16, 2010
I agree but were was the ban on Obama and GWB tee shirts. How about a ban on Che Shirts, yeah Che only called black Africans too stupid to be wage a communist revolution.
Schools are not a Democracy and should never be still they must remain balanced in their view points. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
screwy1138Aug 16, 2010
Define contentious issue without creating oppressive censorship.
hackiavelliAug 16, 2010
That'll be news to the Supreme Court:
"In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would 'materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school, the prohibition cannot be sustained. [...] [T]he action of the school authorities appears to have been based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines
spiralspiritAug 16, 2010
^this.
If the school didn't help publish it, and it is a political message, and it isn't obscenity (which has to do with sexual obscenity, not "swear words"), and it doesn't materially interfere with the school educating students (and causing arguments does not count, according to the supreme court), then its legal speech.
flagg85Aug 15, 2010
Growing Growing Gone Freedom Party Time!!! Seriously she is entitled to her opinion and I'm cool with that, but hate when people shove messages into your face, come on she's a brainwashed 12-year-old girl, perhaps the schools should have debated the message the T-shirt was saying, I doubt any 12-year-old girl would have a true understanding of what an abortion is (unless you've had one).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidnivenAug 15, 2010
Well, the bureaucrats and activists in California seem to think that 12-year-old girls are cognizant, intelligent, and mature enough to get an abortion if they want one. It is legal for them if certain criteria are met.
But, not cognizant, intelligent, and mature enough to understand a t-shirt message, huh?
freediverxAug 16, 2010
And you think someone who isn't cognizant, intelligent, and mature enough to get an abortion is nonetheless ready for parenthood?
gigglestickAug 16, 2010
Because the only options are to kill it or raise it, right freediverx?
davidnivenAug 15, 2010
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pro-life-t-shirt-banned-at-school
Somehow I doubt that anti-Bush, pro-union, and pro-Muslim messages were banished too. Yet, shirts with American flags were sometimes considered disruptive?!?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/tensions-high-california-high-school-following-flag-flapComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pharmermikeAug 16, 2010
Different parts of the state. The state is very big and populous. If you have been to any other part of California other than LA and SF, you would not equate Fresno to Live Oak.
Careful with that broad brush you use to paint large swaths of people.
whatthefuAug 16, 2010
I've never heard of any students wearing "pro-union" or "pro-Muslim" shirts for the sole purpose of riling people up.
reaper527Aug 16, 2010
"I've never heard of any students wearing "pro-union" or "pro-Muslim" shirts for the sole purpose of riling people up."
so if you personally don't disagree with it, it isn't intended to rile people up? because that is the only possible explanation why pro-union and pro-muslim would be ok, but anti-abortion wouldn't be
propethicAug 16, 2010
But nobody wears pro-union or pro-muslim shirts........
fuse13Aug 16, 2010
did you notice the part of the story where she won her lawsuit?
reaper527Aug 16, 2010
unfortunately, she settled, so there is no legal precedent set by the case. the school district claims that it was to avoid a costly trial, but i think they knew they were going to lose
ripple123Aug 16, 2010
id sure like to know the how in that somehow. cause your making a lot of assumptions there.
Jordan117Aug 16, 2010
Bettverboten (Lizbett): Check back here you late nighters to see when and who subs this [article just published on targeted website]. I am sure it is coming our way.
Phoenixtx: Good recon Liz! Thanks! Let's keep our eyes open.
LibertyAlways: It's up-bury! [link]
JeremiahLaments: Think we can bury it in record time? I think we CAN!
[10 minutes later] We did it! Buried it with only 5 diggs–might be a record!
http://gawker.com/5605982/is-digg-being-hijacked-by-a-right+wing-fringe-groupComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anakastAug 16, 2010
I hope everyone that sees your comment reports you for spam.
jstraskAug 16, 2010
On what grounds?
bigsteveAug 16, 2010
digg is serious business!
keithlolbermannAug 16, 2010
Reported for spam.
propethicAug 16, 2010
Lol they want to report you,I bet you're so scared.
caseycooldAug 16, 2010
While this group messing with digg is sad and annoying, I am also digging this article because though I disagree with the message of the shirt, and agree with being able to say it. School might not be the best place for it, but that's what dress codes are for.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
It's spam unless it's submitted from outside the Digg "Patriots."
airchomperAug 16, 2010
She gets 50k for wearing an abortion shirt and I get to change into gym clothes for my infected mushrooms shirt? f**k that s**t.
tarantulusAug 16, 2010
grow a pair and fight the power :P
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Freedom of speech is the First Amendment for a reason. The lesson here is don't f**k with it.
marytormeyAug 16, 2010
If a shirt is disruptive, then class is too boring.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
What the hell does a 12 year old know about abortion? Parents need to stop pushing their political agenda through their children.
solkreAug 16, 2010
They know they aren't aborted?
anakastAug 16, 2010
"Parents need to stop pushing their political agenda through their children."
