Skip to comments.
Appeals court hears 'redneck' T-shirt case
Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ) ^
| 3/5/02
| KATIE WANG
Posted on 03/05/2002 4:37:51 AM PST by gumbo
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:37:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
PHILADELPHIA -- An attorney for a former Warren Hills Regional High School student argued in federal appeals court yesterday that his client's "redneck" T-shirt did not create a significant fear of disruption in school and that he should not have been suspended last year for wearing it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-108 next last
To: gumbo
The courts have ruled so. And that is a fundamental problem. Myself.... I would question a minor's right to free speech. We already know that the minor has limited rights because he can't vote. He is restricted from buying certain items.. etc etc. Myself... I would rather we tell kids to go to school, shut up, behave, obey the rules that the adults set, learn well with these tax dollars we are spending on you... and when you become an adult be responsible. But that's my narrow view of things. And I realize it isn't in the majority.
61
posted on
03/05/2002 10:18:10 AM PST
by
kjam22
To: gumbo
The courts do not agree with you, starting (at least) with the Tinker case in the 1960's, where a girl was told not to wear a black armband, signifying her opposition to the war in Vietnam. The girl won the case. Isn't it contradictory to rule that a minor (girl in this case) has the right to free political speech in a publically funded school.... but not the right to vote in a political race? Foolishness.
62
posted on
03/05/2002 10:22:11 AM PST
by
kjam22
To: 4ConservativeJustices
You might also be a member if you can't spell. FReepers seem prettey educaited, and most of tem can spell good. Dont' think your will fine any rednecks on this forrum. It might be your are predgudice?
To: gumbo
Jeff Foxworthy claimed you might be a Redneck if you had to help remove the wheels off the richest member of your family's home. Been there and done that...OH GAWD....
To: Mr. Bird
As I posted earlier, Bethel v. Fraser was determined subsequent to Tinker.Yes, and as the quotation in your post indicated, Bethel v. Fraser concerned lewd speech in a public school, not political speech.
A black armband, in that context, is clear political speech. A Jeff Foxworthy shirt, while amusing, fails to reach that kind of level
That may be your opinion, but have you read anything of the sort in legal opinions published regarding the Sypniewski case?
Political speech is political speech, whether it's "Stop the war in Vietnam" or "Proud to be a redneck." I doubt the courts will want to get involved in determining "levels" of political speech.
65
posted on
03/05/2002 1:43:06 PM PST
by
gumbo
To: maxwell
I'll trade yer 5 chickens, 4 hogs, and a mule fer dat fine lookin' boat.
To: kjam22
I'm of the opinion that the kid was told not to wear the shirt and he did it anyway. The kid and his parents were wrong. The constitutional way to have the school policy changed is to elect school board members who support your ideas
Your constitutional way is not the only way. In fact, the Constitution prohibits punishment for refusal to obey an unconstitutional regulation. So it really doesnt matter if Tom was previously warned not to wear the shirt. However, as someone who is involved in the case, I can tell you that he was NOT so warned.
To: gumbo
They say I'm guilty of stereotyping for wearing that shirt, but if anyone is stereotyping, it's the school.
School administrators said the shirt violated its racial harassment policy and dress code banning clothing portraying racial, ethnic or religious stereotyping. They said the T-shirt had the potential to create disruption in what was an already hostile climate.
School administrators creating problems that need not exist. Fire them.
68
posted on
03/05/2002 3:59:57 PM PST
by
Zon
To: AttorneyMan
the Constitution prohibits punishment for refusal to obey an unconstitutional regulationI know this is a stretch, but would that mean refusing to obey the Boland Amendment (as in funding the Contras in Nicaragua) would not have been a punishable offense, since the Boland amendment was said to have been unconstitutional? (And is there a distinction between refusing to obey a "regulation" and refusing to obey a law?)
I'm not a lawyer, but apparently you are. I've always wondered if the 'Contra' part of the Iran-Contra scandal would have gone 'poof' if the Boland Amendment had been challenged in court.
69
posted on
03/05/2002 4:56:09 PM PST
by
gumbo
To: aomagrat
Sounds like a job for Roy D. Mercer!
To: gumbo
School administrators said the shirt violated its racial harassment policy and dress code banning clothing portraying racial, ethnic or religious stereotyping. According to this policy, all Christian symbols, Jewish symbols, FUBU clothes, Hillfiger, Polo, Levis, Mossimo, Dixie Outfitters, GAP, Nike, Reebok, etc will be banned. You can make the connection between race and clothes pretty easily if you want to stretch it: white preppy guys wear Polos, black kids wear FUBU, rednecks wear Wranglers, hispanics wear Gucci.....
Sounds like the school is stereotyping based on IT'S OWN style and judgement. Bad rule!
To: gumbo
would that mean refusing to obey the Boland Amendment (as in funding the Contras in Nicaragua) would not have been a punishable offense, since the Boland amendment was said to have been unconstitutional? (And is there a distinction between refusing to obey a "regulation" and refusing to obey a law?)
Yes, if the Boland amendment had been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, no one could be prosecuted for violating it. And no, there's no distinction between refusing to obey a "regulation" and refusing to obey a law.
To: viligantcitizen
I'll trade yer 5 chickens, 4 hogs, and a mule fer dat fine lookin' boat.Throw in a chaw a Red Man and you got yerself a deal, FRiend...
73
posted on
03/05/2002 6:30:22 PM PST
by
maxwell
To: gumbo
Are you from Jersey?
74
posted on
03/05/2002 7:03:10 PM PST
by
Coleus
Comment #75 Removed by Moderator
To: Mr. Bird
I have a shirt, purchased at the "Slave Market" in Charleston SC, which has a Confederate Battle Flag on the fron & the words "Heritage NOT Hate" on the back- never once have I been told it is offensive, and I have worn it the kid's respective schools....of course, there is another version of the same shirt with the words "if MY wearing this shirt has ruined YOUR day, it has served its purpose".
To: 4ConservativeJustices
Yestarday I cudnt even spel redneck. Now I are one.
77
posted on
03/06/2002 3:29:27 AM PST
by
Twodees
To: BraveMan
I wish somebody would write "10 signs that you might be a Yooper". ;-)
78
posted on
03/06/2002 3:32:46 AM PST
by
Twodees
To: maxwell
Quit bragging about all the nice stuff you got. You are makin me jealous. Show off.
79
posted on
03/06/2002 3:34:47 AM PST
by
Twodees
To: mindprism.com
[punished for other peoples hate, watch".]
Kind of like, "Here, hold my beer. Hey Bubba. Watch this." When you hear somebody say that, get away from them. That's probably their last words.
80
posted on
03/06/2002 3:48:42 AM PST
by
Twodees
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-108 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson