High School students suspended over Sex Pistols' t-shirts

[R_of_G]

Came across this story this morning and found it interesting.

A small group of students in a Washington high school staged a protest in response to a student being told to remove a Sex Pistols' t shirt. That student refused to comply and was sent home. The next day, several more students organized and wore Sex Pistols' shirts as an act of protest and received punitive action from the school.

I applaud the students for their belief in free speech and their use of civil diosbedience to make their point.

More than that, I applaud them for doing their research and the citing the case law precedent of Tinker v. Des Moines in which the U.S. Supreme Court declated that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years."

Here is an article with more about the story:

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20101110/news/311109991/t-shirts-prompt-forks-high-school-students-suspensions

Thoughts?

[Retro Hound]

The important question here is, where did they get the t-shirts?

[Jx2]

I see the point of a dress code in schools. However, what bugs me the most is in almost every school its ok to wear a shirt with Talyor Swift, the Jonas Brothers or whatever other pop icon is hot at the time. But whoa and behold if another group of students show up sporting something "diffrent" than the norm. I agree some shirts with profanity, pot plants, beer or what not shouldnt be in schools. However, in the mid 90's(I graduated in 96) I was dubbed a satanist because I wore alot of NIN, White Zombie and Marylin Manson and Korn shirts. I ended up having to get my cousin to find me someone to walk out with on graduations because so many girls was afraid of me.

Personaly I while I dont share the beleif's I dont even see a problem with kids wearing shirts with pentagrams and what not on them if other students are allowed to wear cross and WWJD clothing. As long as those items dont cross the line with the image after all how many christian shirts shows them killing satan?

To many times we teach our kids to be their own person. Hell we where even taught as was our parents and grandparents before them. However, whenever becoming your own person means breakin the society norm suddenly the child or person in question is damned. Its not right but will never be any other way.

On a side note see the story about the kid who got kicked off the football team for wearing pink shoes his grandmother gave him?

[Spudman]

The world is just going downhill. Why does it even come to this. People are so uptight anymore. It's just a bloody shirt. It's the administration that makes a big deal of it. It's all in their heads, not the kids'.

[sumitomo]

Well put Spud.Sumi:D

[sunvalleylaw]

Here is where Forks, WA is http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=forks+washington&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Forks,+WA&gl=us&ei=fVndTK3oL4K0lQfJu4HXDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ8gEwAA Truly out in the middle of nowhere. It is an old logging town. The "free speech" analysis of this issue is not black and white. I support the kids for sure, and always would err on the side of free speech. But the issue is not easy, especially for a small town school administration. Where as R_of_G quotes correctly from an important case, the law keeps evolving, and the exceptions to that statement are not easy to apply. That language is addressed, and restricted in a more recent case.

In Morse v. Frederick, a more recent case, the students lost when the reference was towards drugs. In that case, a kid had a banner while his class was allowed to watch the Olympic Torch relay. The banner said "Bong hits for Jesus".

The entire case can be read here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10117776825257150184&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Some excerpts below.

Our cases make clear that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). At the same time, we have held that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986), and that the rights of students "must be `applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.'" Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266, 108 S.Ct. 562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (1988) (quoting Tinker, supra, at 506, 89 S.Ct. 733). Consistent with these principles, we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. We conclude that the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it.

Here, I suppose the question is whether the word "sex" is to be construed as solely a band name, or does it also a sexual reference. I am sure the band meant it as a reference when they adopted the name way back when. So does the band's intent control, or is it more an "eye of the beholder" type of standard? Is it a subjective (personal to the observer) or objective (according to a "reasonable person") standard? What does the term "Sex Pistol" mean in this context? What is the point of saying it here? Stuff like that is what Constitutional law is made of. As the Supreme Court said above, in school, the kids get less protection that an adult out in the world.

The Sups discuss some of this stuff here: (I added some comments in bold).

The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic. It is no doubt offensive to some, perhaps amusing to others. To still others, it probably means nothing at all. Frederick himself claimed "that the words were just nonsense meant to attract television cameras." 439 F.3d, at 1117-1118. But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one.

The dissent mentions Frederick's "credible and uncontradicted explanation for the message—he just wanted to get on television." Post, at 2649. subjective intent of speakerBut that is a description of Frederick's motive for displaying the banner; it is not an interpretation of what the banner says. how others view it. The way Frederick was going to fulfill his ambition of appearing on television was by unfurling a pro-drug banner at a school event, in the presence of teachers and fellow students.

