Student Charged After Refusing To Remove NRA Shirt

[Los1324]

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.



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.

"Poloticking," "Causing offense," and "disrupting the educational process," are all legal in this country, even at school, even by schoolchildren, regardless of what the school rules are, if such things are done in the context of a student expressing him/herself within the context of the student's first amendment protections.

Whether or not the child was validly expressing himself in this context is arguable; contending that the school has the right to outlaw "poloticking" and "causing offense" is not.

[Tinykong]

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!

It could be argued that the image of the gun could have caused fear among the study body.

Did the student even claim this was free speech? If not, then what are we talking about? Advertisements and inappropriate attire aren't permitted.

[manipulation]

It could be argued that the image of the gun could have caused fear among the study body.

Did the student even claim this was free speech? If not, then what are we talking about? Advertisements and inappropriate attire aren't permitted.

Read the OP. 50 years ago they ruled that what he did was OK and he was allowed to return with his shirt. He did nothing wrong, just unpopular.

[rhandric]

It could be argued that the image of the gun could have caused fear among the study body.

Did the student even claim this was free speech? If not, then what are we talking about? Advertisements and inappropriate attire aren't permitted.

"Jared respects firearms and has training to use them, and believes in the Second Amendment," White told ABCNews.com. "He believes it's being threatened by current legislation. He wore [the shirt] as an expression of political speech and the need to protect the Second Amendment." from http://abcnews.go.com/US/west-virgin...6#.UXa5YBxaymi

[Zhangfei]

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.

If you're supervising lunch, then you're an administrator. It's the same with teachers who supervise the buses, you can't just be asked to do it; only administrators can. You normally have to have a booklet and a small test to ensure you know the procedures.

Nevertheless, the teacher should still be listened to. The moment a student refuses to perform a command (again, unless it's illegal) then he or she is in the wrong. Not every teacher or administrator is smart or knows what's best, but they are always responsible for the student. The fact the administration stood behind the teacher means the student has absolutely no leg to stand on.

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.

We do know because you can only be charged with disrupting the educational process if it spills over. Obviously the teacher had to explain the situation, do the testimony with the police and the administration and make a written complaint, because those things are required by law.

The administration did everything right. A kid who breaks the law should, shockingly, be charged. The administration would have been wrong to not get the police involved - to protect everyone's rights.

"Poloticking," "Causing offense," and "disrupting the educational process," are all legal in this country

No. Disrupting the educational process is a law.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/...chap=18a&art=5

c) The teacher may exclude from his or her classroom or school bus any student who is guilty of disorderly conduct; who in any manner interferes with an orderly educational process; who threatens, abuses or otherwise intimidates or attempts to intimidate a school employee or a student; who willfully disobeys a school employee; or who uses abusive or profane language directed at a school employee.

I know the SC version better but there's the WV version.

Whether or not the child was validly expressing himself in this context is arguable; contending that the school has the right to outlaw "poloticking" and "causing offense" is not.

They don't "outlaw" it. They ban it. There's a difference - and if the student doesn't follow the rules and cause an uproar, the police will get involved.

[Tinykong]

"Jared respects firearms and has training to use them, and believes in the Second Amendment," White told ABCNews.com. "He believes it's being threatened by current legislation. He wore [the shirt] as an expression of political speech and the need to protect the Second Amendment." from http://abcnews.go.com/US/west-virgin...6#.UXa5YBxaymi

I'll have to wait to see what other information comes before making any judgment about that claim. It would be easy to claim free speech after the fact. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a teenager make up a lie, or change their story.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 07:46 PM ----------

Read the OP. 50 years ago they ruled that what he did was OK and he was allowed to return with his shirt. He did nothing wrong, just unpopular.

We'll have to leave this one to some legal professionals. I question whether the shirt really is protected speech or not.

[Los1324]

It could be argued that the image of the gun could have caused fear among the study body.

Did the student even claim this was free speech? If not, then what are we talking about? Advertisements and inappropriate attire aren't permitted.

Ah, now we get to the interesting stuff. You have progressed past arguing that the school board can ban whatever it wants, and moved on to questions about whether this particular attire in question was protected under the first amendment or not.

I do not know how the Supreme Court would rule on the question of whether a school can ban all images of firearms. In this climate, I do believe that one could make a good case.

The question of whether the child claimed it was a free speech issue or not is irrelevant; Constitutional protections do not enure only to those who are educated enough to know about them. The Supreme Court has generally ruled that the motivation behind the speech is less important than how the speech would be objectively viewed by the community to whom the speech is directed.

[araine]

welcome to American liberalism

I support your freedom of speech as long as i agree to that speech
I support your freedom of expression as long as you express my views
I support the freedom to protest as long as you don't protest against me

And for the 234826748745 time you do NOT have 1st amendment rights in a school.

You want to be able to dress in that way go to a private school that is ok with that dress.

