Sister Toldjah asks "what is wrong with this picture?" regarding this story:
A suburban San Diego teenager who was barred from wearing a T-shirt with anti-gay rhetoric to class lost a bid to have his high school’s dress code suspended Thursday after a federal appeals court ruled the school could restrict what students wear to prevent disruptions.
I got the answer.
From April of 2005,
A Broward County high school student's Bush bashing T-shirt first grabbed the attention of his classmates, then administrators, then the ACLU. Now, the county school board has gotten involved.
Justin Cambest, 18, a Nova High School student, wore a shirt calling President George W. Bush an international terrorist.
Some students were offended and Cambest was told to remove the shirt, turn it inside out or take a suspension.
Cambest did something else. He called the ACLU, which threatened to sue.
Now, the Broward County School Board has agreed to rewrite portions of the student code to give students greater free speech protections.
An anti-gay t-shirt in school results in "a federal appeals court ruled the school could restrict what students wear to prevent disruptions," but an anti-Bush t-shirt in school results in a school board agreeing to "rewrite portions of the student code to give students greater free speech protections."
Posted by Matt at April 22, 2006 07:15 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/president.cgi/6987
Comments
The Ninth Jerkit Court of Schlameels strikes again!
Posted by: keefer at April 22, 2006 07:33 AM
There is a gigantic difference between hate and political dissent.
You don't see that?
Posted by: Tim Macavoy at April 22, 2006 10:22 AM
Ironic, this double-standard--when the left is always hollering for things to be "fair and just"! "Fair and just", in their twisted definition, means being fair just to their own ideologues.
Posted by:
M-J de M. at April 22, 2006 11:56 AM
Are these two incidents supposed to be related somehow? Double standard means the same ruling authority held similar cases to separate standards. Where is that happening here?
I think the lesson here is that the first student should have called the ACLU.
Posted by: extramedium at April 22, 2006 12:00 PM
You do realize that the ACLU defends the free speech rights of conservatives too. They have even defended the rights of the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups - hardly liberal causes.
Posted by: extramedium at April 22, 2006 12:05 PM
hey, I am all for kids being required to wear white shirts and blue pants and skirts.
However, this article is not clear as to what was on the shirt. If the shirt stated "Kill all gays" I have a problem with it in a school environment as I would have a problem with "kill all men, women, blacks, asians, islamofascists, etc."
I would have the same problem if a kid wore a "Kill Bush" T-shirt.
If the shirt stated "Stop Gay Marraige", this is a political opinion, and if we are allowing "Impeach Bush" T-shirts or "Bush Lied" t-shirts we should allow a T-shirt that states a conservative opinion in the school also.
So, we need more info as to what the "anti-gay" slogans were to better appreciate the position you (B4B) are taking.
I go back to....make all kids wear white shirts and blue pants/skirts....no exceptions. Then our teachers could focus on teaching rather than moderating political speech and a learning facility. mnlib
Posted by: minnesota libertarian at April 22, 2006 12:46 PM
Really extra? Let's see some proof on that one......you see all I have is real life experiance and that doesn't bode well for the ACLU defending anything for conservatives much less freedom of speech. Oh yah, the proof must be from the last twenty years tops, as the ACLU has not always been a kook lefty haven!!!
Posted by: bearmanUSMC at April 22, 2006 01:32 PM
Kinda lazy. Just Google aclu ku klux klan for a bunch of links.
The judges ruled here that personal attacks on other students regarding race, religion and sexuality were not acceptible, whereas politics was fair game.
The key here is that the t-shirts, which read "Homosexuality is Shameful" on the backs would be a direct attack on a gay student sitting behind it in class. The gay student is not at liberty to be offended and leave.
Bush was not in attendance at the Pennsylvania school where the student wore an anti-Bush T.
Posted by: congressive at April 22, 2006 02:33 PM
The Ninth Jerkit Court of Schlameels strikes again! Posted by: keefer
Keefer are you really as stupid as you sound. Are you as witless as your writing would indicate?
Let's try a thought experiment. Which of the following are protected speech?
Keefer is the worlds biggest asshole!
The president is the worlds biggest asshole!
Nuke Iran!
Posted by: jacob at April 22, 2006 02:37 PM
Well, well, well. I remember saying that if you were willing to accept restrictions on the second amendment - then the others would be in jeopardy also. So what do you know? The first amendment is being rewritten to mean - not free speech.
Strangely, the right to not be offended is not in the Bill of Rights.
I'll expect to be housing soldiers in my house next.
Posted by: Kahn at April 22, 2006 03:14 PM
Well, well, well. I remember saying that if you were willing to accept restrictions on the second amendment - then the others would be in jeopardy also. So what do you know? The first amendment is being rewritten to mean - not free speech.
Strangely, the right to not be offended is not in the Bill of Rights.
I'll expect to be housing soldiers in my house next.
Posted by: Kahn at April 22, 2006 03:15 PM
Wow, guys, try reading the article. Second paragraph:
"The ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed only the narrow issue of whether the dress code should be unenforced pending the outcome of the student's lawsuit."
As in, they did not just decide the outcome of the student's lawsuit. That will be decided in federal court in San Diego. This ruling only rejected a temporary injunction against the dress code while the kid's case is pending.
And some examples for Bearman:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/youth/25035prs20060413.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorship/24197prs20060217.html
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html
http://www.aclu.org/temp/pr1999/13603prs19990322.html
My boyfriend's mother was actually an expert witness in that last case and later wrote a book based on it.
Posted by: nicole at April 22, 2006 04:09 PM
Posted by: matthewscott at April 22, 2006 06:44 PM
Post a comment
The Ninth Jerkit Court of Schlameels strikes again!
There is a gigantic difference between hate and political dissent.
You don't see that?
Ironic, this double-standard--when the left is always hollering for things to be "fair and just"! "Fair and just", in their twisted definition, means being fair just to their own ideologues.
Are these two incidents supposed to be related somehow? Double standard means the same ruling authority held similar cases to separate standards. Where is that happening here?
I think the lesson here is that the first student should have called the ACLU.
You do realize that the ACLU defends the free speech rights of conservatives too. They have even defended the rights of the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups - hardly liberal causes.
hey, I am all for kids being required to wear white shirts and blue pants and skirts.
However, this article is not clear as to what was on the shirt. If the shirt stated "Kill all gays" I have a problem with it in a school environment as I would have a problem with "kill all men, women, blacks, asians, islamofascists, etc."
I would have the same problem if a kid wore a "Kill Bush" T-shirt.
If the shirt stated "Stop Gay Marraige", this is a political opinion, and if we are allowing "Impeach Bush" T-shirts or "Bush Lied" t-shirts we should allow a T-shirt that states a conservative opinion in the school also.
So, we need more info as to what the "anti-gay" slogans were to better appreciate the position you (B4B) are taking.
I go back to....make all kids wear white shirts and blue pants/skirts....no exceptions. Then our teachers could focus on teaching rather than moderating political speech and a learning facility. mnlib
Really extra? Let's see some proof on that one......you see all I have is real life experiance and that doesn't bode well for the ACLU defending anything for conservatives much less freedom of speech. Oh yah, the proof must be from the last twenty years tops, as the ACLU has not always been a kook lefty haven!!!
Kinda lazy. Just Google aclu ku klux klan for a bunch of links.
The judges ruled here that personal attacks on other students regarding race, religion and sexuality were not acceptible, whereas politics was fair game.
The key here is that the t-shirts, which read "Homosexuality is Shameful" on the backs would be a direct attack on a gay student sitting behind it in class. The gay student is not at liberty to be offended and leave.
Bush was not in attendance at the Pennsylvania school where the student wore an anti-Bush T.
The Ninth Jerkit Court of Schlameels strikes again! Posted by: keefer
Keefer are you really as stupid as you sound. Are you as witless as your writing would indicate?
Let's try a thought experiment. Which of the following are protected speech?
Keefer is the worlds biggest asshole!
The president is the worlds biggest asshole!
Nuke Iran!
Well, well, well. I remember saying that if you were willing to accept restrictions on the second amendment - then the others would be in jeopardy also. So what do you know? The first amendment is being rewritten to mean - not free speech.
Strangely, the right to not be offended is not in the Bill of Rights.
I'll expect to be housing soldiers in my house next.
Well, well, well. I remember saying that if you were willing to accept restrictions on the second amendment - then the others would be in jeopardy also. So what do you know? The first amendment is being rewritten to mean - not free speech.
Strangely, the right to not be offended is not in the Bill of Rights.
I'll expect to be housing soldiers in my house next.
Wow, guys, try reading the article. Second paragraph:
"The ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed only the narrow issue of whether the dress code should be unenforced pending the outcome of the student's lawsuit."
As in, they did not just decide the outcome of the student's lawsuit. That will be decided in federal court in San Diego. This ruling only rejected a temporary injunction against the dress code while the kid's case is pending.
And some examples for Bearman:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/youth/25035prs20060413.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorship/24197prs20060217.html
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html
http://www.aclu.org/temp/pr1999/13603prs19990322.html
My boyfriend's mother was actually an expert witness in that last case and later wrote a book based on it.
haha, very good kahn