| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| School Principal Censors 9/11 Truth Shirt; insane! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 3 2008, 02:14 AM (388 Views) | |
| Lin Kuei | Nov 3 2008, 02:14 AM Post #1 |
![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| ihatecreditors | Nov 3 2008, 02:28 AM Post #2 |
|
Thats F'ed up. He went on a little to long in the video for my taste. |
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Nov 3 2008, 09:19 AM Post #3 |
|
Maybe this kid should find a photo of his principle and photoshop a 9/11 tee-shirt on him. |
![]() |
|
| Lin Kuei | Nov 19 2008, 11:57 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
It seems that due to overwhelming support of this young man, the school principal has given in and 'uncensored' the shirt http://www.infowars.com/?p=6063 |
![]() |
|
| Sureshot | Nov 19 2008, 03:19 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Your glorious Loose Change Forum dictator...
|
Another victory, good to hear. |
![]() |
|
| jim76 | Nov 19 2008, 04:39 PM Post #6 |
|
Ugh. This kid goes on and on about his free speech rights, but the courts have been very clear on the issue. Principals have broad discretion in limiting students' speech in school and at school funded events, not to mention nearly complete discretion over what gets published in a school production, such as a yearbook. The rights he goes on and on about simply do not exist. This was more of an issue of the kid and his backers being annoying enough to outweigh the benefits of censoring. So good job for that, I guess? |
![]() |
|
| Sureshot | Nov 19 2008, 11:33 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Your glorious Loose Change Forum dictator...
|
He still has the right to wear the shirt and have it uncensored. Just like the black armbands in Vietnam.
Edited by Sureshot, Nov 19 2008, 11:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 22205 | Nov 20 2008, 07:51 PM Post #8 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
http://www.aclu-wi.org/youth/rights/law.html#Dress dress code The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of dress codes in relation to students 1st Amendment rights. Personal appearance and clothing may be constitutionally protected by the 1st Amendment if the clothing conveys a religious message or the clothing coveys a political message. It is generally not enough in the eyes of the court for a student to object to a dress code on the basis that it does not allow him/her to convey their individuality. The following lists includes a few of the very numerous cases out there on dress codes. Remember a court only must follow precedent in its jurisdiction. Since the Supreme Court has not specifically ruled, this is generally the District or State Supreme Court rulings. i ask that you Jim, please find Minnesota's (district or supreme) court ruling on the issue and post it. http://www.aclu.org/standup/factsheet/index.html http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/21179pub20051031.html WHAT DOES "PROTECTED SPEECH" INCLUDE? First Amendment protection is not limited to "pure speech" -- books, newspapers, leaflets, and rallies. It also protects "symbolic speech" -- nonverbal expression whose purpose is to communicate ideas. In its 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines , the Court recognized the right of public school students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In 1989 ( Texas v. Johnson ) and again in 1990 ( U.S. v. Eichman ), the Court struck down government bans on "flag desecration." Other examples of protected symbolic speech include works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances. *** i doubt principal Bettin actually had a change of "heart". no, he was probably informed by the legal representatives of Minnesota's schools, that what he did was not legal and that aside from the further stink it would create, the school could face some legal/monetary consequences as well. |
![]() |
|
| jim76 | Nov 20 2008, 08:04 PM Post #9 |
|
Just to clarify, I never said that he didn't have a right to wear the shirt. He doesn't have the right to not have his shirt censored in the yearbook. I'll get back to you on those cases. |
![]() |
|
| jim76 | Nov 20 2008, 08:17 PM Post #10 |
|
All right - results of a quick search: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier The supreme court of the United States found that a principle could bar certain material from the school newspaper, because he found it inappropriate. "We thus recognized that '[t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board,' rather than with the federal courts." "A school must also retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be perceived to ... associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy." This is the first case I found and I think it makes a pretty strong case. I'll let you know if I find more info. |
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Nov 20 2008, 08:31 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
It seems that this only applies to school functions and a yearbook does not count as drug use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick |
![]() |
|
| jim76 | Nov 20 2008, 08:57 PM Post #12 |
|
Yeah - Morse v. Frederick doesn't really apply. It does show the extent that schools can go to to limit free speech that otherwise would be allowed though. But I do think that Hazelwood makes it pretty clear that schools have very broad discretion over what enters school productions. Pretty much anything that could reasonably damage the school's image can be removed. |
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Nov 20 2008, 09:06 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
Nope it does apply. As the idea of political speech being censored then why teach anything based in the founding fathers or the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or other historical controversial topics like the holocaust. More... http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9216/hazelwood.htm The language that this is an official private publication is negated by the cost of the students who throw in their dollars for their yearbook. Second, this language is not clear because of the location varies derived from state to state and more so for the reasons stated above. Edited by mynameis, Nov 20 2008, 09:13 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| jim76 | Nov 20 2008, 09:41 PM Post #14 |
|
I don't really get what you're saying here. I think the first point is that because students pay for their yearbooks, they are therefore not school productions. I don't think this is true. The language in Hazelwood repeatedly refers to newspapers being equatable to plays. In both cases, production costs are covered by others. Costs of plays are covered by tickets and costs of newspapers are often covered by advertising. The fact that funding is coming from somewhere other than the school does not make it any less of a school production. I'm not sure what you're saying in the second point about the location? |
![]() |
|
| mynameis | Nov 20 2008, 10:07 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
Of course you can say its not a school production, but the funding doesn't say otherwise according to the SCOTUS. Repeating that its not funded by students does not make it so, proving that the yearbook is funded by the school makes that so. In some states, there are state laws protecting school student speech regardless of the SCOTUS ruling. Edited by mynameis, Nov 20 2008, 10:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 22205 | Nov 20 2008, 10:36 PM Post #16 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
i just wanted to add a distinction: bettin's censure of the shirt in the yearbook is a seperate issue from his request of the photo company to black out the shirt in the pics they sent out. in other words, when you pay for student pictures, you are in a private money exchange for goods. so the boy should have received UNCENSORED copies of his picture. the photo company's compliance with the principal's request, is a civil issue. the boy's parents could sue at least for the cost they paid for the pictures, if not for some sort of punitive damages - though i doubt they would receive any. the issue of censoring his school pictures in the yearbook on the other hand, may fall under the 1st amendment. jim - i asked for a Minnesota courts' ruling on the subject, since thats the state thats in question in this specific instance. hazelwood is in missouri, so their ruling does not apply to minnesota. in the first link i posted, the aclu was clear that the supreme court has left it up to individual states (and their higher courts) to rule on the issue. i have tried to find a Minnesota ruling, but have so far come up empty. thats why i was hoping you could help find the specific ruling in minnesota as opposed to the other cases, such as these: http://tinyurl.com/5a239e http://tinyurl.com/5bpx5t disclaimer: i am not an attorney, though i have successfully defended myself without representation in 2 civil cases - once at the age of 16. but i have no misconceptions about my limited understanding of civil or constitutional law and am not pretending to be an expert. i frankly think that the case we are debating here is extremely complex and in a case by case basis, the rulings have differed on the issue. its all up to the lawyers and how well they did or didnt present their cases to the higher courts, so although we can try to be better informed on the issue, i doubt any of us will ever be qualified to PROVE wether or not the boy was within his official legal rights to wear a 911 truth tshirt on picture day. again however, i refer to the actions of principal Bettin for what i think is the most accurate insight of what the case was in this specific instance. his retraction probably did not come from a personal feeling on the issue. afterall, i have never known a teacher or principal who willingly backed down after they put their foot down, and believe me i have bumped heads with "educators" often in school. so for a principal to back down, especially after the case became so public, would be like him admitting defeat. i dont think he would do that willingly, so i suspect he had to have been informed (possibly as a result of the boy's legal representatives, but also the school district's own attonerys) that he was in no man's land legally, and that he had no choice but to back off. it would be informative to find a public statement made by either bitten or school superintendant about the retraction. i looked for that, but found none on their website, or in the local papers of that region: http://www.mpls.k12.mn.us/MPS_News3.html http://www.mpls.k12.mn.us/News_Releases http://www.startribune.com/ http://www.wahpetondailynews.com/ Edited by 22205, Nov 20 2008, 10:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |









7:55 PM Jul 10