Terrorist T-shirt OK

[bobgote]

I think this would be along the same lines as some of the talk going on in the veil thread. Basically an issue of freedom of opinion kind of stuff. This article says to me that America has it right...eventually...

Anyway to you guys (and gals) - is this right? Should students be able to wear their political views on their sleeves, so to speak?

Terrorist t-shirt OK

October 2, 2003 - 1:23PM

A high school student has the right to wear a t-shirt to school with the face of President George W Bush and the words "International Terrorist" on the front, a US federal judge ruled today.

"There is no evidence that the t-shirt created any disturbance or disruption," US District Judge Patrick J Duggan said in the ruling released today by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which sued the Dearborn school district on behalf of Bretton Barber.

An assistant principal had ordered Barber in February to conceal the anti-Bush message or go home. Dearborn High said it worried about inflaming passions at the suburban Detroit school, where a majority of students are Arab-American.

But, the judge said: "The record does not reveal any basis for (the assistant principal's) fear aside from his belief that the t-shirt conveyed an unpopular political message."

Lawyers for the school district declined to comment on the case. There was no answer at the district offices this evening.

"The court's decision reaffirms the principle that students don't give up their right to express opinions on matters of public importance once they enter school," Kary Moss, executive director of the state ACLU, said in a news release today.

Barber was 16 when he wore the shirt on a day he was scheduled to present a "compare and contrast" essay in English class. Barber had chosen to compare Bush to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

At the time, Bretton said he wanted to express his anti-war position by wearing the shirt, which he ordered on the internet.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/02/1064988315849.html

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Its funny, the student probably has a better grasp of what freedom of speech is than the assistant principal does.

 

[Turner]

Sure, let them wear it on their sleeves. It's freedom of speech, after all. What some people don't realize (and obviously this judge is not amoung this group) is that freedom of speech applies to everyone, even those who's opinion is different from theirs.

 

[WickedSmurf]

It's just a T-shirt... How did it get to court in the first place?

 

[bobgote]

he was probably banned from wearing it, then went to the ACLU (hey, that's the second time they've popped up in probably a day) to complain, or they heard about it and picked up the case. They'd have gone "That's a bleedin' outrage, that is!" or something of the like, and taken the school to court.

 

[Stapel]

Freedom is a great thing! But in some (rare) situation it can be its own enemy.

I think freedom has its boundaries. Freedom of speech (just as freedom of religion) should be limited by discrimination or inciting / causing violence.

Since wearing this T-shirt doesn't jeapordize freedom, I completely fail to see why theck this issue went to court.

Originally said by US District Judge Patrick J Duggan
There is no evidence that the t-shirt created any disturbance or disruption

It seems Mr Duggan agrees with me. But even if it would create disturbance and disruption, it is questionable where the fault is: The messenger or the receiver?

All is relative! What if I wear a yellow shirt, and lots of people get angry for this, as their religion sais wearing yellow stuff is a call for the devil? This might create disturbance and disruption. Would that mean the end of yellow shirts?

 

[WickedSmurf]

I love this world. It is just so bizarre...

 

[Sickman]

About t-shirt which would have picture of Hitler in the background and "Jesus of Mine" written over it.

It could be taken as joke I suppose...

 

[WickedSmurf]

Only the most stupid people would take a shirt like that seriously.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Sickman
About t-shirt which would have picture of Hitler in the background and "Jesus of Mine" written over it.

It could be taken as joke I suppose...

Since Hitler is known to any slightly educated person in this world as history's most nasty racial dicriminator, such a T-shirt is clearly discriminating. It is my view that freedom of speech ends with discrimination.

 

[Mescalhead]

Yous guys in Europe and Australia should understand that America is a bit more conservative than most other Western countries. I couldn't see getting away with this without some opposition at the highschool I went to. Although mine consisted of a majority of middle-class white kids.

I agree with the ruling. I even think the Jesus Hitler shirt is fine, just as long as your prepared to get jumped by a large number of non-WASPs and WASPish NON-WASP sympathisers. And of course those people who just plain hate Hitler.

Its called 'freedom of speech', not 'assurance that you won't get punched in the face'.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Mescalhead
Yous guys in Europe and Australia should understand that America is a bit more conservative than most other Western countries. I couldn't see getting away with this without some opposition at the highschool I went to. Although mine consisted of a majority of middle-class white kids.

I agree with the ruling. I even think the Jesus Hitler shirt is fine, just as long as your prepared to get jumped by a large number of non-WASPs and WASPish NON-WASP sympathisers. And of course those people who just plain hate Hitler.

