ACLU defends anti-Islam shirts

In Tinker v. Des Moines School District, the court ruled that students rights to free speech will be protected in the schools, so long as they don't disrupt the learning environment, or infringe on the rights of others. I think it would be difficult to argue that the shirts infringed on anybody's rights, but I can easily see the case being made that the shirts would cause disruptive behavior.

If I were ruling on this case, and both sides were presented well, I would probably side with the school. They're there to educate your ignorant #$%, not to be a place for you to attack the beliefs of others. But, I should warn that I have no legal training ... I've never even been on a jury, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But, I think this is going to be a hard case for the ACLU to win.
 
daenku32 said:
I doubt the kid could wear it in our school district, based solely on the dress code enforcement. They have a very strict policy, and this would likely fall under "disruptive" shirt (with the caveat that this district is very conservative, so pro-Christian shirts would likely get a pass.)

I mean, even our kids hair color has to be "natural".
Click to expand...

That was my thought, kids don't have a right to be disruptive in school.
 
GreyICE said:
Neither planning nor motive places a behavior outside the first amendment.
Click to expand...
We agree.

My objection is to use of the public school to pursue that agenda. It's a matter of taste, and IMO the proper time and place, rather than the Constitutional principle involved. I suspect the ACLU will succeed in the objection they raised, fine.

The folks behind this are/were still jerkoffs, IMO.

High school football game. Hmmmm.

DR
 
Grimes said:
While I'm in no way religious and think kids should be able to wear whatever they want to school, discriminating against Muslims just doesn't seem like a free speech issue.
Click to expand...

Wearing a shirt isn't an act of discrimination.
 
Unlike a Bull said:
In Tinker v. Des Moines School District, the court ruled that students rights to free speech will be protected in the schools, so long as they don't disrupt the learning environment, or infringe on the rights of others. I think it would be difficult to argue that the shirts infringed on anybody's rights, but I can easily see the case being made that the shirts would cause disruptive behavior.
Click to expand...

The lower courts in Tinker bought that argument but the Supreme Court ruling clearly stated that fear of a disturbance is not grounds for curtailment of free expression.

The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.
Click to expand...
 
Travis said:
When will people get it through their heads that the ACLU will always defend all speech (outside of the limited "fire" in a theater caveat) and not just speech that they agree with?
Click to expand...

The ACLU isn't perfect, and gives some preference to loony lefties over loony righties, but on the whole it is doing an excellent and necessary job.
 
Skeptic said:
The ACLU isn't perfect, and gives some preference to loony lefties over loony righties, but on the whole it is doing an excellent and necessary job.
Click to expand...

My guess is it is a reflection of those whose views have cultural dominance, if we were a society where lefty ideas were the dominant paradigm then they would tend to give some preference to loony righties over loony lefties.
 
Checkmite said:
Wearing a shirt isn't an act of discrimination.
Click to expand...

I am sure the court might elucidate that.

Is saying "someone is of the devil" provcative speech (which is not allowed in schools but is in society) or is it diecrininatory language which is allowed except for where sanctioned?

And what is the intent and cultural baggae of 'of the devil'. That will be key as well.

Now it also just depends on the merits of the case as well.

Schools are a hot bed of sactioned behavior when it comes to speech.

You can only engage in religous speech as a personal expression that is not part of the official educational day, unless that behavior (by the educational system) is equally expressive of all religions.

So you can have a survey course on religion and probably even specific instruction of the history of religion, but you mau not have 'religous instruction'. You may not have officially sanctioned or promoted prayer but you may have personal prayer that does not associate with official practice.
 
Sledge said:
I think all the religions should stop pussyfooting around and just have a big fight.
Click to expand...
You got a lot of "Fs" in history didn't ya

;)


Skeptic said:
The ACLU isn't perfect, and gives some preference to loony lefties over loony righties, but on the whole it is doing an excellent and necessary job.
Click to expand...
On the whole lmfao @ this statement. Unions are on the whole a joke and the ACLU is the poster child for it.

Sorry, just IMO.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
I am sure the court might elucidate that.

Is saying "someone is of the devil" provcative speech (which is not allowed in schools but is in society) or is it diecrininatory language which is allowed except for where sanctioned?

