Posted on 03/05/2007 6:09:22 PM PST by markomalley
SAN DIEGO - The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to suspend a dress code at a suburban San Diego high school that was challenged by a student who wore a T-shirt with anti-gay language.
Tyler Chase Harper sued the Poway Unified School District in 2004 to overturn a policy calling for schools to reduce or prevent "hate behavior," including threats and attacks based on sexual orientation.
Harper had been pulled from class for wearing a T-shirt that read, "Homosexuality is shameful" on the front and, "Be ashamed. Our school has embraced what God has condemned," on the back.
His lawsuit claimed the policy violated his rights to freedom of speech and religion.
In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with a federal judge that Harper lost his ability to challenge the policy when he graduated last year.
Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the policy to remain in effect pending the outcome of the lawsuit and sharply criticized the student's challenge.
The appellate judges said the T-shirt was "injurious to gay and lesbian students and interfered with their right to learn" and that it "collides with the rights of other students in the most fundamental way." They said Harper was unlikely to prevail on claims that the policy limited free speech, they said.
The Supreme Court ruling Monday also set aside the appellate ruling. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented.
In January, a federal judge in San Diego upheld the school's policy in a ruling on the broad merits of the case.
U.S. District Judge John Houston considered the matter on behalf of Harper's sister, Kelsie, who is still a student at the school. The case is now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Jack Sleeth, a school district attorney, said the order had no impact on the case or school policy but would prevent attorneys from citing the appellate court decision in other lawsuits.
The Alliance Defense Fund, which represents Harper, said the order strengthens its case by setting aside an "extremely dangerous" appellate court ruling that allowed the school to "censor the Christian point of view, while permitting students to speak out in support of homosexual behavior."
The case is Harper v. Poway Unified School District, 06-595.
...With our new, improved, "Conservative" court...
...Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion must take a back seat to a person'e Freedom to be a Pervert.
Well, I can find Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion in the constitution. Afraid I can't find the latter so-called right.
'In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with a federal judge that Harper lost his ability to challenge the policy when he graduated last year.'
If the kid was still in school, the court might have sided with him.
All this does is take money from the school's budget. STUPID.
For your respective lists...
The school should be blamed for wasting resouces defending the policy. It establishes thoughtcrime and indoctrinates children in the religion of liberalism.
Too bad that Bill Clinton was allowed to raise BACK TAXES on dead people.
Seems the courts can decide that the day for justice has passed in some instances but not others.
I'd have more regard for "school policies" if attendance were not compulsory.
In reality, "a policy" is usually the same as "a whim"... seemingly arbitrary, unreasoned, and somewhat political in nature.
One should be free to opt out altogether where ever such policies exist, and to do so without penalty or strings attached.
The courts have their opinions in mind, they juse try to find excuses to arrive a the pre-ordained conclusion.
Hmmmm, T-shirt expressed an opinion without using foul or inappropriate language. (and "inappropriate" isn't exactly the greatest barometer here, either). 1st amendment wins.
apparently not.
There is a hidden set of problems here, none of which came up as an issue.
First of all, it is the school's prerogative to ban clothing that is "disruptive". But that brings up a conflict: is it inherently and *imminently* disruptive, or is it passively disruptive, that is, is whoever would be offended by it looking for an excuse?
In truth, this is unclear. For example, if many students have for years worn the confederate flag, it does not suddenly become "disruptive" because a black student decides that it is "hate speech". It is clearly not hate speech, because it has provoked no confrontation over the course of years.
However, if a student wears a t-shirt that says "Kill the Blacks", or words to that effect, it is clearly disruptive and intended, and can be expected, to create physical conflict, and in short order.
As far as other disruptions, the same article of clothing worn by a girl at the age of 10 may be quite unacceptable to be worn by her at the age of 16. And it can also be expected to create a disruption as soon as she enters school grounds. This clearly is an inherent and *imminent* threat of disruption, even though no hate speech is involved.
This article is misleading. The Court did not rule on the merits of the case. Instead this was a mootness issue. Since the guy already graduated, his issue was moot because a ruling on whether or not he could wear the shirt would have no effect since he is no longer enrolled in school there. Therefore, he had no standing to bring the suit. The Court didn't rule 8-1 against the shirt, they ruled 8-1 that his claim was moot.
Faggies rule!!!
(Yeah, right.)
):^(
Basically, the Supreme Court threw the whole thing out, because he was no longer a student and therefore lacked standing.
But notice that they also threw out the Ninth Circus's ruling as well, which backed the school's action. This was not a victory for the liberals.
I noted the same thing - the 9th Circuit's ruling was SET ASIDE, and thus (I assume) no longer viable as a precedent...
So, this isn't a ruling on the point of law; the SCOTUS is saying that the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue.