People that say that are generally the ones that brainwash their kids with liberal ideology from the age of 2. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
iignotusAug 16, 2010
Or not? You have to be pretty retarded to make that leap.
anakastAug 16, 2010
No really, I'm damn serious.
marx2kAug 16, 2010
That's the problem
gsydiggerAug 16, 2010
funny thing is that 'liberal ideology' could come true quite easily without Conservatives jumping in front of it
iignotusAug 16, 2010
Oh, you can be retarded and serious at the same time. Apparently you didn't know that.
oninboninAug 16, 2010
'Seriously retarded'
nudarAug 16, 2010
12 year olds aren't as stupid as you think.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
This one is.
derangedpenguinAug 16, 2010
How about the little snot nosed 4 year old wearing an Obama Tee Shirt?
How about little, Hispanic kid trampling a U.S. flag at an Anti-U.S. Anti-1070 rally. Children follow their parents as their role models in life if they actually have parents who give a crap about them. At some point they can either chose to continue to follow or chose to change course.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Kang: Abortions for all.
[crowd boos]
Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone.
[crowd boos]
Kang: Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
[crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]
emjayseaAug 16, 2010
Listen up, principals, here's what you do. You let the kid wear the shirt until such a time as it proves a significant distraction (fight, classroom disrupted more than normal, etc.), and then you present the student with some choices, such as, a) change shirts, b) wear that shirt inside out, c) go home and receive absences for the remaining classes. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hfactorAug 16, 2010
Or you tell the kids who fight or "are distracted" to shut up and sit down, and continue the lesson.
emjayseaAug 16, 2010
Now you're just letting your bias get in the way of common sense.
cawpinAug 16, 2010
"Now you're just letting your bias get in the way of common sense."
So you think we should let what somebody else THINKS determine what we are allowed to wear? Nobody has a right to not be offended.
wolferzAug 16, 2010
your definition of common sense must be significantly different from mine... in my mind we should punish trouble makers... not the recipients of the trouble they make.
but hey... that's just me
emjayseaAug 16, 2010
@cawpin: it's a f**king school, not a venue for whatever platform your parents would like it to be. Good teachers will turn these incidents into teaching opportunities, and good principals will be fair and keep chaos from ensuing. That's common sense, and your hippy notions of what school should be like are the opposite of common sense.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emjayseaAug 16, 2010
@wolferz: "in my mind it's common sense to punish trouble makers... not the recipients of the trouble they make. but hey... that's just me.. after all" How is the person who wore an obviously inflammatory shirt (in case you hadn't noticed, abortion is a very hot topic these days, with some physicians having been killed over it) the recipient of trouble making and not the cause of it? I'm a pretty liberal guy, but again, you're throwing common sense out the window here. I get what you're saying, and in a perfect world, yeah, we can wear whatever we want, and nobody will take issue with it, and for the most part who cares if they do, but again, this is school and my advice was to principals who need to do something to ensure a environment conducive to learning.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smotpokerAug 16, 2010
@emjay
Pragmatism is supposed to stop at the point where it begins mandating we remove freedoms of others. People can say and wear anything they want so long as it isn't violating the rights of others, IMO. Anything can be considered inflammatory to someone. If you can prove they are trying to be inflammatory, fine. Punish them if there is a rule against them at the school.
However, expression of one's beliefs or specific facts alone is not proof of inflammatory intent and should not be punished for it. Authorities cannot dictate that some beliefs are ok to express and others are not based purely on the popularity of said belief. Unless all expression of political or moral beliefs is restricted, or there is evidence that the expression was intended purely to instigate disruption, nobody should be punished for it.
wolferzAug 16, 2010
"How is the person who wore an obviously inflammatory shirt (in case you hadn't noticed, abortion is a very hot topic these days, with some physicians having been killed over it) the recipient of trouble making and not the cause of it?"
Because, as you pointed out, in a perfect world (ie a world without bigotry and hate) people wouldn't start trouble over these shirts.
You're basically arguing that because some people are guilty of bigotry and hate we should tip toe around the subjects their bigotry involves instead of punishing our children for demonstrating the same bigotry and hate... and then go even further by validating that bigotry and hate and punish the one the bigotry and hate was perpetrated against.
The whole perfect world thing is basically saying that because things aren't perfect we should punish people who do nothing wrong instead of trying to improve the world.
Just because people respond towards an idea with bigotry and hate doesn't make expressing the idea wrong... no matter where that idea is expressed.
As for the purpose of schools... I'll be the first to admit that it's the job of parents, not school administrators, to teach a child right from wrong. But school administrators shouldn't allow bad behavior when the parents fail to do so. And they damn sure shouldn't be punishing students who have done absolutely nothing wrong just because others might do something wrong in response.
If we are going to allow that last bit we had might as well start segregating the schools again... after all... being black might cause trouble. Oh and no Muslims in our schools ether... might cause trouble. I mean we could just teach them to show tolerance... but it's not a perfect world after all.
screwy1138Aug 16, 2010
We have GOT to stop creating rules to outlaw things that make other people react certain ways. Punish the inappropriate reaction not the legally or reasonable done action in the first place.
Worrying about how people will react just conditions people to react to dumb stuff. There are so many things wrong with the world right now because we're always worried about how other people will react.
rblancarteAug 16, 2010
wrong wrong and wrong
Look, you can't make this up as you go along. It doesn't matter if the shirt is disruptive. If there is a no dress code, you have ZERO ground to stand on.
royishAug 16, 2010
How the f**k is that situation worth $50,000?