And what is the intent and cultural baggae of 'of the devil'. That will be key as well.
Click to expand...

It may be provocative, but it is also religious (however stupid a concept it is that this or that religion is from the devil).

To say "you can't have this on your shirt" is to say "this theologic belief is hereby banned because it offends this other theologic belief". I can't see the court opening that can of worms.

And would you want to? The US suffers enough already from feigned outrage and harm over stupid words, precisely because that's the only backdoor to banning that's even remotely viable under the Constitution, and even then only in extremely limited areas (and even those are controversial, such as banning a housing ad for "I'm blue and wanna sell my house to a blue person and hate green people but federal law forbids me from restricting said sale.")
 
Why i think public schools should adopt some kind of sanctioned "uniform" so that all of these "issues" would become moot

A specific color , plain (collared) t-shirt and pants (jeans, slacks, skirts, skorts, shorts ,capris, etc) in a certain color. And a certain color pair of shoes (white and/or black).

No issues of people offending other people
no issues of kids beating up other kids for their $250 pair of Louis Vitton boots.



Since the Middle School I went to went to specific clothes to wear, bullying rates went down, theft went down, and vandalism went down
 
Beerina said:
It may be provocative, but it is also religious (however stupid a concept it is that this or that religion is from the devil).

To say "you can't have this on your shirt" is to say "this theologic belief is hereby banned because it offends this other theologic belief". I can't see the court opening that can of worms.

And would you want to? The US suffers enough already from feigned outrage and harm over stupid words, precisely because that's the only backdoor to banning that's even remotely viable under the Constitution, and even then only in extremely limited areas (and even those are controversial, such as banning a housing ad for "I'm blue and wanna sell my house to a blue person and hate green people but federal law forbids me from restricting said sale.")
Click to expand...


Because schools are a unique area where free speech is heavily sanctioned and regulated. It is very legal and quite oftenly done (that is a strange turn of phrase), such as schools regulating the wearing of hooded seweatshirts and head gear of any sort. All sort of restrictions on free speech in terms of anything that is remotely considered to border on 'gang related'.

Now schools have to tolerate a high level of religous expression, the wearing of crosses is not going to be banned, nor is the wearing of other marks of faith.

I am not defending the school's policy just saying that the grounds of the policy are based upon a couple of thoughts

: most likely calling something 'of the devil' might be considered discriminatory is we insert any 'suspect class' into the phrase so " 'sumrfs' are of the devil " might be considered discriminatroy if smurfs are a suspect class

: less like is the 'provocative' act argument, most schools have very strong policies against violence, which includes expressions and acts meant to provoke others, harrasment, intimidation, threats and acts meant to degrade or possibly degrade another person or group in the school. This might be considered in many of thos ecategories

: Uber likely is that they want to avoid a lawsuit if they ever should have s tudent that is Islam in that this defintely would fall into the 'hostile enviroment' category.
 
Arus808 said:
Since the Middle School I went to went to specific clothes to wear, bullying rates went down, theft went down, and vandalism went down
Click to expand...

Make no doubt about it: the more draconian the rules, the more limiting to free expression, the safer the environment.
But... safe for what? Clothing is part of free expression. And, as other have made clear, it's a balancing act between maintaining order and allowing freedom. Personally I feel that uniforms are far too destructive of individual expression.
 
Wearing a shirt with these kinds of slogans is inflammatory and only encourages other people to react in violent ways to them.
 
AvalonXQ said:
But... safe for what? Clothing is part of free expression. And, as other have made clear, it's a balancing act between maintaining order and allowing freedom. Personally I feel that uniforms are far too destructive of individual expression.
Click to expand...

Only if you have a very non standard bunch of kids. Lots of room for customisation within even the most hardened school uniform rules.
 
Eyeron said:
Wearing a shirt with these kinds of slogans is inflammatory and only encourages other people to react in violent ways to them.
Click to expand...

Yes. However there are many perfectly legitimate expressions of free speach that can make people want to react violently towards you ("Vote Official Monster Raving Loony Party!" for example). Being inflammatory is not in itself enough to justify limiting free speach
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom