If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Kid trolls school with stupid but harmless shirt, school takes the bait   (opposingviews.com) divider line 234
    More: Fail, Texas, trolls, shirts, middle schools, The Blaze  
•       •       •

26299 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 10:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-25 08:06:37 AM  
I see no evidence of trolling in that article.
 
2013-10-25 08:45:19 AM  
As someone who once trolled the school system by wearing a shirt that said "BULL SHIrT" and spent the rest of the day wearing a gym t-shirt, I think this dad and son are whiny asshats and sore losers.
 
2013-10-25 08:49:34 AM  
"The shirt they were going to give him was 3XL, orange inmate shirt," said Davidson. "He stood his ground and it makes me proud."

The cracker doesn't fall far from the box it seems.
 
2013-10-25 08:52:03 AM  
The problem with kids today is parents today.  This dad needs to STFU and keep his politics out of the highschool.
 
2013-10-25 08:53:11 AM  
Just checked their Facebook page. Coincidentally, the father's brand ("God * Guns * Country. (In That Particular Order)") relaunched in August.
 
2013-10-25 09:01:31 AM  
cdnl.complex.com
 
2013-10-25 09:06:47 AM  
Can't see any way in which the shirt would be materially disruptive to classes, nor does anything on the shirt meet the definition of "obscene, suggestive, crude or immoral". He has the right to wear it
 
2013-10-25 09:06:56 AM  
Don't any of these people have anything better to do with their lives?
 
2013-10-25 09:09:04 AM  

ArkAngel: Can't see any way in which the shirt would be materially disruptive to classes, nor does anything on the shirt meet the definition of "obscene, suggestive, crude or immoral". He has the right to wear it


I don't disagree.  But this is clearly more than a random questionable choice of clothing by a kid.
 
2013-10-25 09:10:32 AM  
In an interview with The Blaze

Stopped reading there.
 
2013-10-25 09:13:27 AM  
Where are the Fark Constitutional ScholarsTM when you need them?
 
2013-10-25 09:15:20 AM  

ArkAngel: Can't see any way in which the shirt would be materially disruptive to classes, nor does anything on the shirt meet the definition of "obscene, suggestive, crude or immoral". He has the right to wear it


That's cute you think students have "rights" inside a school.

He has the option to wear it in school, he doesn't have the right to.

/I agree with what you said, except the last sentence
 
2013-10-25 09:18:51 AM  

scottydoesntknow: ArkAngel: Can't see any way in which the shirt would be materially disruptive to classes, nor does anything on the shirt meet the definition of "obscene, suggestive, crude or immoral". He has the right to wear it

That's cute you think students have "rights" inside a school.

He has the option to wear it in school, he doesn't have the right to.

/I agree with what you said, except the last sentence


Exactly.  He was treated no differently than a girl who wore a Planned Parenthood shirt.  I thought we all acknowledged that schools get away with this crap and kids are powerless.  It sucks, but it sucks regardless of your individual issues and desires.
 
2013-10-25 09:27:31 AM  

scottydoesntknow: ArkAngel: Can't see any way in which the shirt would be materially disruptive to classes, nor does anything on the shirt meet the definition of "obscene, suggestive, crude or immoral". He has the right to wear it

That's cute you think students have "rights" inside a school.

He has the option to wear it in school, he doesn't have the right to.

/I agree with what you said, except the last sentence


Actually, he *DOES* have the right to wear it at school.

Schools have a lot of leeway in deciding what students can and can not wear, but so long as it's not obscene, disruptive, and it doesn't materially impair the educational mission of the school, he has the right under the First Amendment to wear it.  In fact, this is straight out of Tinker v. Des Moines, and none of the subsequent limiting cases would apply (limitations for things like obscene speech, or those promoting illegal activity).
 
2013-10-25 09:31:01 AM  

JerseyTim: Just checked their Facebook page. Coincidentally, the father's brand ("God * Guns * Country. (In That Particular Order)") relaunched in August.



Hmmm... so the father staged this incident for his own business purposes. The man's got talent for self-promotion.
 
2013-10-25 09:32:51 AM  
i.imgur.com

God, guns, and the inalienable right to use your kid as a shameless marketing tool for your company.
 
2013-10-25 09:33:53 AM  

scottydoesntknow: ArkAngel: Can't see any way in which the shirt would be materially disruptive to classes, nor does anything on the shirt meet the definition of "obscene, suggestive, crude or immoral". He has the right to wear it

That's cute you think students have "rights" inside a school.

He has the option to wear it in school, he doesn't have the right to.


Tinker vs Des Moines says he does.
 
2013-10-25 09:36:20 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: [i.imgur.com image 412x609]

God, guns, and the inalienable right to use your kid as a shameless marketing tool for your company.


"I had no idea this would go viral after I ran sobbing to Glenn Beck for an interview."
 
2013-10-25 09:41:17 AM  

Diogenes: scottydoesntknow: ArkAngel: Can't see any way in which the shirt would be materially disruptive to classes, nor does anything on the shirt meet the definition of "obscene, suggestive, crude or immoral". He has the right to wear it

That's cute you think students have "rights" inside a school.

He has the option to wear it in school, he doesn't have the right to.

/I agree with what you said, except the last sentence

Exactly.  He was treated no differently than a girl who wore a Planned Parenthood shirt.  I thought we all acknowledged that schools get away with this crap and kids are powerless.  It sucks, but it sucks regardless of your individual issues and desires.


FTFA:
Spring Hill Middle School administrators, however, disagreed, saying that it goes against their dress code policy. According to The Blaze, the school's policy says that "pictures, logos, phrases, letters or words printed on them that are obscene, suggestive, crude or immoral in the judgment of the administration."

I'm wondering what specifically they found obscene, suggestive, crude, or immoral about the shirt in question.  Obviously, we can rule out obscene, suggestive, or crude.  There are no sexual or scatological references of any kind on the t-shirt.  That leaves immoral, and I can't see how a t-shirt that promotes constitutionally protected activities (freedom of religion, firearms ownership) or patriotism can be considered immoral.

Plus, there is this:
"He's not purposely trying to disobey authority," said Davidson. "I teach my son to obey the law until the law imposed is quite unlawful."

Just like Rosa Parks.  We should be celebrating this man for raising an independent thinker who isn't afraid to stand up for himself instead of just going along to get along.
 
2013-10-25 09:41:51 AM  
You'd think by the simple law of averages at least ONE teabagger would be a graphic artist capable of designing a non-ugly garment
 
2013-10-25 09:44:06 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: You'd think by the simple law of averages at least ONE teabagger would be a graphic artist capable of designing a non-ugly garment


You'd think they would have at least mastered white space by now.
 
2013-10-25 09:45:51 AM  

dittybopper: Just like Rosa Parks. We should be celebrating this man for raising an independent thinker who isn't afraid to stand up for himself instead of just going along to get along.


Yeah, that's exactly what's going on here.
 
2013-10-25 09:46:28 AM  
Viral advertising
 
2013-10-25 09:46:41 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: You'd think by the simple law of averages at least ONE teabagger would be a graphic artist capable of designing a non-ugly garment


www.geeknative.com
 
2013-10-25 09:53:02 AM  

dittybopper: Just like Rosa Parks.  We should be celebrating this man for raising an independent thinker who isn't afraid to stand up for himself instead of just going along to get along.


All T-Shirt maker meetings should open with the singing of "We Shall Overcome."

Schools suck.  Zero tolerance, and intentionally vague policies that give the administrations the final word, even if it's seeming arbitrary and capricious.
 
2013-10-25 09:53:04 AM  

sigdiamond2000: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: [i.imgur.com image 412x609]

God, guns, and the inalienable right to use your kid as a shameless marketing tool for your company.

"I had no idea this would go viral after I ran sobbing to Glenn Beck for an interview."


Attention whores have rights too, even ones who espouse messages that you don't agree with, and even at school, as long as it's not disruptive, obscene, or promoting illegal activity.
 
2013-10-25 09:56:21 AM  

sigdiamond2000: dittybopper: Just like Rosa Parks. We should be celebrating this man for raising an independent thinker who isn't afraid to stand up for himself instead of just going along to get along.

Yeah, that's exactly what's going on here.


Pretty much, it is, at a high level.  A person is being told they can't do something that is their right to do so, and they are challenging it.

It might be for entirely different reasons, and there might be different levels of "wrongness" being challenged, but when boiled down to the barest essentials, there is no real difference, and we should all be thankful that there are people of all stripes willing to fight for what they believe in.

It's the sort of thing we should celebrate.  Diversity is a strength, not a weakness, and ideological diversity is even more important to the health of the body politic than something as shallow and inconsequential as skin color.
 
2013-10-25 09:58:00 AM  

Fark It: sigdiamond2000: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: [i.imgur.com image 412x609]

God, guns, and the inalienable right to use your kid as a shameless marketing tool for your company.