People get less for serious injuries.
falldogAug 16, 2010
I hope she takes that money and has an abortion.
mitcheypooAug 16, 2010
I was drinking milk when I read your comment. You assh**e!
acknotswAug 16, 2010
@mitcheypoo
I guess you could try and sue him for the cost of a keyboard, oh yeah, and a few extra grand for the pain and suffering you undoubtedly experienced.
/joking
maliciouskittyAug 16, 2010
I'm curious as to why she's receiving any money for this. Doesn't sound like she was harassed. Just asked to remove it.
She should have won an apology and maybe a free lunch.
cawpinAug 16, 2010
So you think a state, via the school, can violate your rights with no consequences?
bartboy919Aug 16, 2010
It's been settled law that students, especially those under 18, do not have full rights to free speech in a school environment. I was vehemently against this growing up, but seeing s**t like this leads me to believe that it is put in place because of these type of assh**es.
oxidaneAug 16, 2010
The consquence would have been an apology and a free lunch.
derangedpenguinAug 16, 2010
I question the receipt of $50,000 sounds a bit high when I have an acquaintance who is a public school teacher and she had to purchase class room supplies with her own money this year. Hats off to the anonymous lady in line behind her who helped by "donating" $100.00 in cash. Yes the department of education should pay her legal costs to defend her right to free speech, but it should have ended their and with the firing of the teachers, staff who violated her rights.
anakastAug 16, 2010
Considering the amount wasted on abortions, it's nothing.
caseycooldAug 16, 2010
And from WWWWWAAAAAYYYY out in right field we have anakast throwing out arguments he can't counter and declaring victory.
apackofmonkeysAug 16, 2010
Because if it wasn't worth that, schools would be pushing free speech around as far as they can with no consequences for their actions.
lunchbox37Aug 16, 2010
It says it in the article why the school settled at $50,000: because taking her to trial would cost the school WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more (both in reputation and money), regardless of if they won or lost. The student's lawyers would not drop the suit because they knew this.
spiralspiritAug 16, 2010
because it was a violation of the constitution, something that should treated harshly so that it doesn't happen again.
joannchiladaAug 16, 2010
Her t-shirt was a stupid choice for school-wear, and I disagree with her opinion. But most obnoxious is how it escalated and how it ended. The school has the right to deem what's appropriate attire and require students to change, turn their t-shirts inside-out, whatever. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
"The school has the right to deem what's appropriate"
But they do not have the right to infringe upon a student's first amendment rights. This has been proven time and time again in numerous court decisions.
joannchiladaAug 16, 2010
Dress code and first ammendment rights are not the same.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
US Supreme Court: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
The Court ruled 7-2 that public school officials could not censor student expression unless they could reasonably forecast that the student expression would cause substantial disruption or material interference with school activities or would invade the rights of others. In this case, disruptions and interference would be a reasonable forecast due to the highly divisive nature of the abortion rights debate.
This ruling is further backed by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that recently struck down a portion of a school’s dress code in Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board that prohibited clothing depicting weapons.
The following is from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=clothing_dress_codes_uniforms
"Many courts will analyze student dress cases under a threshold test established by the Supreme Court in flag-desecration cases. This two-part test asks: (1) whether the student intended to convey a particular message, and (2) whether reasonable observers would understand this message. A federal district court in New Mexico applied this standard to rule that a public school student did not have a First Amendment right to wear sagging jeans.
In Bivens v. Albuquerque Public Schools, the judge questioned whether sagging pants conveyed any particular message: “Sagging is not necessarily associated with any single racial or cultural group, and sagging is seen by some merely as a fashion trend followed by many adolescents all over the United States.” The judge said that even if sagging somehow constituted a message, the student failed to establish that reasonable observers would understand any message coming from the wearing of sagging pants."
So, as you should be able to clearly see, dress codes and first amendment rights are very intertwined and often become the same thing.
spiralspiritAug 16, 2010
as posted above, you're wrong.
anakastAug 16, 2010
And so they f**king should.
1packerAug 16, 2010
I think they're referring to the fact that it is a shirt with a graphic on it, hence a graphic t-shirt.
hipmanAug 16, 2010
Oh, so they're going to ban every shirt with a graph?.
anakastAug 16, 2010
Good one but it has multiple graphics.
smedrickAug 16, 2010
@anakast: Any t-shirt with print on it is referred to as a graphic t-shirt, you spaz.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=graphic+t-shirt
phobozadAug 16, 2010
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-graphic-tees.htm
marx2kAug 16, 2010
I really didn't think it was possible for hipman to get any dumber. I was wrong.
1packerAug 17, 2010
@hipman Did you seriously not manage to read the entire article? I see you quoted the picture caption, but I guess the block of text was just too much.
FTA: McSwain implemented a new dress code policy this school year that prohibits most graphic T-shirts.
powderedtoastyAug 16, 2010
Are you kidding us? You've never heard of a "graphic t-shirt"?
I support the right of gay people to have sex, but I don't want to see it on a t-shirt. Does that make me sensitive or just reasonable?
anakastAug 16, 2010
Believe me, the pro-abortion lot are constantly complaining about graphic pictures of aborted fetuses.
marx2kAug 16, 2010
It's hilarious how morons say "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice" but then get all spazzed out when they're called "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life"
jgzmanAug 16, 2010
Your selection of labels tells much about your inability to understand your opponent. Few people are 'pro-abortion.' The proper label is 'pro-choice.' These people support the right of a woman to make her own choice, on the basis that her own body is her own business. IMO, they are conveniently forgetting the fetus, but that is another argument entirely.
Understand your enemy, or you cannot fight them.
As well: It seems from your post that you would never support anything you find disagreeable. That marks you very clearly as a republican and a christian. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
As a liberal, I am more than capable of supporting things I find disagreeable. Unless having no other source of food, I would never hunt and kill an animal. Never. The thought turns my stomach. But I don't care if other people do it. More power to them. I would never have sex with another man. Doesn't exactly turn my stomach, but I CERTAINLY don't want to see it. But again, let others do what they want.
I don't recall where I read it, but one possible measure of maturity is to divorce 'moral' from 'like.' Modern republicans and fundamentalist religions don't seem to have gotten that far yet.
apackofmonkeysAug 16, 2010
It doesn't even show the abortion process, it shows a fetus at two stages of its development, then a blank window. That's "graphic"? Good grief. Sounds like the school has a stronger political agenda than the girl.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Actually it sounds like the parents have a stronger political belief than the girl.
jgzmanAug 16, 2010
As noted above, it appears that the t-shirt contains graphics, rather than being graphic. Of course, they did build the sentence badly, if that's what they were going for.
apackofmonkeysAug 16, 2010
In plenty of other posts, people are absurdly complaining about it being graphic, so the point is valid.
legopacificAug 16, 2010
Until they mandate taste, there's always going to be some fool pushing an agenda. Usually these agendas are acceptable such as 3rd world labor (Nike), Tattoos (Ed Hardy) or failed socio-economic policies (Che).
derangedpenguinAug 16, 2010
Kind of like those cheezy Che and Obama T Shirts. Complete lack of taste
everlast88Aug 16, 2010
I'm pro-choice and I would wear that shirt just because it made me chuckle.
parasitewaspAug 18, 2010
I'd wear the shirt only to get the desired $50,000.
falldogAug 16, 2010
Since when do school children have first amendment rights?
The kid got lucky when the school decided to settle. The school, on the other hand, opened up the flood gates for any know it all teenager with an attention getting shirt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tarantulusAug 16, 2010
sorry, I thought the constitution covered all americans, not just those above a certain arbitrary age.
insanebrainAug 16, 2010
>Since when do school children have first amendment rights?
You get the first amendment rights as soons as you are born.... or are babies/little children not human ?
spacem00seAug 16, 2010
Uhhh you have zero rights in a private school. Countless kids were kicked out because their mom is gay, or supports non-catholic ideas, born out of wedlock, etc, etc. Most people typically respond "Well that sucks, but the school is private and can enforce any rules they see fit".
Now this wasn't a private school, but one with clearly defined rules against wearing inappropriate clothing. Daughter wore that t-shirt specifically to provoke a response. Mother is part of the pro-life movement and got all the lawyers she needed to fight the ruling. Most people just dont have the money to the school. Had the daughter worn a t-shirt with a bong on it, she would have accepted the ruling (being sent home).
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
So let me get this straight... They don't have embryo images in school biology books?
marx2kAug 16, 2010
I'm sure they have a cross section of human coitus in biology books too. Should 12 year olds be running around with t-shirts of that?
keithlolbermannAug 16, 2010
Not so liberal in your interpretation of freedom of expression in this case, eh?
marx2kAug 16, 2010
It's a school, troll, not a soapbox. I say uniforms for all.
keithlolbermannAug 16, 2010
With Karl Marx t-shirts, AMIRITE?
screwy1138Aug 16, 2010
Who are you to decide what images a 12 year old should be running around with on thier t-shirts?
Hmmm, I think I got trolled.
fotomanAug 16, 2010
no. not in Jr High. sex ed is usually reserved for the last segment of the school year and is not part of the standard 7th grade science textbooks.
gotbannedagainAug 16, 2010
A couple of things, here.
1.) Whether you agree or disagree with her position - this is the fault of the school. They could have easily allowed her to wear a shirt that violated nobody else's rights and simply allowed her to express herself freely. This is the great thing about living in a free society - even if you disagree, you should be allowed to say what you wish, so long as you do not violate the rights of anyone else.
2.) She got $50,000 solely because that would have been the cost of attorney's and court fees. Had they lost, in many civil cases, the party at fault has to pay for the other guy's legal defense. This would have been tied up in appeals for years - it makes more sense for the school district to simply settle for what the defense would have cost.
3.) It's sad that, in this day and age, we have to promote people wearing school uniforms because we don't have confidence in our administrators to make decisions like this. Unfortunately, it might be the only way to keep issues like this from happening.
marx2kAug 16, 2010
Apparently we don't have confidence in our administrators to make decisions like this, since they get sued when they do.
beachtraderAug 16, 2010
Actually it is very very rare to get attorneys' fees paid from the losing side. It either has to be written into the law that the losing side pays or some very egregious behavior from one side which increases the fees.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spacem00seAug 16, 2010
"They could have easily allowed her to wear a shirt that violated nobody else's rights and simply allowed her to express herself freely."
Yeah, they said she would wear something else. She refused, so she was sent home for the day. Most people end up having to wear gym clothes.
You guys did do a search to find alternative articles? This has so few facts listed that its not hard to find more details. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sgerwel1985Aug 16, 2010
Interesting, i remember when i was in 6th grade i got a suspension for a shirt that said "you got to have balls if you want to play," and it showed two golf balls...
smemilyAug 16, 2010
NO FEAR! or was it one of the knockoff "NO WEAR" tees?
sgerwel1985Aug 16, 2010
I forget man, i think i got it at hilton head novelty shops. My guess is it was a knockoff one. You know they like press the saying on with a big steam iron thing.
bsmangAug 16, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
elohirAug 16, 2010
$50,000 for being asked not to wear a t-shirt?
Yet we continue to pretend that the legal system isn't fundamentally flawed.
stubearAug 16, 2010
What's the flaw here? A student's first amendment rights were violated and the violator was forced to pay restitution. I don't know why a 6th grader was promoting an anti-abortion message and I don't really care. I do care that they have the right to do so and a PUBLIC school doesn't have the right to restrict free speech. I'm pro-choice, though I abhor the use of abortion as a means of birth control (use a condom), but I won't tell someone they can't promote their views as long as they do it peacefully. Wearing a t-shirt is a peaceful form of protest. If you are offended by a message on a t-shirt then you need to go out in public more and gain some perspective.
YouGotTrolledAug 16, 2010
Please explain this fundamental flaw, as you see it.
mysql101Aug 16, 2010
Awarding legal fees is fine, but if the $50,000 is above and beyond the legal fees, then I think it's wrong. The government should not be a piggy bank to sue. If there is wrong doing, FIRE those responsible to take care of it.
YouGotTrolledAug 16, 2010
It's not like there's a set amount that they get to pick from. The school agreed to pay $50,000, because it was cheaper than having a trial, and it was what the plaintiff's agreed would be a sufficient sum in lieu of a judgement. That's why I hate these stupid "settlement = the system is flawed har har" arguments because the point of a settlement is to SAVE money, and more importantly time, and keeps the legal system clear of frivolous lawsuits.
When you have a trial you have to pay for the court room, the overhead of the building (electricity, water and sewer from all the people using the bathroom, heat), you have to pay the judge, the bailiff(s), and the district attorney(s), not to mention all the people who have to take time out of their normal work day just to be there. It represents an enormous cost to the taxpayers to have what amounts to an open and shut case. So, by settling, you should be saying "wow the system works!" because there exists the obvious outcome of the trial without actually having paid to have the trial. It's also better for the school because now there is not a precedent set, because in the legal world precedents approximately equal law.
Most people who bash the legal system have no experience with it other than watching judge judy. And if you truly think it's flawed you should write your senator with some suggestions, but of course you won't because what you view as flaws are things that are intentionally in place for a good reason.
ravagedsoulAug 16, 2010
It's almost certainly covered by insurance, and the insurance company decides whether or not to settle and for how much.
pizzainacupAug 16, 2010
Looks like a pro-abortion shirt to me.
Abortion = problem solved
wassim2kAug 16, 2010
Why don't these a**holes concentrate on teaching and improving their sh*tty curriculum, instead of picking on kids with graphic shirts? It doesn't matter what shirt you're wearing if you're dropping out or not making it into college because of douches like this.
arekkusuAug 16, 2010
Abortion : Something that some women decide to get, that doesn't affect me in anyway, yet I still have a stupid t-shirt about it.
wolferzAug 16, 2010
I'm gonna get set a letter with anthrax in it (in addition to being buried to hell) for equating abortion to murder... but
The murder of thousands every year of the diamond trade doesn't "affect" you in any way either... but something tells me you wouldn't consider wearing a shirt denouncing those actions "stupid"
gotta love unchecked bias.
arekkusuAug 16, 2010
I too will say something that will get me buried (oh noes) :
Fetuses aren't people.
smemilyAug 16, 2010
That's not really a good analogy because most Americans wear diamonds anyway. More than support abortion, I believe.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
I'm gonna get buried for equating coffee tables with ant-eaters... but
blargh blargh blargh eek donk donk wee!
wolferzAug 16, 2010
@smemily
I live in the deep south... southern Alabama to be exact... and even here support for abortion is the norm. Something like 90% of people who aren't deeply religious support it and something like 40-50% of people who are also support it... if only grudgingly. Granted these are highly unscientific numbers and could just a result of be the fact that I tend to avoid the more conservative types.
But I suppose I could have used the genocides perpetrated by Saddam Husein... or animal cruelty... or any other subject where people don't generally through logic out the window in favor of personal bias.
wolferzAug 16, 2010
@smemily
I live in the deep south... southern Alabama to be exact... and even here support for abortion is the norm. Something like 90% of people who aren't deeply religious support it and something like 40-50% of people who are also support it... if only grudgingly. Granted these are highly unscientific numbers and could just a result of be the fact that I tend to avoid the more conservative types.
