Next on the agenda, taking his parents to task for saddling him with the name Maverick Couch. Sounds like a bad Fark moniker.

Slaxl: I_Am_Weasel: Next on the agenda, taking his parents to task for saddling him with the name Maverick Couch. Sounds like a bad Fark moniker.

Yeah, I'm guessing his parents had sex on the couch whilst watching Top Gun, and that's why they went with that name.

Take my breath away......

Students do not have first amendment rights in school. Ask the Bong Hits for Jesus kid.

If the shirt was causing a disruption, the principal can ask that the student change.

He probably shouldn't have, however.

R.A.Danny: Slaxl: I_Am_Weasel: Next on the agenda, taking his parents to task for saddling him with the name Maverick Couch. Sounds like a bad Fark moniker.

Yeah, I'm guessing his parents had sex on the couch whilst watching Top Gun, and that's why they went with that name.

Take my breath away......

Talk to me, Goose

what_now: Students do not have first amendment rights in school. Ask the Bong Hits for Jesus kid.

If the shirt was causing a disruption, the principal can ask that the student change.

He probably shouldn't have, however.

basically, yeah - we're not exactly a tolerant culture these days. schools are more about quiet conformity than anything else.

Republican Jesus ™ IS a homophobe.

Slaxl: MaudlinMutantMollusk: R.A.Danny: Slaxl: I_Am_Weasel: Next on the agenda, taking his parents to task for saddling him with the name Maverick Couch. Sounds like a bad Fark moniker.

Yeah, I'm guessing his parents had sex on the couch whilst watching Top Gun, and that's why they went with that name.

Take my breath away......

Talk to me, Goose

Get your butts back below the hard deck...

Take me to bed or lose me forever?

smooshie: what_now: Students do not have first amendment rights in school. Ask the Bong Hits for Jesus kid.

Considering this was a non-obscene political/social statement, wouldn't it fit better under Tinker v. Des Moines? Or have the current batch of loons on the Court gutted that one completely?

got me. I don't exactly see the current batch of conservative wingnuts who control SCOTUS as being big champions of free speech.

Weaver95: smooshie: what_now: Students do not have first amendment rights in school. Ask the Bong Hits for Jesus kid.

Considering this was a non-obscene political/social statement, wouldn't it fit better under Tinker v. Des Moines? Or have the current batch of loons on the Court gutted that one completely?

got me. I don't exactly see the current batch of conservative wingnuts who control SCOTUS as being big champions of free speech.

Well, unless by speech you mean money from corporations

what_now: Students do not have first amendment rights in school. Ask the Bong Hits for Jesus kid.

If the shirt was causing a disruption, the principal can ask that the student change.

He probably shouldn't have, however.

I disagree. Morse v. Frederick (i.e. Bong Hits 4 Jesus) was decided on a really narrow basis - that school officials have a compelling interest to restrict speech where the speech relates to promotion of drug use that it would be a dereliction of the school's custodial duties to not restrict such speech.

However, the general principle of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, where the "only interest the Court dis-cerned underlying the school's actions was the 'meredesire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' or 'an urgentwish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression,'" that "interest was not enough to justify banning 'a silent, passive ex-pression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance.'" (Morse, citing Tinker).

The facts of the situation is a lot closer to that of Tinker than Morse v. Fredericks. In Tinker, students wore black armbands passively to protest the Vietnam War, which is not altogether unlike wearing a T-shirt protesting homophobic treatment of LBGTQ individuals. It's not disruptive, like the Bong Hits 4 Jesus sign in Morse v. Fredericks was, it is passive and the only interest the school possessed in preventing the student from wearing the shirt is, as noted in Tinker, an interest to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness that accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Therefore, I think the student should prevail on his claims that the school violated his 1st Amendment Rights. After all, students don't give up their 1st Amendment rights as they walk through the schoolhouse door.

RexTalionis: what_now: Students do not have first amendment rights in school. Ask the Bong Hits for Jesus kid.

If the shirt was causing a disruption, the principal can ask that the student change.

He probably shouldn't have, however.

I disagree. Morse v. Frederick (i.e. Bong Hits 4 Jesus) was decided on a really narrow basis - that school officials have a compelling interest to restrict speech where the speech relates to promotion of drug use that it would be a dereliction of the school's custodial duties to not restrict such speech.

However, the general principle of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, where the "only interest the Court dis-cerned underlying the school's actions was the 'meredesire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' or 'an urgentwish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression,'" that "interest was not enough to justify banning 'a silent, passive ex-pression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance.'" (Morse, citing Tinker).

