ACLU Objects to Ban of Anti-Islamic T-Shirt
Keith
a T-Shirt that claimed "Avttref are of the Devil" or other T-Shirts like
that on School property during school hours by students.
By Harriet Daniels
Staff Writer
Published: Monday, November 23, 2009 at 12:30 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, November 23, 2009 at 4:18 p.m.
UPDATE at 4:15 p.m. -- The American Civil Liberties Union has sued a
central Florida school district. The lawsuit claims the Alachua County
School District violated students' rights by not allowing them to wear
T-shirts with an anti-Islamic message.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida plans to file a lawsuit
today in the federal court in Gainesville on behalf of families from Dove
World Outreach Center whose children were not allowed to wear "Islam is of
the Devil" t-shirts to area public schools.
The ACLU said while they do not support the message, the case focuses on
freedom of speech.
At the start of the school year students, whose families attend Dove World
Outreach, showed up at school wearing the t-shirts. When these students
declined to change the shirts, they were sent home for violation of the
school dress code, which prohibits clothing that school officials conclude
would "disrupt the learning process" or cause other students to be
"offended or distracted."
The church, in the 5800 block of Northwest 37th Street in Gainesville,
posted a sign with the same message on its property in July drawing
protest from the community.
Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said while he
understands that the school district is trying to balance their legal
obligations to both sides, he thinks they did so incorrectly in this case.
Jackie Johnson, school district spokeswoman, said they have not seen the
lawsuit yet.
"We still stand by our decision to enforce our dress code to prevent
students from wearing items that are distracting or disruptive to the
learning environment," Johnson said.
In a letter to the ACLU the school board's law firm said that "a school
may regulate a student's free speech rights if the exercise of those
rights materially and substantially interferes with maintaining
appropriate discipline at school, or if the conduct impinges on the rights
of other students."
--
Best Regards, Keith
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/
Tired of Google Groups?
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/usenet.html
richard
> This clearly is disruptive to the school. The ACLU would not be defending
> a T-Shirt that claimed "Avttref are of the Devil" or other T-Shirts like
> that on School property during school hours by students.
>
>
Trying to fight the schoolboard is worse than trying to fight city hall.
As long as the school applies the law equally across the board to ALL
students, showing no favortism, then they are well within their rights.
Freedom of speech does not include allowing the student to bring in a boom
box and playing it at full blast during class. Nor does it allow a student
to disrupt a class with various outbursts.
Read your various state laws. Most states make it a crime to disrupt a
public meeting.
You are having a large party at your house. Someone comes in wearing a
t-shirt you don't approve of. Do you have the legal right to make them
leave? Of course you do. Why not a school?
There was a shopping mall somewhere that tried to enforce a new simple
rule. No bandannas. Because gang members were wearing them all the time. A
security guard spotted a guy wearing one and told him he had to leave. The
mall lost the case.
Many schools have also adopted rules banning use of cell phones on school
property during school hours. Is that denial of free speech? I don't think
so.
Deadrat
news:1rmhcmzbsgakd.1...@40tude.net:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:54:14 -0800, Keith wrote:
>
>> This clearly is disruptive to the school. The ACLU would not be
>> defending
>> a T-Shirt that claimed "Avttref are of the Devil" or other T-Shirts
>> like that on School property during school hours by students.
> Trying to fight the schoolboard is worse than trying to fight city
> hall. As long as the school applies the law equally across the board
> to ALL students, showing no favortism, then they are well within their
> rights. Freedom of speech does not include allowing the student to
> bring in a boom box and playing it at full blast during class. Nor
> does it allow a student to disrupt a class with various outbursts.
The Supreme Court has allowed what I consider egregious violations of
students' civil rights both on and amazingly enough, off campus. But the
school may not ban political expression that does not disrupt.
>
> Read your various state laws. Most states make it a crime to disrupt a
> public meeting.
And, of course, completely irrelevant.
>
> You are having a large party at your house. Someone comes in wearing a
> t-shirt you don't approve of. Do you have the legal right to make them
> leave? Of course you do. Why not a school?
What an ignoramus you are! Because you are a private party having a
private party. The school acts a government agent.
>
> There was a shopping mall somewhere that tried to enforce a new simple
> rule. No bandannas. Because gang members were wearing them all the
> time. A security guard spotted a guy wearing one and told him he had
> to leave. The mall lost the case.
Doesn't this undercut your argument?