You don't have free speech in schools.
Actually, they did a little more than that. They set aside the decision of the 9th circuit, which was a nasty, left-wing, heterophobic screed. Other courts now know not to cite the 9th circuit decision as precedent.
I'm actually pleased to see the Supremes ruling on things like standing and mootness. Part of the leftist deluge on the Court over the past 50 years has been to open the courthouse doors to almost anyone.
Lets not be hypocritical if the student had worn a shirt that said "bush lied and people died" we'd all be cheering in the streets, but if a student has a shirt that says "Homosexuality is shameful" and "Be ashamed. Our school has embraced what God has condemned," it's a travesty they were told it was disruptive. Freedom of speech is not a liberal or conservative issue and we should all remember that we should be respectful to others beliefs even if we don't understand them or agree with them.
Speak for your damn self, Commie.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
it's frustrating, isn't it?
Very misleading article. Go to volokh.com and see what the rulling really means according to a Constitutional lawyer. It was a shot at the Liberal Court. There who reasoning got throw out and can NOT be used for predident and they can not address this specific case in anyway. Misleading.
There is subtle prejudice at work, ironically. The assumption is that Christians and white children are more able to control their emotions than are other religious and minority groups.
That is, the prejudice that if a student wears a shirt grossly offensive to Christians, it is far less likely to cause a disturbance, than say, a student wearing a shirt that says "Mohammed stinks!", or "Ban Gangsta Rap".
Ironically, I knew a girl with a sense of humor, who liked the Goth look, yet was forced to change it by her school, because they said it "looked Satanic". Noting that Christian wear was entirely acceptable, she had an artist friend create some elaborate and grotesque t-shirts.
Featuring the crucifixion, yet depicted in a far more graphic manner than Mel Gibson would dare. Jesus depicted as a starved, horribly injured yet struggling maniac, with several different captions, all threatening and aggressive:
"Worship me or BURN IN HELL for ALL ETERNITY!"
"You are all DAMNED because you are SINNERS!"
(Those t-shirts would have been a huge hit in Mexico or the Phillipines.)
She gave the shirts away to her friends to wear to school, expecting to create a controversy, but there was none.
Again, an example of how it is *assumed* that Christians are "self controlled", as long as they only focus on being white and Christian; but that other groups cannot contain themselves, so are easy to provoke. So whites and Christians can't be permitted to stimulate the others.
The funny thing is courts have ruled in all sorts of directions, based on whether they agree with the speech or not...
http://cbs13.com/national/topstories_story_242230520.html
If its OK to wear an Anti-Bush shirt, its certainly OK to wear an anti-gay shirt by the same standards.
There was also the case of Bretton Barber, where courts ruled the same way.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/youth/11405prs20031001.html
Of course. There is none, and hasn't been any "freedom of speech" for years. That is, for religious and conservative people. The left can say and do anything that it wants.
I just don't understand what these kids are thinking when they wake up in the moring and say "Well I will wear this today." To me can't they just wear normal shirts??? I went to private school with uniform so I never had to deal with this nonsense (I don't care what it is). Maybe the schools should ban any wording or pictures and just have them wear plain shirts. What a waste of money for the Supreme Court to have to bother with. You know I would be saying the same thing if they had drugs are great on their tee shirt. It is all a waste of time.
I agree completely that the courts are all over the place on the issue. This is because the SCOTUS has not issued a constitutional judicial philosophy on that, and related subjects.
Fashion aside, they need to make clear decisions less about a particular case, than about guiding principles schools should use to make constitutionally acceptable policies. A framework in which their policies can exist, with limits to either extreme. That is, a law as good for NYC as it is for Topeka.
Though I wouldn't advocate it, they *could* go for a complete standard of "alma mater", where once parents enrolled their child in a school, the child was under the complete control of the school, until such time as the parent withdrew them from school grounds. This would be done on the assumption that parents could choose between different forms of education, *and* that they had the extra prerogative to democratically change their school board and State Board of Education.
This would mean that students had *no* option for dress or behavior, nor would they have any freedom of speech, assembly, association, property, privacy, due process or discipline not otherwise unlawful.
The other extreme the court could choose, which I also wouldn't advocate, would be to declare schools to be contractors, with the students either following all rules or the contract being terminated. This would mean that the students either followed all rules and regulation, or they would be expelled. This might be called a "McEducation", and is mostly used by universities, but no reason it couldn't be used by lower grades.
Since the majority of the problems are in the public schools, that is where the eventual SCOTUS decision must apply. And there will be a thousand lawsuits a year, every year, until they get one hammered out.
The schools are spending your money supporting the homosexual agenda, pre-marital sex, no truth, dumbed down education, all to get more funding! Go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.