And no this have nothing to do with liberal that or liberal this. despite what the far right wing bloggers write for you to read.

It still is just a dress code issue and he violated the dress code since it says explicitly that all rulings by administration are FINAL and that what they deem inappropriate is what is FINAL. You know final like how the supreme court ruled on Obamacare they made a FINAL decision. Might not like the FINAL decision but it is FINAL and it means this is how it is and accept it or work to get the rules changed next time

[theturn]

If you're supervising lunch, then you're an administrator. It's the same with teachers who supervise the buses, you can't just be asked to do it; only administrators can. You normally have to have a booklet and a small test to ensure you know the procedures.

I have seen no evidence that said teacher was supervising anything. He was in a lunchroom eating lunch. He was probably one of several teachers in the room. As of right now we don't even know if this teacher even knew the kid. We know that the kid had classes before lunch and none of those teachers had a problem with the shirt. Only this teacher did.

And yes you are allowed to stand up to your teachers. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-on-jesus?lite

Teachers aren't perfect individuals. They make mistakes as often as everyone else. This one made a mistake and its shown by the decision to allow the student to wear the shirt.

[rhandric]

If you're supervising lunch, then you're an administrator. It's the same with teachers who supervise the buses, you can't just be asked to do it; only administrators can. You normally have to have a booklet and a small test to ensure you know the procedures.

Nevertheless, the teacher should still be listened to. The moment a student refuses to perform a command (again, unless it's illegal) then he or she is in the wrong. Not every teacher or administrator is smart or knows what's best, but they are always responsible for the student. The fact the administration stood behind the teacher means the student has absolutely no leg to stand on.

We do know because you can only be charged with disrupting the educational process if it spills over. Obviously the teacher had to explain the situation, do the testimony with the police and the administration and make a written complaint, because those things are required by law.

The administration did everything right. A kid who breaks the law should, shockingly, be charged. The administration would have been wrong to not get the police involved - to protect everyone's rights.

No. Disrupting the educational process is a law.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/...chap=18a&art=5

c) The teacher may exclude from his or her classroom or school bus any student who is guilty of disorderly conduct; who in any manner interferes with an orderly educational process; who threatens, abuses or otherwise intimidates or attempts to intimidate a school employee or a student; who willfully disobeys a school employee; or who uses abusive or profane language directed at a school employee.

I know the SC version better but there's the WV version.

They don't "outlaw" it. They ban it. There's a difference - and if the student doesn't follow the rules and cause an uproar, the police will get involved.

Ok, so right from the law, the teacher can exclude from his classroom someone who meets those criteria -- but that's a far cry from being arrested.

And show me evidence that he was administrating anything.

Regardless, you're assuming the teacher and administration did everything by the book. As I've said before, there are a lot of occasions where the administration abdicates responsibility and calls the cops, regardless of the policy. Until we get more information, that's what this event appears to be.

I'll have to wait to see what other information comes before making any judgment about that claim. It would be easy to claim free speech after the fact. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a teenager make up a lie, or change their story.

Sure, I agree with that, I was just citing the evidence we have. Regardless, free speech (whether actively being exercised or not) protects not only what you (for the generic you) want to hear, but more importantly what you don't want to hear.

[Los1324]

[/QUOTE] No. Disrupting the educational process is a law.



c) The teacher may exclude from his or her classroom or school bus any student who is guilty of disorderly conduct; who in any manner interferes with an orderly educational process; who threatens, abuses or otherwise intimidates or attempts to intimidate a school employee or a student; who willfully disobeys a school employee; or who uses abusive or profane language directed at a school employee.

I know the SC version better but there's the WV version.



They don't "outlaw" it. They ban it. There's a difference - and if the student doesn't follow the rules and cause an uproar, the police will get involved.[/QUOTE]

You intentionally cut off my quote before the most important part in order to take it out of context. I said all those things are legal in this country if they fall within the student's protected first amendment rights. All states have laws making disrupting the educational process illegal; however, if the school claims that a student is "disrupting the educational" process, when that student is expressing his/her first amendment rights, the charge will not stand.

I am a criminal defense lawyer and I have had dozens of students that I represented acquitted of such charges because their "disruption" was nothing more than a trumped up way of trying to silence the student from validly expressing themselves.

[rhandric]

And for the 234826748745 time you do NOT have 1st amendment rights in a school.

You want to be able to dress in that way go to a private school that is ok with that dress.

And no this have nothing to do with liberal that or liberal this. despite what the far right wing bloggers write for you to read.

It still is just a dress code issue and he violated the dress code since it says explicitly that all rulings by administration are FINAL and that what they deem inappropriate is what is FINAL. You know final like how the supreme court ruled on Obamacare they made a FINAL decision. Might not like the FINAL decision but it is FINAL and it means this is how it is and accept it or work to get the rules changed next time

You mean final, like how he was allowed back into school wearing the same shirt, along with numerous friends/classmates wearing similar shirts? That final, huh?

[Zhangfei]

Ok, so right from the law, the teacher can exclude from his classroom someone who meets those criteria -- but that's a far cry from being arrested.

Wait, what did you think the punishment is for being disruptive? Prison? It usually means legally enforced disciplinary procedures. Considering the student was arrested, the administration must have considered his protests above and beyond the remit of the school's immediate disciplinary procedures.

Regardless, you're assuming the teacher and administration did everything by the book. As I've said before, there are a lot of occasions where the administration abdicates responsibility and calls the cops, regardless of the policy. Until we get more information, that's what this event appears to be.

No, that's what it appears to you, someone uneducated and with zero experience in the field, about legal and disciplinary procedure, who has argued for things that are clearly against the law. To someone with all the experience and knowledge and who knows that calling the police is a protective measure, it appears to be done by the book and to ensure the student had a fair shake.

You mean final, like how he was allowed back into school wearing the same shirt, along with numerous friends/classmates wearing similar shirts? That final, huh?

Clearly done to cover their own arses and prevent being sued. Given how Americans love suing and fucking over school districts for a nice payday, while damaging thousands of their fellow citizen's lives, I'd again say the school is doing the right thing.

They're rightfully letting the case go to the court to see what the correct position is.

All states have laws making disrupting the educational process illegal; however, if the school claims that a student is "disrupting the educational" process, when that student is expressing his/her first amendment rights, the charge will not stand.

They're not. The article states the school has had him charged because he went against the teacher and administration, not because of the t-shirt. You are not within your First Amendment rights to wilfully disobey a school employee.

[araine]

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

This is NOT a free speech issue, we have told that like 13947284 times already in this thread alone this is a DRESS CODE issue. And it is the same reason you cant go to school with a shirt with a nazi swastika on it. doesnt matter if you think it is free speech so go around with a swastika in school it still will be ordered to be removed.

[theturn]

And for the 234826748745 time you do NOT have 1st amendment rights in a school.

You want to be able to dress in that way go to a private school that is ok with that dress.

And no this have nothing to do with liberal that or liberal this. despite what the far right wing bloggers write for you to read.

It still is just a dress code issue and he violated the dress code since it says explicitly that all rulings by administration are FINAL and that what they deem inappropriate is what is FINAL. You know final like how the supreme court ruled on Obamacare they made a FINAL decision. Might not like the FINAL decision but it is FINAL and it means this is how it is and accept it or work to get the rules changed next time

"it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate" Supreme Court

"undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression" Supreme Court

[Los1324]

And for the 234826748745 time you do NOT have 1st amendment rights in a school.

You want to be able to dress in that way go to a private school that is ok with that dress.

And no this have nothing to do with liberal that or liberal this. despite what the far right wing bloggers write for you to read.

It still is just a dress code issue and he violated the dress code since it says explicitly that all rulings by administration are FINAL and that what they deem inappropriate is what is FINAL. You know final like how the supreme court ruled on Obamacare they made a FINAL decision. Might not like the FINAL decision but it is FINAL and it means this is how it is and accept it or work to get the rules changed next time

If you had read any of my posts, or even bothered to check the reference in the very first post of this thread, you will know that the contention that students do not have first amendment rights in school is flat out wrong. Google Tinker v. Des Moines and read it and its progeny.

[araine]

Wait, what did you think the punishment is for being disruptive? Prison? It usually means legally enforced disciplinary procedures. Considering the student was arrested, the administration must have considered his protests above and beyond the remit of the school's immediate disciplinary procedures.



No, that's what it appears to you, someone uneducated and with zero experience in the field, about legal and disciplinary procedure, who has argued for things that are clearly against the law. To someone with all the experience and knowledge and who knows that calling the police is a protective measure, it appears to be done by the book and to ensure the student had a fair shake.

Calling the police is done to protect the student. it is done to ensure his constitutional rights are NOT violated the school is bending over backwards to ensure this young person all his constitutional rights are NOT violated.


And no free speech still does NOT apply to an area with dress code in place despite what you right wingers want it to be.

[Rukentuts]

If you had read any of my posts, or even bothered to check the reference in the very first post of this thread, you will know that the contention that students do not have first amendment rights in school is flat out wrong. Google Tinker v. Des Moines and read it and its progeny.

Is that why you can't wear short shorts to school? Because you have full first amendment rights?

[araine]

If you had read any of my posts, or even bothered to check the reference in the very first post of this thread, you will know that the contention that students do not have first amendment rights in school is flat out wrong. Google Tinker v. Des Moines and read it and its progeny.

So you fully approve of a shirt that says Abortion is good, to bad your mom didnt have one.

[Porcell]

Calling the police is done to protect the student. it is done to ensure his constitutional rights are NOT violated the school is bending over backwards to ensure this young person all his constitutional rights are NOT violated.

Police protecting constitutional rights. HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA. Oh, it is to laugh.