But I suppose I could have used the genocides perpetrated by Saddam Husein... or animal cruelty... or any other subject where people don't generally through logic out the window in favor of personal bias.
@arekkusu
Thank you for confirming my suspicions about you. I wasn't quite sure you were acting off of bias... but the fact that you responded with a statement indicating your biased *opinion* instead of a logical counter argument pretty much proves me right.
BTW... if I can get most people to agree with my opinion that you aren't a person will you mind if I... er... destroy... you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
propethicAug 16, 2010
People choose to be victims of genocide? Or get killed? Abortion will never be illegal and you can't stop it because it's a personal choice, get over it. Keep trying though, it only serves to scare voters away due to your extreme over zealousness about everybody elses private lives.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
If abortion is murder, maybe the religious zealots and Republicans should start promoting birth control instead of ignorance.
arekkusuAug 16, 2010
Oh what-f**king-ever. Anyone who formulates an opinion is biased these days. I don't f**king run an abortion clinic or have anything to gain from women getting abortions so how the f**k am I biased ?
I just think maybe, just maybe, people should be allowed to do what the f**k they want.
wolferzAug 16, 2010
@Propethic
Voters? I'm not running for office? Oh right you just decided I must be a republican crack pot (which is some how different from a democrat crack pot)... gotcha. And fyi... most of my opinions fall on the extreme liberal end of the spectrum.
As for private lives... Spousal abuse is part of people's private lives too... should we just ignore that?
I've spent a great deal of time considering the issue... despite my tendancy to lean in favor of more relaxed rules and greater freedoms across the board... this is one case where the issue becomes "who's freedom" the mother's or the child's. What's that? non-living creatures have no rights? The definition of a fetus as non-living is opinion... one that is made for convenience of conscience rather than logic. If fetuses are non-living than nether are bacteria, most parasites, and all fungus... yet those in fact ARE considered living and "alive."
My opinion starts with the fact that according to the pro-choicers my own mother could have decided she didn't want stretch marks and prevented my entire life. Now I happen to like my life... and I don't think any one... not even my mother... has the right to make that decision for me. It has always been an issue of personal accountability. If you spread your legs you are taking a risk that you will get pregnant. If you can't accept the consequences should you prove unlucky then you shouldn't spread your legs. Just because you wanted to have some fun but don't want to face the consequences doesn't give you the right to prevent the life you have begun creating (oh how I have to twist the English language to void all the arbitrary definitions of life people use now days). Special exemptions should of course be made for *true* medical concerns (ie, not stretch marks or the inconvenience of pregnancy) and rape. If you're not financialy capable of supporting a family... again you shouldn't be having sex... but barring that this county is suffering from a severe shortage of adoptable children (which started around the time of roe vs wade interestingly enough) and most adoption agencies will pick up the tab. In fact I myself am adopted.
@SpinningHead
Actually I'm of the opinion that religious zealots (including the "strong atheists") and the two dominant parties in this country should all go f**k themselves.
That said yes... contraceptives should not be discouraged. To do so is idiocy. Still... contraceptives are not 100%... and if you can't accept the consequences of being unlucky then you shouldn't be depending on luck. And don't say people will have sex and nothing can stop that. I know people who are 25+ years old... perfectly capable of getting as much pussy or dick as they want... and choose not to. And not all of them are on religious grounds ether.
@arekkusu
Finally some semblance of a logical comment. Even though your logic is flawed at least you are trying.
So let me see if I understand your argument correctly. Because most people give into personal bias... it's no longer a bad idea? If most people stabbed needles into their eyes would you think that wasn't a bad idea?
As for being able to do what the f**k they want... should I be allowed to rob a store? But but... I WANT to. And don't say that's different cause people get hurt... it doesn't hurt YOU... so why should you care? But abortion hurts no one? Yeah... only because we arbitrarily and quite conveniently define fetuses as non-people.
hereticoftruthAug 16, 2010
Tiffany Amador has proven for herself that nothing is more hated than an unpopular truth. There are many good reasons to oppose the "Kill the bastard" form of birth control. Birth control starts with taking responsibility for what your dick has done or what your vagina accepts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
YouGotTrolledAug 16, 2010
You will be a popular commenter here.
fallout22Aug 16, 2010
First of all, this is how many LOLs I got out of your comment : http://trololololololololololo.com/
Second of all : LOLOLOLOL
Thirdly : You've probably killed more insects who "wanted to live" last summer than any single woman who has had abortion(s) (not usually a repeat business).
Unpopular truth...I bet you have Halitosis...HOW'S THAT FOR AN UNPOPULAR TRUTH.
