Posted on 04/24/2013 2:05:26 AM PDT by marktwain
Several readers had e-mailed me about the story of a 14-year-old who was apparently told that he couldn’t wear an NRA T-shirt (which depicted a rifle), and then arrested when the dispute escalated. Yesterday, he was apparently back in school (see ABC News and Washington Times) wearing the shirt, and many classmates are wearing the shirt, too. From the Washington Times account:
Jared Marcum, 14, was joined by about 100 other students across Logan County who wore shirts with a similar gun rights theme in a show of support for free speech.Ben White, the Charleston lawyer representing the Logan eighth-grader, said the Sons of the Second Amendment, a gun rights group, purchased and distributed the shirts....
Marcum’s lawyer is quoted as saying that the charges would be dropped. The arrest apparently stemmed not from the T-shirt wearing as such, but from the behavior at the dispute that arose as a result; there is disagreement about who was at fault for that behavior:
Video evidence in the case, Mr. White said, indicates that the situation in the cafeteria deteriorated when a teacher raised his voice while confronting Jared. Other students jumped up on benches and began chanting Jared’s name.
“I think the disruption came from the teacher,” Mr. White said.A police officer arrested Jared after he was sent to the school office and again refused to remove the shirt.
Mr. White said Jared was arrested on two charges of disrupting the educational process and obstructing an officer ....
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
Possible scenario: Teacher offers student 3 alternatives 1) cover with other shirt or jacket. 2) Turn inside out. 3) cover with tape or paper.
Student decides to become belligerent and rude.
Other students decide to feed into his behavior and he acts out worse since he has an audience.
But this is a possible scenario I am not jumping to conclusions, unlike some of the others here.
A police state is a safe state. The Speed limit says 55 miles an hour you typically go how fast?
Look up the SF86, Questionnare for National Security Positions, section 22.1. It asks for all arrests, then the disposition of them.
Again, people who were around at the time will recall how Linda Tripp was attacked because she hadn’t listed an expunged arrest on her 86.
Exactly the correct response. Thank you for showing such a well thought out measured response.
Yes I do. I know it well enough to know that it is not an absolute right. For instance you don't yell fire in a crowded movie house.. You also do not say things that are going to disrupt the learning of others or cause others to riot.
You might want to study up on the limits of free speech and expression.
That picture needs to have some text on it.
Depicting the human as Obama and the statue as a Saudi of the type that Obama bows to.
I have several hats that say Border Patrol on them.
My grandson picked a military style one and wore it to high school.
He was asked if he didn’t like Mexicans.
He told them, no it’s Canadian border hoppers that bothered him. (I’ve indoctrinated him well...)
Only about 75% of illegal alien criminal invading insurgent usurpers are from Mexico.
And a lot of those are Mideastern terrorists.
You know, FOO’s (Friends Of Obama)
There have been multiple stories indicating that nothing in the school’s dress code prohibited his wearing that shirt. The teacher who instigated the confrontation made that part up.
Va. school district settles lawsuit with student who sued over dress code
Eighth-grader was prohibited from wearing T-shirt that depicted images of weapons
March 4, 2004
VIRGINIA — A middle school student who sued his school district over its dress code has agreed to settle the case with the school board.Eighth-grader Alan Newsom and his father sued Albemarle County School Board in September 2002, alleging that a Jack Jouett Middle School assistant principal violated his First Amendment right to free expression by requiring him to wear his National Rifle Association T-shirt inside out. The purple T-shirt included the phrase “NRA Sports Shooting Camp” and featured three silhouettes of men holding guns. Both sides said they could not disclose details of the settlement.”This was a case that should never have had to go to litigation,” said Dan Zavadil, Newsom’s attorney, who took the case on behalf of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. “A student’s rights are clear and were clear at the time that we started. [We] made efforts to resolve this short of litigation. At one point, we even offered to accept just an apology and [a promise that the school] won’t do it again.”When the administrator asked Newsom to conceal the image on his shirt, the school’s dress code did not prohibit clothing depicting weapons, according to court documents. The administrator told Newsom to wear the T-shirt inside out because the shirt reminded her of the Columbine High School shootings, court documents say. The school board then changed the policy, banning all images of weapons on clothing. In December 2003, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that Albemarle County School Board could not enforce its revised dress code until the lawsuit was resolved. The court ruled the revised policy was too broad and that the NRA T-shirt did not disrupt the school.According to the settlement, reached Feb.20, “The parties recognize the rights and responsibilities of the students in the school system and the School Board’s continued support for its teachers and administrators.”Newsom sought $100,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages, as well as legal fees, which the NRA estimated to be $127,000 in mid-January, according to a Feb. 26 article in The Hook magazine. “It is somewhat ironic that we’ve got a First Amendment case that we can’t talk about,” Zavadil said, referring to an agreement that the terms of the settlement not be disclosed.The Jouett Handbook has been revised to allow students to wear an article of clothing “provided it does not disrupt the educational environment. “ The revision has been distributed to students.Under the new policy, Newsom could wear his NRA T-shirt, said Mark Trank, the deputy attorney for Albemarle County. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District applies to the student dress code in this case, he said.In that decision, the court ruled that public school students ‘’do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
In December 1965, Des Moines, Iowa residents John F. Tinker (15 years old), John’s younger sister Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old), and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools (high school for John and Christopher, junior high for Mary Beth) in protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The principals of the Des Moines schools adopted a policy banning the wearing of armbands to school. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to violate this policy, and the next day John Tinker also did so. All were suspended from school until after January 1, 1966, when their protest had been scheduled to end.
A suit was not filed until after the Iowa Civil Liberties Union approached their family, and the ACLU agreed to help the family with the lawsuit. Their parents, in turn, filed suit in U.S. District Court, which upheld the decision of the Des Moines school board. A tie vote in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit meant that the U.S. District Court’s decision continued to stand, and forced the Tinkers and Eckhardts to appeal to the Supreme Court directly. The case was argued before the court on November 12, 1968.
The court’s decision
The court’s 7 to 2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” [1] Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was “based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation’s part in the conflagration in Vietnam.” The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they “must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” allowing schools to forbid conduct that would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.”[2] The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.
There was no disruption or inciting of “riot” until the teacher caused a problem in the lunch room.
If the shirt was generally disruptive and inciting of riotous behavior, it would have occurred prior to lunch time.
Agree. Feel free to Photoshop.
Our school has a dress code that specifies no shirt straps narrower than 1 inch (Male or female) and Shorts must be longer than relaxed fingertip length.
Last year on lunch duty (3rd Block) I can't tell you the number of students that walked into the cafeteria in violation. The Dress code was published. The students were shown a video as to waht was acceptable and what wasn't. The School board approved the policy.
Should I have just ignored the violations since the other teachers in 1st and 2nd block? or should i have done my job and sent them to the office and had their parents bring them appropriate attire?
He doesn’t have to remove the shirt, there’s the problem. Tinker established that students don’t check their first amendment rights at the schoolhouse doors. School administrators, not teachers, can limit these rights if they reasonably forecast that their speech will create a substantial disruption. This kid will win his lawsuit.
Again, people who were around at the time will recall how Linda Tripp was attacked because she hadn’t listed an expunged arrest on her 86.
Ok, I went and looked up the SF86 and section 22.1 (and mercy that's a doozy of a form), the previous form I knew about saw said felony arrest, the new one form (straight from the govt website at 127 pages) is any arrest in the last 7 years.
The new form also prefaces it's criminal question section to "in the last 7 years", so I don't know if that would have made a difference in the Linda Tripp flap. She was before my time.
Does the school have a dress code? That is the issue.
Good point.
The teacher, principal and police did all of these things, all the kid did was wear a shirt promoting the second amendment.
Typical concern troll anti-Constitution, making it seem the kid was "saying" things when he wasn't.
In West ByGod Virginia? This kid walks.
Check this out, in California now homeless are allowed to pee and poop in public according to the new law.
Bill would enact homeless rights
San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | 4/23/2013 | Christopher Cadelago
Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:43:14 PM by South40
SACRAMENTO — San Diego County’s growing homeless population could sleep and sit in public and solicit donations without facing criminal citations under a proposal moving through the California Legislature.
Supporters of the Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act say it would establish needed protections from discrimination against the homeless. They point to a wave of “quality of life” and “anti-nuisance” ordinances enacted by cities and counties that criminalize sleeping, sitting and sharing food in public places.
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.