School's 'No Drug Policy' is Void While Making Fun of President Bush--posted by Pete Arnold on 8/31/2006
Pete here, forwarding to you a little "common sense."
Many schools have a Zero tolerance for drugs, Including images on t-shirts and what not.
apparently this policy can be voided if you Bush-Bash at the same time:
Now, just the fact that this lawsuit was brought on by the ACLU would be enough for me to disagree with it, but because I am an open minded "Moderate" we will hear them out. Here is the T-Shirt they are defending:
entire ruling here.
Paragraph 16 goes over the School's dress code policy, which states (in part):
"We recognize that personal expression through dress is an important aspect of our culture for developing a sense of individualism, and this should be allowed to develop within our system. However, we must remember we are a part of an academic community and our guidelines must reflect a sense of responsibility and integrity.
"Any aspect of a person's appearance, which constitutes a real hazard to the health and safety of self and others or is otherwise distracting, is unacceptable as an expression of personal taste. Example [Clothing displaying alcohol, drugs, violence, obscenity and racism is outside our responsibility and integrity guidelines as a school and is prohibited.]" (Brackets in original.)
Okay, So clothing that displays drugs or alcohol are prohibited. I can understand this, after all, this is a school of minors. That and we must be responsible with what we throw on.
Paragraph 17 and 18 is where I think the judge was paid off by the ACLU:
17. The Appearance and Dress policy is unconstitutionally overboard in that it sweeps within the terms of its prohibition a very substantial amount of protected political speech, including Zachary's t-shirt criticizing and satirizing President Bush.
18. The Appearance and Dress policy is unconstitutionally vague in that it is laden with terms whose meaning is unclear, both facially and when read in context.
Though I think those who relate President Bush to Hitler, or anyone with a Anti-President Bush t-shirt is mis-informed especially at 14 years old), I would have no problem with this kid wearing an Anti-President Bush t-shirt if it was within the polices of the school. As in: No Drugs, Alcohol, Violence, Obscenity, or Racism
But this t-shirt contained lines of Cocaine, a Razor, and a Straw (the razor and straw are used for the intake of the cocaine),therefore is against the school's Policy.
In Paragraph 19 of the ruling, it states:
Defendants' actions in disciplining Zachary for wearing his anti-Bush t-shirt are based in part on its message. Defendants have permitted students to wear t-shirts expressing viewpoints opposed to Zachary's, including, by way of example, "These Colors Don't Run," "Go Army," "USA #1," and t-shirts promoting the National Guard. No students wearing such t-shirts have been disciplined for doing so.Okay. So they are saying "Because other people have their Pro USA propaganda, you can have your Anti-Bush Propaganda." What do I think:
- A 14 year old is not wise enough to make political decisions. This is why a 14 year old does not vote.
- This issue has more to do with your opinion on the leader of the United States.
- Did the Pro-USA T-Shirts have Drugs, Alcohol, Violence, Obscenity, or Racism on them?
So then, would it be okay to have a picture of a political figure that was Jewish being shot by Nazis, then some clever line about him being a bad politician?
Or what about a shirt with President Clinton and a phrase like "He F***ed an intern while he was married and F***ing lied aboutin frontit infront of a F***ing federal hearing"
Don't get me worng, I wear T-shirts that allow me to express myself (my Anti-Apple one is probably my favorite). But If my Anti-Apple T-shirt had a graphic representation of Steve Jobes snorting cocaine (or a clever line like the President Clinton t-shirt I mentioned) and my employer told me I couldn't wear it because it goes against their "nothing offensive" policy, would the ACLU run to my cause?
********** TONY ADDS **********
Quickly, I think this was the real danger in the Supreme Court's Tinker ruling. Kids do NOT have rights. They have potential rights. Even moreso they do not have full rights which properly would exclude from children's rights the First Amendment.
I think you can expect the lunacy over decades and decades to get worse in this regard before it is corrected.