Now you're just unpopular, and it's the truth.
hereticoftruthAug 17, 2010
Yes, I am sure you are proud of your evil cackling.
smedrickAug 16, 2010
You morons arguing about abortion and ideologies shows exactly why the school made her remove the shirt. It doesn't matter what the girl thinks or what the shirt says...abortion is a controversial topic and causes disruptions. Period. The school's job is to teach the kids and keep them safe. There's absolutely no reason for a student to come in with political statements on their clothing. It's a public school and that's how it works. Don't like it? Send your kid to a private school that caters to your ideologies and leave the taxpayer out of it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
YouGotTrolledAug 16, 2010
Don't like it? Sue and get $50,000. Free speech works both ways. You're free to say whatever you want and so is everybody else. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District laid that down years ago.
dj4wvuAug 17, 2010
If democrats would get their heads out of their asses and support having the freedom to choose where people can send their kids, maybe they could send their kid to a school that caters to their ideologies.
smedrickAug 17, 2010
The voucher program is unconstitutional and a horrible idea.
fallout22Aug 16, 2010
"Freedom from Douchebaggery" should be added to the constitution, allowing us to free ourselves from people who wear t-shirts related to causes other people may have strong feeling about.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
derangedpenguinAug 16, 2010
Viva Reagan
Che Sux!
emjayseaAug 16, 2010
"in my mind it's common sense to punish trouble makers... not the recipients of the trouble they make. but hey... that's just me.. after all" How is the person who wore an obviously inflammatory shirt (in case you hadn't noticed, abortion is a very hot topic these days, with some physicians having been killed over it) the recipient of trouble making and not the cause of it? I'm a pretty liberal guy, but again, you're throwing common sense out the window here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dj4wvuAug 17, 2010
Remember that teacher that had her kids sing songs praising Obama? It should work both ways.
zaynexzandersAug 16, 2010
Everyone's opinions on abortion are irrelevant to the article. The point is that the girl was expressing her freedom of speech by wearing the shirt and she was asked to take it off by a government employee. If it were a private school that would be perfectly acceptable, but as it stands, it was not. Yes, her shirt could have been a distraction, but until a such a time where class was disrupted by it or a students literal safety (not emotional safety) was threatened because of the shirt it would be perfectly reasonable for the school to ask her to change or turn it inside out or go home. This "GAHHH ABORTION BAD!!" or "GAHHH OUTLAWING ABORTION BAD!!" fight on here is missing the point completely.
suz123njAug 16, 2010
My kids went to public school ther entire career. Each school whether in NJ, Pa or FL had rules about what was acceptable on the front of a "graphic T-shirt." It is the school's fault for not setting the standard.
zaynexzandersAug 16, 2010
As long as the school has no double standard policy such as pro-choice ok, pro-life not ok, then I agree that is perfectly acceptable. In that situation it would not be violating free speech just saying that those arguments are best left outside of school. So, I agree, it is the school's fault for not clearly addressing the issues of dress code.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Don't agree with the message, or the taste in which the message is expressed, but would defend to the death her right to express it.
Freedom of speech only means anything if it extends to those ideas that we disagree with.
ripple123Aug 16, 2010
oh well, will you look at that. when a girls right to choose to wear a tshirt proclaiming girls shouldnt have the right to choose on abortion, is taken away, they get all pissy. i bet the irony just flew right over their heads.
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
Without freedom of speech, women would never have had the right to advocate for the vote, for equal pay for equal work, for birth control, or even for abortion.
They would be in their place: in the kitchen, making me a sammich.
tabularassaAug 16, 2010
………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,
………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_
……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,
……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’,
……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |
…………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘
………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘
………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’
………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: \: _’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : :\ :| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ / ' ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,
…………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : :| ; ; ; |
……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|
…………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|
..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : :) , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
…….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; ‘-,
……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; REMOVE THAT T-SHIRT
………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘I M M E D I A T E L Y !!
……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,
……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,
……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,
…..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..’-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’’,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ,’
…,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’~-,,,,,--~~’’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…..,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-
…| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
…’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’….’, ; ; ; ; _,,-‘’
….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’~~’’¯
…..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
………’’~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
………..| ; ; ;¯¯’’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘
………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
…………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
…………’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘….’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
………..,’ ‘- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’……….’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
……….,’ ; ;’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘…………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’…………………’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
……..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘………………………’’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…………………………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’………………………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’’
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
……..’,_ , ; , ;,’……………………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
………’,,’,¯,’,’’|……………………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘--,,
………….¯…’’………………………..’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,,
……………………………………………’’-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,
………………………………………………..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;’-,’’-,
…………………………………………………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,__,\\--\\.
……………………………………………………’-, ; ; ;,,-~’’’ \\ , ,|, |
………………………………………………………’’~-‘’_ , , ,,’,_/--‘
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
The young girl is happy with her new found money, as are her lawyers. I don't imagine anyone from the school was fired for their incompetence. Evey one is happy except for the taxpayer who will be footing the bill for this crap. We would all be better off with schools as the were many years ago. If the student did something wrong, the parents were informed and they took care of business. If the parents didn't agree, the father usually went down to the school and beat the s**t out of the teacher.
School districts have become the new scumbags of this century, and school teachers are in it for nothing more than the extortion money and benefits, courtesy of teachers unions.. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
YouGotTrolledAug 16, 2010
You realize public school teachers make crap pay, right?
reaper527Aug 16, 2010
average here in massachusetts is almost 60k/year for a teacher, who works half the year, and gets awesome benefits as well.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
60k is a ton of money in Massachusetts for someone with lots of education and experience? And who gets half the year off? In CO, they get 2mo off and pay is pro-rated.
derangedpenguinAug 16, 2010
The problem is the Unions not the teachers. If Unions were not involved under performing boring teachers would be hitting the sidewalks looking for a new line of work, and successful teachers would be making sufficient money to live a comfortable life. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
Yes, taking away an organization run by teachers to represent teachers would be good for teachers.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Could not agree more. You hit the nail on the head.
spinningheadAug 16, 2010
Yeah, many teachers go through 6 years of college and continuing education for the fat paychecks.
/S (necessary?)
gigigugitAug 17, 2010
Why would it take them 6 years?
spinningheadAug 17, 2010
Because many states require you to go through an additional 2yrs in order to get certified if you didnt originally do your undergrad work in education.
rhawk187Aug 16, 2010
Chalk one up for freedom of speech.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
It's called freedom of speech. I do not agree with the sentiment of the shirt but I do support the right to wear it.
smity9384Aug 16, 2010
What is wrong with the country?
A shirt with a fetus on it is not appropriate school wear. If they make kids take off shirts with curse words or provocative language also then I don't see the issue here.
spiralspiritAug 16, 2010
what is wrong with the country is that freedom of speech is more important than the sensibilities of others, yes you still want to censor this girl. This wasn't curse words or provocative language, which btw are also protected speech when used in a political fashion.
The constitution is more important than your concept of appropriate school wear.
dushAug 17, 2010
Schools are crazy places where true freedom of speech isn't always upheld.
Just look at those kids who were told to remove stars and strips tshirts on cinco de mayo.
amoro99Aug 16, 2010
Awesome. Now schools have to get a court order to have kids change out of inappropriate clothing. They had such an easy task before.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
So, does the girl and her supporters consider this a victory for free speech, or a victory for God's precious, defenseless little unborn children? If they were noble defenders of free speech, that T-shirt could have supported women's right to choose, pot, or atheism — but of course, it never could have.
So, what did the girl, or her supporters learn about free speech, from this case? Do you honestly think they'll understand the value of free speech now? Do you think they'll realize that they must accept that people should be allowed to wear T-shirts that say things they don't agree with, all of a sudden?
These people have learned that they can abuse free speech to benefit themselves. And having learned this, they realize that they can benefit just as much by denying free speech from those who oppose them.
The unscrupulous care only about their ends, and not their means. We know this.
It is noble to care about the means. But it is naive, and dangerous to care so much about it that you forget the ends. It is good to be charitable, but not towards a thief who aims to steal you blind and leave your family starving.
There's nothing to be chalked up to free speech here. These people are the enemy of free speech. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
propethicAug 16, 2010
You are arguing against an invisible opponent. This has nothing to do with free speech, only the incompetence of education workers, but yet to you it's about abortion, and freedom. GFY
furatailAug 16, 2010
Is it really a good idea to give a 12-year-old the mentality that she can get whatever she wants? "See honey, you can be as much as a jerk as you want as long as you have a lawyer." I'm sure she'll try again when officials ask her to remove her new shirt with graphic images of aborted fetuses.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spiralspiritAug 16, 2010
is it a good idea to give school administrators the idea that they can do whatever they want? "See, Bill, you can do whatever you want to these kids regardless of the constitution as long as you're willing to go to court." I'm sure they'll try again when some other kid does something trivial they don't like.
Oh, wait, they won't. Because it cost them $50000.
furatailAug 16, 2010
Being told what to do by your superior is a fact of life. It's a lesson we used to be taught in school. we had a really stupid rule at our school that forced us to "tuck in our shirts." Did it protect us? No! Did it teach us that sometimes you have to follow stupid rules by those in charge? Yes.
It's an important life lesson to learn; You don't always get what you want.
spiralspiritAug 17, 2010
your boss is limited by the scope of his job. Saying that because the person is your boss he can tell you to do anything, regardless of the law and the constitution, is insane.
Its one thing to say 'tuck in your shirt'. its another thing to limit freedom of speech. the supreme court has ruled on this exact scenario, and the student is in the right.
uncoverorAug 16, 2010
Now that the word is out that this school district caves when it has a winnable case, and just coughs up the dough, gold diggers with frivolous lawsuits will come out of the woodwork.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lunchbox37Aug 16, 2010
Attention Digg: In public schools, the freedom of speech is, to say the least, abridged. It was wasn't, it wouldn't be able to function. f**king live with it.
The school was right here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 16, 2010
Do her parents not realize the harm they're doing to her school by removing that $50k from the budget all because they pumped their daughter full of ideas she probably fully doesn't understand?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spiralspiritAug 16, 2010
does the school not realize the harm its doing by censoring the students rights to free speech? Does it not realize that any parent with enough balls will take them to court over it?
If they wanted to be responsible educators they wouldn't attempt to censor free speech, as it would ultimately be fruitless and a waste of money.
The punishment is not to the taxpayers, although thats unfortunately one of the groups affected. If violations of the constitution weren't punished harshly there would be no reason not to do it. As it is $50k is not the punishment a court set, its the amount the school payed to settle and thus not have to pay for a trial they would certainly lose.
jazzmindAug 16, 2010
nice, some free money... my T will state "i have a glock in my pants!" that shall provoke someone enough to oblige me to take it of ;-)
what will your say?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.