Student Charged After Refusing To Remove NRA Shirt

[Tinykong]

Again, it's called context. In both of those cases, the word fact is tied to the kid being arrested, not to my view on how it was handled.

E.g:
"But since it ended up with the student being hauled off..."
"But since it even got to the point where a cop it was involved"

Except, you're saying that it's a "fact" that because he was arrested, the school acted inappropriately, and that it's a "fact" that the school was overreacting since no "real" law was broken, in your opinion. Neither of those things is true.

[Rukentuts]

Why are so many people here arguing that the school can set whatever dress code they want and that they have "final say" over what can and can't be worn in school? No matter what the school's dress code says, that has not been the law in the United States since Tinker v. Des Moines en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

According to the arguments here, if the student in question had been wearing a black armband and a teacher asked him to take it off, he would have had to do so because the school has the "final say."

Whether the shirt in question fit into the child's right to express himself under the first amendment is at least arguable; to contend that the child has no first amendment rights at all in school and that the school can define the dress code in any manner it chooses is simply wrong.

A black armband != a shirt with a gun.

[Tinykong]

Why are so many people here arguing that the school can set whatever dress code they want and that they have "final say" over what can and can't be worn in school? No matter what the school's dress code says, that has not been the law in the United States since Tinker v. Des Moines en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

According to the arguments here, if the student in question had been wearing a black armband and a teacher asked him to take it off, he would have had to do so because the school has the "final say."

Whether the shirt in question fit into the child's right to express himself under the first amendment is at least arguable; to contend that the child has no first amendment rights at all in school and that the school can define the dress code in any manner it chooses is simply wrong.

First amendment rights aren't universal, and certain speech can be, and often is, restricted.

[rhandric]

Except, you're saying that it's a "fact" that because he was arrested, the school acted inappropriately, and that it's a "fact" that the school was overreacting since no "real" law was broken, in your opinion. Neither of those things is true.

No, I'm saying that "since" he got arrested (fact), the school was overreacting and acted inappropriately (opinion).

[Tinykong]

A black armband != a shirt with a gun.

Arguably, they are the same. Other students knew what the black arm band meant; it was a protest.

[Rukentuts]

Arguably, they are the same. Other students knew what the black arm band meant; it was a protest.

They're the same in that they're just apparel. They're different in many other ways, for example.

[Korgoth]

Amazing how quickly so called liberals are to speak up against free speech rights when that speech doesn't support their agenda.

[Los1324]

First amendment rights aren't universal, and certain speech can be, and often is, restricted.

I completely agree, and the case I cited, if you have ever read it, explicitly says so. But you and the poster above both ignored the point. You both argued that the school has the final say on what children can and can't wear in school. That is false; the constitution has the final say. The school can restrict what children can wear within the confines of their first amendment protections.

If you want to argue that the shirt in question is not protected by the First Amendment in the context of a school setting, I think we can all have a rational discussion. But you (and others) should stop arguing that the child was required to remove the shirt simply because he was told to by the school. It's not that black and white.

[Tinykong]

No, I'm saying that "since" he got arrested (fact), the school was overreacting and acted inappropriately (opinion).

Maybe I interpret things too literally, but, that's not how it came across. Usually when someone says "The fact that X is X, means Y is Y" leads one to believe that are proposing that the validity of the first applies to the second. No point in discussing this further, I get what you meant.

[Arlon]

Reminds me of the event where a student took one extra fishstick at a cafeteria and the police were called. It´s a ridiculous reason in this case aswell. The person who made the decision should be taken for a psychological evaluation.

[Tinykong]

They're the same in that they're just apparel. They're different in many other ways, for example.

Wearing an NRA t-shirt is a form of a protest, considering the gun control environment that we're living in. I think they are similar, but, I'm not a lawyer.

[Zhangfei]

But since you don't know what happened, you can't say he failed to comply with a LEO, or resisted arrest, or caused some disturbance. We know what he was charged with, neither of which is a very definite term, and both can easily be summed up to mean "he didn't do what I said, so I arrested him". Without knowing the full details, you can't claim it was right. But the fact that it even got to the point where there was a cop involved, which should only be done in cases of violence (perceived or actual), or a real law being broken (which, last time I checked, disagreeing with a teacher is not illegal).

Him not following the request of the teacher, who by definition was in the right, made it the student's fault. Even if you feel you have a case, arguing in a lunch hall is not the place to do it. Disrespecting your warden as well as rejecting authority obnoxiously in school is pretty pathetic. The kid was so far in the wrong that you need to twist this event so bizarrely and come up with such snake-like fictional versions of events to pretend the administration - who apparently did everything right - could possibly be seen as wrong.

Disagreeing with a teacher isn't illegal. Not following a teacher's commands (unless those commands ARE illegal) actually is illegal because you are disrupting the educational process.

If you want to argue that the shirt in question is not protected by the First Amendment in the context of a school setting, I think we can all have a rational discussion. But you (and others) should stop arguing that the child was required to remove the shirt simply because he was told to by the school. It's not that black and white.