Its called 'freedom of speech', not 'assurance that you won't get punched in the face'.

Apart from the US being more conservative and patriotic, another difference between USA and Europa (don't know much about Ostraaaalia) is the interpretence of freedom.

Freedom of speech is almost unlimited in the US. Here in Holland people can get prosecuted for ventilating a discriminating view.

Afaik, in the US people have the freedom to raise a 'white men only' sportsclub. Is it true freedom to raise a club the way you want it? Or is freedom violated if you cannot join a club because of wearing the wrong skin or sexual attributes?

Without having this discussion, we can conclude freedom has no clear definition!

 

[Turner]

Taking the devils advocate here, if you are excluded from a club for reasons of skin color (not something I condone, btw) there's nothing stopping you from starting your own club, with your own exclusions. It's called 'seperate but equal.' And it didn't work very well here. People naturally don't like being exluded from things. "I'm as good as any and better than most" is the way one SciFi writer puts it in his stories. ..

 

[Yago]

I think this would be along the same lines as some of the talk going on in the veil thread. Basically an issue of freedom of opinion kind of stuff.

In a very broad view it's about the same lines as the veil-thread. But with the huge difference, that it's a student who's wearing it and not a teacher. A teacher is an employee, a student has to go to school. A she-student can always weir a veil, whenever, wherever and certainly in a religious-neutral school. That the students are not infringed in their beliefs, that's the point of religious-neutrality of schools.. But that's different for teachers.

I see it as pretty reasonable that it went to court. The school in case obviously was on a wrong path. And surely a lot other schools were on the same wrong path or would be inspired by the examples of other to walkt the same wrong path. So, they needed the court to guide them all back on the right path. That's what a court is all about.I think. I hope.

 

[Hamlet]

Freedom of speech should have restrictions when it is used to actively serve the interests of inflaming hate and agression against people's fellows, and does so.

 

[MrPresident]

Anyone who feels it necessary to wear such a shirt to get across their views is a fool. Besides from the point that name-calling is hardly the refuge of an intellect, the shirt does nothing to explain how the person reached such a view. The only purpose of such a shirt is to annoy those who support Mr Bush. This is, of course, covered by freedom of speech but that does not mean he should have worn it. I would say to that young man that rather than resorting to "shock value" tactics of communication he engage people of different opinions in debate in the hope that brighter minds prevail.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Anyone who feels it necessary to wear such a shirt to get across their views is a fool. Besides from the point that name-calling is hardly the refuge of an intellect, the shirt does nothing to explain how the person reached such a view. The only purpose of such a shirt is to annoy those who support Mr Bush. This is, of course, covered by freedom of speech but that does not mean he should have worn it. I would say to that young man that rather than resorting to "shock value" tactics of communication he engage people of different opinions in debate in the hope that brighter minds prevail.

I think he has the right to be a fool! Fools have the right to annoy others with their stupid views. These others have the rigth to say he is fool for having these stupid views, but they cannot take away his way of expressing these views.

Annoying supporters of Mr Bush is no crime.

 

[Tathlum]

Freedom of speech should stand. Because I laughed at "tiocaigh ar La-La" (taking the Pi** out of an IRA quote) and "Ulster says PO" (Taking the Pi** out of a Unionist quote) tee-shirts, I can't complain about Hitler/Jesus tee-shirts or Jesus was a C**t tee-shirts.
A tee-shirt isn't enough to count as incitement to violence. Someone who beats up someone in a Hitler/Jesus tee-shirt is still guilty of assault. You have to be reasonable and accountable in your actions. Which brings up self-cencorship. Just because you are allowed say something doesn't allways mean you should. He should have the right to wear the tee-shirt but he should probably choose to leave it at home. Wearing a tee-shirt for the purpose of upseting others/ looking like a rebel doesn't make you a criminal. Sometimes, however it does make you an A**ehole.
As for Europeans being less Patriotic than Americans, have you ever met an Irishman/Scot/Frenchman???

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Stapel
I think he has the right to be a fool!

This is a trap that far too many people fall into. Criticism of an action does not mean one would wish such actions to be prohibited, in fact this is hardly ever the case. I never said and never will say that this person does not have the right to wear such a shirt. I merely said he was a fool for doing so. If you wish to debate this point then do so. However please would you not do so by accusing me of saying things I do not say.

Originally posted by Stapel
Annoying supporters of Mr Bush is no crime.

It depends on the action.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Tathlum
As for Europeans being less Patriotic than Americans, have you ever met an Irishman/Scot/Frenchman???

I think the point was, generally, that America is essentially the most right-wing western nation. Which it almost certainly is.