> Many schools have also adopted rules banning use of cell phones on
> school property during school hours. Is that denial of free speech? I
> don't think so.
As long as the school can show its actions are done to stop disruption of
the school day, the school will probably win. "Islam is of the Devil"
tee shirts might qualify. "Sarah Palin for President" might not.
richard
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
> news:1rmhcmzbsgakd.1...@40tude.net:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:54:14 -0800, Keith wrote:
>>
>>> This clearly is disruptive to the school. The ACLU would not be
>>> defending
>>> a T-Shirt that claimed "Avttref are of the Devil" or other T-Shirts
>>> like that on School property during school hours by students.
>
>> Trying to fight the schoolboard is worse than trying to fight city
>> hall. As long as the school applies the law equally across the board
>> to ALL students, showing no favortism, then they are well within their
>> rights. Freedom of speech does not include allowing the student to
>> bring in a boom box and playing it at full blast during class. Nor
>> does it allow a student to disrupt a class with various outbursts.
>
> The Supreme Court has allowed what I consider egregious violations of
> students' civil rights both on and amazingly enough, off campus. But the
> school may not ban political expression that does not disrupt.
Which falls under the Locos Parentis doctrine. Which means that the school
acts on behalf of the parents. If the off campus thing is a sanctioned
school function, then that is within their rights. But let's say a kid gets
suspended from school because he was involved in a fight over the weekend
somewhere, where the school had no control. That would be illegal.
Years ago in my highschool, we had a guy who had long hair beyond his
waist. The school kicked him out. He fought the board and he won.
Used to be, girls were sent home for wearing a skirt that was above the
knees. Now today, a girl might even be allowed to wear a g string bikini to
school and get away with it.
But dress codes, MUST be applied to all for any reason. If the school has a
policy of "NO printed t-shirts", then the school must abide for it for any
t-shirt that applied. In this case, the girl was given a choice. She
refused. Had she been wearing "Sarah Palin for President" and offered the
same choice, would the school even get noticed? I doubt it. Certainly, the
ACLU would not get involved over a political statement like that.
Deadrat
news:1gu1v299e7hz0.zha93503fhrf$.d...@40tude.net:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:26:17 -0600, Deadrat wrote:
>
>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>> news:1rmhcmzbsgakd.1...@40tude.net:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:54:14 -0800, Keith wrote:
>>>
>>>> This clearly is disruptive to the school. The ACLU would not be
>>>> defending
>>>> a T-Shirt that claimed "Avttref are of the Devil" or other T-Shirts
>>>> like that on School property during school hours by students.
>>
>>> Trying to fight the schoolboard is worse than trying to fight city
>>> hall. As long as the school applies the law equally across the board
>>> to ALL students, showing no favortism, then they are well within
>>> their rights. Freedom of speech does not include allowing the
>>> student to bring in a boom box and playing it at full blast during
>>> class. Nor does it allow a student to disrupt a class with various
>>> outbursts.
>>
>> The Supreme Court has allowed what I consider egregious violations of
>> students' civil rights both on and amazingly enough, off campus. But
>> the school may not ban political expression that does not disrupt.
>
> Which falls under the Locos Parentis doctrine.
What is that the crazy parent doctrine?
> Which means that the school acts on behalf of the parents.
Oh, you mean in loco parentis. Completely irrelevant. Parents may read
prayers to their children at home; acting in loco parentis, principals
may not.
> If the off campus thing is a
> sanctioned school function, then that is within their rights.
But, of course, being the ignoramus that you are, you're not familiar
with the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case, which had nothing to do with a
"sanctioned school function."
> But
> let's say a kid gets suspended from school because he was involved in
> a fight over the weekend somewhere, where the school had no control.
> That would be illegal.
So you say.
<snip/>
richard
In the "Bong" case, I'm not sure which way I'd rule.
The report I read on CNN did not state if classes had been officially
terminated for the day or not. If they were terminated, then the school
ceases authority at the public sidewalk. I would say the kid probably knew
this.
Let's say the school was holding a fire drill and this happened. Then yes,
the school would be in total control.
The real question I see is, was there a disruption? Was freedom of speech
totally denied? I don't know. I wasn't there and I don't have enough
information to go with. But from what I have read, I would have to side
with the kid. For the mere fact, ALL of the school was already outdoors in
the public arena. But, if the school was in fact still in charge of the
students, then I would have to side with the school. Because this was a
"sanctioned event".