The facts of the situation is a lot closer to that of Tinker than Morse v. Fredericks. In Tinker, students wore black armbands passively to protest the Vietnam War, which is not altogether unlike wearing a T-shirt protesting homophobic treatment of LBGTQ individuals. It's not disruptive, like the Bong Hits 4 Jesus sign in Morse v. Fredericks was, it is passive and the only interest the school possessed in preventing the student from wearing the shirt is, as noted in Tinker, an interest to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness that accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Therefore, I think the student should prevail on his claims that the school violated his 1st Amendment Rights. After all, students don't give up their 1st Amendment rights as they walk through the schoolhouse door.

Wow, that was rambly and meandering. I should've proofread that a little if I, you know, gave a shiat.

what_now: Students do not have first amendment rights in school.

For some reason, they don't have it in a lot of other places either, it seems.

Unalienable rights, indeed.

what_now: Students do not have first amendment rights in school. Ask the Bong Hits for Jesus kid.

If the shirt was causing a disruption, the principal can ask that the student change.

He probably shouldn't have, however.

I think I agree with you on this. Not entirely sure.

Weaver95: what_now: Students do not have first amendment rights in school. Ask the Bong Hits for Jesus kid.

If the shirt was causing a disruption, the principal can ask that the student change.

He probably shouldn't have, however.

basically, yeah - we're not exactly a tolerant culture these days. schools are more about quiet conformity than anything else.

The excuse of it being of a sexual nature is a matter of semantics. In the end, the Principal is just borrowing bad publicity.

hubiestubert:
The excuse of it being of a sexual nature is a matter of semantics. In the end, the Principal is just borrowing bad publicity.

there's a possibility that this administrator is offended by the idea of said tee-shirt and abusing his position to quash the free speech of a student. But I think it more likely that this administrator is merely crushing the rights of his students because he doesn't like loud noises. people speaking up tend to get other folks riled up too, which leads to loud noises and more paperwork. So from the administration's view point, it's better that nobody have rights and that school starts exactly on time, classes proceed as normal - WITHOUT disruptions - and that everyone goes home on time. To them it's not a discussion about 'rights', it's just that its merely more efficient when nobody speaks up about anything.

I'm sure the taxpayers will find fighting this t-shirt an appropriate use of public school funds.

It's Ohio, what the f*ck do you expect?

As long as they would also ask a student who wears a shirt which has the cross on it to change, I have no problem with that.

I think he is actually....

Link (new window)

smooshie: what_now: Students do not have first amendment rights in school. Ask the Bong Hits for Jesus kid.

Considering this was a non-obscene political/social statement, wouldn't it fit better under Tinker v. Des Moines? Or have the current batch of loons on the Court gutted that one completely?

Majority opinion
The court's 7 to 2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[1] Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was "based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam." The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."[2] The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

so yah
this T-shirt is EXACTLY the same as the arm-bands.
while it makes people uncomfortable with the view point, it does not disrupt.

the IDEA that it is SEXUAL is retarded.
but SEXUAL was the only excuse that they could use to ban the shirt in the first place.

fark TARDS

Swedgin: Slaxl: MaudlinMutantMollusk: R.A.Danny: Slaxl: I_Am_Weasel: Next on the agenda, taking his parents to task for saddling him with the name Maverick Couch. Sounds like a bad Fark moniker.

Yeah, I'm guessing his parents had sex on the couch whilst watching Top Gun, and that's why they went with that name.

Take my breath away......

Talk to me, Goose

Get your butts back below the hard deck...

Take me to bed or lose me forever?

There's no points for second place.

RexTalionis: The facts of the situation is a lot closer to that of Tinker than Morse v. Fredericks. In Tinker, students wore black armbands passively to protest the Vietnam War, which is not altogether unlike wearing a T-shirt protesting homophobic treatment of LBGTQ individuals. It's not disruptive, like the Bong Hits 4 Jesus sign in Morse v. Fredericks was, it is passive and the only interest the school possessed in preventing the student from wearing the shirt is, as noted in Tinker, an interest to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness that accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Therefore, I think the student should prevail on his claims that the school violated his 1st Amendment Rights. After all, students don't give up their 1st Amendment rights as they walk through the schoolhouse door.

Except that in this case they're claiming this isn't about homophobic treatment, but rather that the mention of homophobia is automatically sexual in nature, thereby pushing the issue closer to Morse v. Fredericks (drugs and sexual activity both being under the school's responsibility to monitor)

I'm not sure who this t-shirt would offend. Jesus was not a homophobe. I think real Christians would be hard pressed to find anywhere that he addresses homosexuality. Seems that was not an issue he felt was important.

On the other hand, Schools should be able to enforce a dress code.

fuhfuhfuh: Jesus may not be a homophobe, but Jesus is definitely a homophone.

I thought a homophone was what Apple sells

Mikey1969: Lambda Legal filed papers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio...

Lambda, Lambda, Lambda? Must be Lamar representing him.


/God, if this is too obscure, I'm gonna feel REALLY old

On Fark? That's not even close to obscure.