Elsewhere in its opinion, the dissent emphasizes the importance of political speech and the need to foster "national debate about a serious issue," post, at 2651, as if to suggest that the banner is political speech. But not even Frederick argues that the banner conveys any sort of political or religious message. Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, see post, at 2650-2651, this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession. truly political speech is different than speech meant really to cause a scene.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619549,00.html

Good discussion! I love considering things like this. The lines are not clear, and it is a very human issue. I am the kind of guy that prefers nearly absolute free speech, but that comes with complications.

This could get, or maybe already is, political. Remember the guy who wanted to burn the Koran? That was speech that was arguably protected. Kinda like letting the Klan march down main street. So lets be careful folks. From the point of view of Constitutional law, it is complicated.

[Jimi75]

The world is just going downhill. Why does it even come to this. People are so uptight anymore. It's just a bloody shirt. It's the administration that makes a big deal of it. It's all in their heads, not the kids'.

+100 :applause

[sunvalleylaw]

One point I thought of is that the issue with legal stuff is often just because you can say something, or just because you can legally stop something from being said, is often a different question than whether you should either say it or stop it.

The administration here should have just left it alone and not made it an issue, and then it would not have made the news. At least that is my opinion. Things get so polarized that it seems it has to be one way or the other, or "I'm right and you're wrong". If people would have a bit more tolerance, I believe we could get more done.

[R_of_G]

Steve, firstly, thank you for more legal background on this type of case. I know we have several members of the bar at this forum and I was hoping some of you would join this conversation and provide insight.

The clear difference in the "bong hits for Jesus" shirt and the Sex Pistols shirt would be that under current law, bong hits refer to an activity that is illegal. Though I personally have no problem with it and support the notion that such a "controversial" shirt would serve to spark a much-needed debate, I can see where a school would have an issue with a kid wearing a shirt that seemingly supports illegal activity, whereas a shirt that names a band (regardless of the band's intention in picking a name) is not a reference to anything illegal, or necessarily even anything questionable. Would a school ban someone from wearing a Steely Dan t-shirt if they knew to what the name referred?

While I see your point about the connotations of the word sex, I believe that the word, in and of itself, has a defintion other than a reference to intercourse, that being the identity of one's biological/anatomical makeup. Though the word "gender" has become a substitute, that is an incorrect use of the word and I suspect used more often because many people in our society are simply too uptight to use the word "sex."

I'm glad I posted this story as I am enjoying this discussion.

[ibanezjunkie]

my belief is, everyone is entitled to dress or act however they so wish provided it doesn't directly negatively impact on anyone else.

Swear, but dont swear AT anyone
hit walls not people
save the onions

etc.

[deeaa]

LOL that's funny---but yeah, we just talked about this a while back at school. I mean, whether it's OK to wear what at school. There's a few chicks who have these blackmetal shirts etc. all the time with rotting corpses on them etc. and the other one has this long jacket always on that she's written on in big letters 'Hell was overcrowded so I came back'...but we didn't think it was OK to forbid them from wearing what they want.

As a teacher I've sometimes worn T-shirts that seemed funny to me, like 'I'm a Cunning Linguist' and 'School Free Drug Zone' and 'Save the Kittens - Pussies Need Our Help' etc. but nobody's much commented on them.

That was so funny about Marilyn Manson etc. shirts...can't imagine anyone being scared of someone wearing such shirts...or even these 'Impaled Nazarene' and 'Deathchain' shirts people here wear.

What we've been considering more is how to get people tone down the skinhead thing, as there are some who shave to skinhead, do bodybuilding a LOT obviously, and use pilot jackets and army boots and national flag emblems and logo jewelry...THAT looks scary and is in clear conflict with our school ideals which include non-discrimination and anti-nationalism.

But anyway, I would never be scared of someone wearing however crazy band gear, but I'd change the side of the road if I saw a bunch of these skinheads rollin' towards me. Almost anyone who wears our country flag prominently is scary, more or less, so we've considered banning the use of the national flag in school.

[Tig]

I get the whole school thing about "distracting other students", but too much of the time they are just knee-jerk reactions to relatively harmless events or displays. Good ol' Zero Tolerance mentality fail, yet again. I wore on occasion much worse than a Sex Pistols shirt, but the faculty just didn't get it or care back in the early 80's I guess.

A few weeks ago, I had on a shirt with the Johnny Cash finger photo on it in Home Depot.
http://www.stuffking.com/images/thumbs/Johnny_Cash_Finger_Black_Shirt_144_144.jpg
The uptight cashier acted all shocked and asked something like, "Why would you wear something like that?".
I replied, "It's a famous photo of Johnny Cash. You must not know about him."
She replied, "I wouldn't want to know about him, then.", as if she was a 40 year old virgin or something.
I was a little ticked by now and fired off, "It must suck being you", on the way out, since I still have a bit of the ol' rebel in me. I am way past my shock-the-world days of my youth, and like the shirt to celebrate the rebellious spirit of the Man in Black.

I can understand that reaction if I showed up to my 9 year old's elementary school with the shirt. We have to be responsible for the results of our actions. I guess I can't tolerate super anal people who spend way too much time judging others, but at least it doesn't suck to be me! :cool:

[sunvalleylaw]

Let's take it the other way, rather than a punk band shirt that says "Sex" on it, what about conservative students wearing shirts showing photos of partial birth abortions? No violence being shown, no drugs, no sex, contains what many believe is important political speech about a serious issue, . . .

BTW, I am not anti-abortion (as far as the law goes, but my personal views are more complicated than that), do not want to get into that discussion, and believe that we absolutely cannot here. But do you guys think the kid that wants to wear that shirt to school can? And if he or she can, should he or she? (without getting into the view on abortion, just whether it is appropriate for school).

EDIT: Robert or other mods, if posing this question is too political or otherwise inappropriate for the forum, please feel free to delete it. Since I am participating, I recuse myself from modding my participation. This is just an interesting question to me that this discussion raises.

[R_of_G]

Let's take it the other way, rather than a punk band shirt that says "Sex" on it, what about conservative students wearing shirts showing photos of partial birth abortions? No violence being shown, no drugs, no sex, contains what many believe is important political speech about a serious issue, . . .

BTW, I am not anti-abortion, do not want to get into that discussion, and believe that we absolutely cannot here. But do you guys think the kid that wants to wear that shirt to school can? And if he or she can, should he or she? (without getting into the view on abortion, just whether it is appropriate for school).

EDIT: Robert or other mods, if posing this question is too political or otherwise inappropriate for the forum, please feel free to delete it. Since I am participating, I recuse myself from modding my participation. This is just an interesting question to me that this discussion raises.

I think it's a good question Steve, and without getting into specifics on the issue itself, I feel about it much the way I do about the "bong hits for Jesus" shirt, that someone should be free to wear it because I believe it will facilitate much-needed discussion. I know it could be argued that such discussions are a "distraction" and to that I could not disagree more strongly. Learning to debate one's views in a rational, constructive and civilized manner is a skill that is more vital to learn than a large percentage of the work the kids would be "distracted" from and something that will serve them for the rest of their lives in their social and professional worlds.

However, I do suspect there would be some disagreement amongst those with strong pro-life views that such a shirt doesn't depict violence. Of course, in that case, they are using the picture of said "violence" to make their point so they'd not be against it in that case. [Note to Mods: if that is too specific to the issue, feel free to kill that paragraph.]

I'm much more in favor of promoting free-speech and dialogue than I am telling people, particularly kids, that there are things that you just don't talk about. I don't curse in front of my kid (or other people's kids) but I'm not the kind of parent who's going to freak out when my kid does hear a curse word. They're just words. And I love that picture of Cash and would not think twice about wearing a shirt with it out in public.

[bcdon]

I was a little ticked by now and fired off, "It must suck being you", on the way out, since I still have a bit of the ol' rebel in me. I am way past my shock-the-world days of my youth, and like the shirt to celebrate the rebellious spirit of the Man in Black.

Tig, you are a Texan through and through! :dude I have that very same attitude. It certainly gets me my share of raised eyebrows up here in the land of political correctness but, damn, does it feel right!!

[sunvalleylaw]

Well, that is exactly what I think. I was raised in a family where we spent winter weekends at a cabin in the woods (for skiing), no phones, no TV, etc. I was invited and encouraged to discuss the issues of the day with my parents friends, and they listened closely to my views, and discussed them with me. I was not patronized, and learned to discuss things with adults in a civil, polite way, even when I did not agree.

Likewise at my high school (a Jesuit Catholic school), discussion was encouraged. (as opposed to my grade school and middle school where we were not encouraged to question or discuss). There I took a comparative religions course as a junior. The Jesuit brother opened the course by positing that the teachings of Marx and Jung were correct and that there was no God. The class sat stunned, and then slowly started to counter with their beliefs. I later figured out that this Brother had engaged us in a version of the Socratic method. We were able to discuss some very hot topics civilly, were forced to consider our own views, and to reason them out, and think critically about them, and the views of others.

It is highly discouraging to me that our educational system, and worse, our families and communities, have failed to encourage this sort of development. It seems now that such discussions are typically polarized, and really about what team you are on.

[R_of_G]

It seems now that such discussions are typically polarized, and really about what team you are on.

True, and quite a shame. It's become like a child's puppet show where you figure out who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are and cheer or hiss when they appear.