"I had no idea this would go viral after I ran sobbing to Glenn Beck for an interview."

Attention whores have rights too, even ones who espouse messages that you don't agree with, and even at school, as long as it's not disruptive, obscene, or promoting illegal activity.


Precisely.

You may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be protected.
 
2013-10-25 10:01:27 AM  
pure cynical marketing. that's all this is.
 
2013-10-25 10:01:41 AM  

dittybopper: scottydoesntknow: ArkAngel: Can't see any way in which the shirt would be materially disruptive to classes, nor does anything on the shirt meet the definition of "obscene, suggestive, crude or immoral". He has the right to wear it

That's cute you think students have "rights" inside a school.

He has the option to wear it in school, he doesn't have the right to.

/I agree with what you said, except the last sentence

Actually, he *DOES* have the right to wear it at school.

Schools have a lot of leeway in deciding what students can and can not wear, but so long as it's not obscene, disruptive, and it doesn't materially impair the educational mission of the school, he has the right under the First Amendment to wear it.  In fact, this is straight out of Tinker v. Des Moines, and none of the subsequent limiting cases would apply (limitations for things like obscene speech, or those promoting illegal activity).


Ok, so I'll concede and say he does have the right to wear it.

I'd be willing to bet though that they (the administration) would argue the shirt was disruptive in some form or fashion.

And I agree it's a very stupid thing for the school to do. But I also feel that if the shirt wasn't made by daddy's company, daddy wouldn't be throwing nearly the fit that he is.

But hey, free advertising.
 
2013-10-25 10:06:13 AM  

dittybopper: Fark It: sigdiamond2000: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: [i.imgur.com image 412x609]

God, guns, and the inalienable right to use your kid as a shameless marketing tool for your company.

"I had no idea this would go viral after I ran sobbing to Glenn Beck for an interview."

Attention whores have rights too, even ones who espouse messages that you don't agree with, and even at school, as long as it's not disruptive, obscene, or promoting illegal activity.

Precisely.

You may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be protected.


OK, I agree that this guy's right to use his own son as a marketing tool by way of a staged controversy in order to sell T-shirts should be protected.

I also think he's a f*cking worthless human being for doing so.

Is that fair?
 
2013-10-25 10:07:26 AM  
When I was a kid, if you let your daddy dress you for school you'd have been stuffed in a trash can. We took care of nonsense like this ourselves.
 
2013-10-25 10:12:53 AM  

sigdiamond2000: OK, I agree that this guy's right to use his own son as a marketing tool by way of a staged controversy in order to sell T-shirts should be protected.

I also think he's a f*cking worthless human being for doing so.

Is that fair?


Perfectly.  Tweak the wording a bit, print it on a t-shirt, and have someone else at the school wear it.
 
2013-10-25 10:16:50 AM  

sigdiamond2000: OK, I agree that this guy's right to use his own son as a marketing tool by way of a staged controversy in order to sell T-shirts should be protected.

I also think he's a f*cking worthless human being for doing so.

Is that fair?


There's an argument to be made that wearing a Christian militia shirt is in itself disruptive to the school, however the kid has already been warned once. Since this happened in Texas, it's not likely that the principal and superintendent were some hand-wringing liberals. Dad and his kid are probably unsufferable Patriots™ that keep pushing the line.
 
2013-10-25 10:17:43 AM  

scottydoesntknow: I'd be willing to bet though that they (the administration) would argue the shirt was disruptive in some form or fashion.


They'd be hard pressed to argue that a t-shirt that endorses constitutionally protected activities (freedom of religion, right to bear arms, free speech) is "disruptive".
 
2013-10-25 10:23:58 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: sigdiamond2000: OK, I agree that this guy's right to use his own son as a marketing tool by way of a staged controversy in order to sell T-shirts should be protected.

I also think he's a f*cking worthless human being for doing so.

Is that fair?

There's an argument to be made that wearing a Christian militia shirt is in itself disruptive to the school, however the kid has already been warned once. Since this happened in Texas, it's not likely that the principal and superintendent were some hand-wringing liberals. Dad and his kid are probably unsufferable Patriots™ that keep pushing the line.


Liberals exist in Texas.  It's a pretty diverse state.

Aside from that, it's actually immaterial what the political leanings of either side is here:  It's plainly protected speech that doesn't fall under one of the accepted school exceptions.   It's no different than wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War.

You either protect it all, or you've protected none.
 
2013-10-25 10:24:43 AM  
I had to put tape over my "I'm Bart Simpson, who the hell are you" shirt back in middle school. It's a farking school, the administration can tell the kids to conform any way they see fit, you shiat kicking hick.
 
2013-10-25 10:31:52 AM  
It seems a little off putting that you're comparing the self-created conflict of some privileged white kid and his douchebag father who want the boy to wear a t-shirt that is clearly completely self-serving to Rosa Parks.
 
2013-10-25 10:32:58 AM  
dittybopper:

I'm with you on this one, I don't see any compelling reason to forbid the wearing of this particular shirt.


... I can't see how a t-shirt that promotes constitutionally protected activities (freedom of religion, firearms ownership) or patriotism can be considered immoral.


I personally can't take issue with any of those three things, even though to my mind it smells a little like the kind of Hutaree style overthrow-the-government-for-Christ militia nutbaggery that probably 95% of us think is un-American when you wrap them all together like that. But that's kind of a leap, so let the kid advertise his dad's shirt business.


Just like Rosa Parks.  We should be celebrating this man for raising an independent thinker who isn't afraid to stand up for himself instead of just going along to get along.


HAHAHAHAHA I doubt it. From what little you can glean from tfa it looks like he's picked out a suit for his kid right off the rack.
 
2013-10-25 10:33:02 AM  

Mugato: I had to put tape over my "I'm Bart Simpson, who the hell are you" shirt back in middle school. It's a farking school, the administration can tell the kids to conform any way they see fit, you shiat kicking hick.


No, they can't.

It seems pretty obvious that because your shirt contained a mild profanity, they could make you cover it up.  That would fall under the "offensive to prevailing community standards" exception.  Most communities don't accept children using profanity, even mild profanity.

If the shirt said "Who the heck are you?", then you'd have an argument that making you cover it up violates the First Amendment in all but the most strict communities.
 
2013-10-25 10:33:33 AM  

scottydoesntknow: That's cute you think students have "rights" inside a school.


It's really both sad and frightening that you believe they have none.
 
2013-10-25 10:35:28 AM  

Barfmaker: It seems a little off putting that you're comparing the self-created conflict of some privileged white kid and his douchebag father who want the boy to wear a t-shirt that is clearly completely self-serving to Rosa Parks.


"When all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail."
 
2013-10-25 10:37:42 AM  
"Damn, my shiatty clothing company ain't doin' so well, and I still got payments to make on that satellite dish... Hey Tater Jr! Wear this shirt to school tomorrow, mate we can get on the Glen Beck."
 
2013-10-25 10:37:52 AM  
As opposed to those stupid but harmful shirts, right tardmitter?
 
2013-10-25 10:38:34 AM  

dittybopper: Aside from that, it's actually immaterial what the political leanings of either side is here: It's plainly protected speech that doesn't fall under one of the accepted school exceptions. It's no different than wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War.

You either protect it all, or you've protected none.


I think the shirt is arguably disruptive enough to be worth a court case before calling it "plainly protected." It's a shirt made by a company calling itself God's militia that's advocating arming yourself and putting on armor to rid the world of evil. If I were a student there, and part of "the works of darkness" being referenced - atheist, gay, etc. - I'd take a second look to make sure he wasn't carrying a duffel bag full of weapons. Maybe thirty years ago this would have been plainly constitutional, but walking into school with a shirt declaring your intent to gear up and rid the world of darkness has a different tone nowadays, because there's a distinct possibility that a kid will do it.
 
2013-10-25 10:39:35 AM  

Smashed Hat: I see no evidence of trolling in that article.


I see no evidence of the article at all.  I got a "You are forbidden" message.

durbnpoisn.comli.com
 
2013-10-25 10:39:57 AM  

Barfmaker: It seems a little off putting that you're comparing the self-created conflict of some privileged white kid and his douchebag father who want the boy to wear a t-shirt that is clearly completely self-serving to Rosa Parks.


But really, they are the same.

Different wrongs, and a different degree of wrong, but really the same at the core.

This is the sort of thing we should be encouraging.  Sure, seems self-serving in this case, and maybe it really is, but the core idea of standing up for yourself and asserting your rights against authority is a universal one, and it should be celebrated, and not just if you happen to agree with the person.
 
2013-10-25 10:41:12 AM  
I see the Fark Militia has taken up a new cause - protecting the 1st Amendment rights of children that prefer tshirts to hoodies.
 
2013-10-25 10:41:53 AM  
Local man fights for what he believes is in the Constitution, more news at 11.
 
2013-10-25 10:41:53 AM  
Linky farked. On mobile (android) anyway.
 
Displayed 50 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report