It is that black and white. However, it's entirely legitimate for the student to find the correct paths of complaint for restitution or clarification - I'll give you a clue, arguing in the lunch hall to front so you look cool is not it. If I were that student I would have asked my parents to come into complain, or talk to the teacher after school and approach it in an intelligent manner.

The one mistake I'd suggest is that I would have had the discussion with the student somewhere private so he didn't have to show off in front of his friends.

[Rukentuts]

Wearing an NRA t-shirt is a form of a protest, considering the gun control environment that we're living in. I think they are similar, but, I'm not a lawyer.

NRA isn't an issue as much as a gun is, in the context of apparel.

[Tinykong]

I completely agree, and the case I cited, if you have ever read it, explicitly says so. But you and the poster above both ignored the point. You both argued that the school has the final say on what children can and can't wear in school. That is false; the constitution has the final say. The school can restrict what children can wear within the confines of their first amendment protections.

If you want to argue that the shirt in question is not protected by the First Amendment in the context of a school setting, I think we can all have a rational discussion. But you (and others) should stop arguing that the child was required to remove the shirt simply because he was told to by the school. It's not that black and white.

If student's could wear whatever they wanted, whats stopping them from wearing a pornographic shirt?

It is that black and white, because that's the school board's policy.

[rhandric]

Maybe I interpret things too literally, but, that's not how it came across. Usually when someone says "The fact that X is X, means Y is Y" leads one to believe that are proposing that the validity of the first applies to the second. No point in discussing this further, I get what you meant.

I see what you mean, but if I had meant that, I would've said something along the lines of "The fact is, he got arrested, which means the school was overreacting".

[Tinykong]

NRA isn't an issue as much as a gun is, in the context of apparel.

The image of a gun could also be considered a protest. It wasn't being depicted in a violent manner or situation, one could certainly argue that depicting it in the current political climate is a protest.

[rhandric]

Him not following the request of the teacher, who by definition was in the right, made it the student's fault. Even if you feel you have a case, arguing in a lunch hall is not the place to do it. Disrespecting your warden as well as rejecting authority obnoxiously in school is pretty pathetic. The kid was so far in the wrong that you need to twist this event so bizarrely and come up with such snake-like fictional versions of events to pretend the administration - who apparently did everything right - could possibly be seen as wrong.

Disagreeing with a teacher isn't illegal. Not following a teacher's commands (unless those commands ARE illegal) actually is illegal because you are disrupting the educational process.

Except for the fact that at lunch, the educational process is on hold, so no educational process to disrupt. And the teacher is not by definition right, considering the policy is that it's at the discretion of the administration, not a teacher.

[Zhangfei]

The image of a gun could also be considered a protest. It wasn't being depicted in a violent manner or situation, one could certainly argue that depicting it in the current political climate is a protest.

I'd absolutely say it's politicking and can cause offence in the current climate, whether it's pro or anti-gun. The gun debate can be had maybe in high school but at middle school it's unnecessary and unneeded.

Except for the fact that at lunch, the educational process is on hold, so no educational process to disrupt. And the teacher is not by definition right, considering the policy is that it's at the discretion of the administration, not a teacher.

The teacher was doing an administrative job, so they were an administrator and nevertheless, a teacher is still a teacher and should be obeyed.

The fact it spilled over from lunch because the child misbehaved and refused to do what he's meant to do is why he was charged with disrupting the educational process. It's his fault, nobody elses.

[Los1324]

If student's could wear whatever they wanted, whats stopping them from wearing a pornographic shirt?

It is that black and white, because that's the school board's policy.

Assuming for the sake of argument that wearing a pornogrpahic t-shirt is against all school boards' policies, the school board is allowed to ban such shirts because the Supreme Court has decided that pornogrpahy is obscene, and therefore it does not have first amendment protection, especially within a school setting.

Following your argument, if the school board decided to ban black armbands, that would be allowed because it is the school board's policy. However, the case we have just been discussing stands for the proposition that the school board may not ban attire that falls within the students' first amendment protections. In Tinker, the school was not allowed to ban the armbands despite the fact that it was against the school board's policy.

So, I will repeat, the actually interesting question in this thread has less to do with the school board's policy than it does with whether wearing the shirt was a form of protected speech; if it was, it is allowed regardless of what the school board's policy says!

[rhandric]

The teacher was doing an administrative job, so they were an administrator and nevertheless, a teacher is still a teacher and should be obeyed.

The fact it spilled over from lunch because the child misbehaved and refused to do what he's meant to do is why he was charged with disrupting the educational process. It's his fault, nobody elses.

Just because he was giving a command related to the dress code does not mean he was doing an administrative job; that's like saying if he picked up a mop he's a janitor.

The fact is, we don't know how it was handled or if it spilled over from lunch (and if you have a source, cite it), which means we don't know whether the charges were accurate or not. But, him getting charged in the first place means the administration doesn't know how to do it's job.