On August 13, the 5th Circuit agreed with a lower court that public schools may prohibit students from wearing T-shirts with a campaign slogan. The student was forbidden in 2007 from wearing a T-shirt to school that said, “John Edwards for President ’08”. The case is Palmer v Waxahachie Independent School District, 08-10903. The school forbade all T-shirts with messages of any kind, so the judges felt the restriction is content-neutral.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Wow, talk about an attack on free speech.
What do you expect from a Supreme Court composed of appointees from the Duopoly.
More than once public employees have blocked me from speaking out! John Smith of the Veterans Home of California at Chula Vista more than once threw my flyers off the table and onto the trash can, including copies of the federal First Amendment!
As noted before, the case involved a student who wore a tourist shirt from San Diego, California to school. His parents were called to bring him more appropriate clothing, and they brought the Edwards T-shirt. The district court and now the circuit court have ruled that the school district’s ban on clothing with messages of any kind (other than for the school) was content-neutral.
The headline is misleading since the ban was not on “campaign T-shirts”.
According to the opinion Palmer submitted three shirts to the school district:
“One was the original John Edwards for President t-shirt, one was a John Edwards for President polo shirt, and one was a t-shirt with “Freedom of Speech†on the front and the text of the First Amendment on the back.”
All three were rejected. One wonders whether a “John Quincy Adams for President” would have been deemed as offensive. As for the third shirt…shocking! Imagine how distracting and incendiary THAT would have been among the kiddies. Imagine spreading that kind of trash around the halls of a public high school.
It’s worth noting that the dress code which the court ruled on had been changed (expanded) after suit had originally been filed.
It [the freedom of press garment] is from a piss poor source, [the Sandy Ego Union Tribune, recently sold off] as the tee shirt came from the semi fascist anti populace metropolitan daily with the text of the First Amendment on the back. To them, kissing the rear ends of the power elite decade after decade, including loaning staffers to the Nixon campaign and or White House, free speech is getting to hear what you want to hear!
Typical Ed Biz types may focus [some what] on the students, or the families, or the public, or [heavens] free speech, but what they REALLY care ’bout is their own job security!
Wanna keep them up at night? Threaten their careers! Fines? Hey it is the public’s money not their’s. Injunctions? Just paper work, unenforceable with out local informants! Move to have board members resign /recalled and administrators let go, and watch the Maalox sales creep up ward!
Ok, content neutral is indeed an important issue when dealing with protected speech…but it is not the only issue that a court is suppose to consider.
Why is this rule imposed? I can see the reason for dealing with ‘gang symbols’, ‘hate speech’ or sexually or drug related themes. Not to say the reasons are always good, but they are (arguments aside) trying to deal with a students health and safety.
Yet, a t-shirt endorsing a candidate does not seem to really a health or safety issue, unless political differences are leading to violence.
ETJB- I would guess that the school system doesn’t want to be in the position of having to decide which slogans are political and which are not. Would they have to consider a T-shirt endorsing the Marijuana Reform Party as not being drug-related?
Do you have the right to wear a T-shirt to work that says, “F— the Boss!”? I suggest you NOT try that experiment!
Jeffrey said:
“Do you have the right to wear a T-shirt to work that says, ‘F— the Boss!’? I suggest you NOT try that experiment!”
That situation has nothing to do with the First Amendment, unless you are working for a government agency.
Even then, the government agency would have some legitimate power to regulate what you can wear while you are on duty as an employee of that agency.
Students, however, are not employees of their schools (usually).
Yes, but the drug message gets back to health and safety concerns. The F=word is not really protected as is political or religious speech.
Bottom line, if I were the judge I would like to hear a rational explanation for the law. It is content neutral but it does not seem rationally.
If clothing with messages of any kind is prohibited, then does that mean shirts with the symbols of Nike, Nautica, or Ralph Lauren are prohibited as well?
Students prohibited from wearing T-shirts with messages of any kind. That’s interesting. What would communication scholar Marshall McLuhan say about that? Perhaps “The medium is the message.” Is the blank shirt (the medium)itself a message? One could easily make that argument. Therefore the court must now prohibit clothing of any kind.
randallthayes-The First Amendment, like all rights, is not absolute in all circumstances. Suppose I played a speech by my favorite candidate at high volume all night long. The fact that the content was political wouldn’t prevent the town from citing me for violating the noise ordinances and causing a public nuisance.
T-shirts are less obviously disruptive. My guess is the school would say that SOME messages can be disruptive and they don’t want to be in the business of deciding which are and which aren’t. I’m not sure I agree, but there are argumenys on both sides.
Again, I was not suggesting that rights are absolute. However, this particular school policy seems to fail the basic smell test.
Unless they are going to ban clothing or any symbols or images on any part of their clothing, it becomes hard to argue that they simply dont want to go their.
They have to be able to make such decisions, because kids are probably going to wear clothing and its probably going to have some sort of commercial, political, social, sexual, religious, etc message.
I am not saying that the school cannot have rules or restrictions, just that this one does not seem to pass the basic rational review test.
For any MORONS on this list —
Public school *students* are de facto SLAVES under STATE slavemasters — aka public school teachers and bureaucrats — since the early 1800s – one of the early COMMUNIST regime actions.
Result – the armies of MORON adults — brain dead ignorant about history, law, economics (taxes, spending, deficits) and even ballot access — i.e. lots of Donkey voters ??? Duh.
ABOLISH the EVIL public schools and their control freak COMMUNIST conformist stuff — before it is too late.
See the statist brainwashing in the Stalin and Hitler school regimes — and the millions DEAD as a result.
#5 The original shirt was non-political. I don’t know why the parents didn’t also submit that one after the school board changed their dress-code.
Should the school district have to decide whether a shirt with a picture of Rielle Hunter with a caption of “John Edwards is the One” is permitted or not?
The original incident happened in September 2007. The parents did not file the lawsuit until April 2008. Presumably the changes to the dress code were already being considered at that time. There is no reason to delay implementation simply because the district was being sued.
#11 Logos up to 2 inches square are permitted under terms of the dress-code.
Thank you for the reply about the logos.
Then it is obvious that this country is no longer about free speech for individuals or politicians. We are no longer citizens, we are only viewed by our government as consumers. We should no longer have opinions about politics, philosophy, or religion. Our only goal is to work and consume. It makes no difference if we are Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, or Republicans. We must be consumers. This court has no confirmed that.
This ruling is truly justice in the eyes of corporate America. We now have a court confirming that we live in a brave new world where the ideas of individuals no longer matter. We are merely vessels for the logos of corporate America.
Down with the individual! Up with the corporation! Long live Exxon! Long live Nike! Long live Wal-Mart!
#16 – I didn’t disagree with your statement that the first shirt was nonpolitical.
I have no reason to presume why the dress code was changed when it was, but the timing raises some questions. Not particularly interesting ones from my point of view, mind you; I’d be happy with requiring school uniforms.
But I wonder…would you support a school board if they sent a student home for wearing a T-shirt that said “God bless America”? “Support our Troops”?
How about “My President right or wrong”?
What if a student sports an American flag lapel pin?
Is a statement of patriotism always permitted? If so, who decides what statements are in fact statements of “true” patriotism? Is dissent not patriotic? I’d argue it is. And if we were to disallow statements of dissent, how can we possibly disallow statements supporting a candidate for office? After all, the candidacy of any nonincumbent is inherently an act of dissent. Even when the candidate in question had as much chance of winning as, say, John Quincy Adams.
Don’t send your children to public school.
In public school, they are not free by any measure.
And, the government is keeping files on them – health, psychological, and even what fields they might excel in.
Not being allowed to wear a t-shirt is wrong. But, it is only the tip of the iceberg.
Go to a free school or democrat school. Go to a parent-co-op school. Or, homeschool.
Public school is oppressive.
For those who wish to read some excellent writings about education, I would suggest books by Neil Postman, Ed.D.
I find it quite entertaining to see people railing about government on the internet, a medium that owes its existence almost entirely to 2 government agencies, DARPA, a project of the Pentagon and CERN, a laboratory run by European governments.
Sometimes speech on clothes can be communicated with just a picture, without words. For example, Picasso’s famous painting Guernica. I wonder if the school board would allow wordless T-shirts with pictures.
Also what would happen if an alphabet other than the Latin alphabet were used on a T-shirt, such as Klingon, or Arabic.
Um, for people who are not especially cool, hip or freaky teaky sex machines…who is Rielle Hunter?
Ah, or literate in written English! Or access to google! John ‘Fidelity’ Edwards [Newt Gingrich II ????] and his hugging kissin’ sweety, but other than his dying wife ……….
The first amendment specifically says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” It says nothing about state or local governments this case should be brought on the basis of the state constitution only if there is a provision in it.
citizen1, see the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th as applied to incorporate the First Amendment to apply to all levels of government…
#22 Unintended consequences — like having the pressing press get going in the late Middle Ages — NOT under the control of some government control freaks.
Result – the destruction of the control freak nobility regimes — kings, queens, dukes, etc. — leading to the later destruction of *legal* slavery.
Keep inventing communications stuff.
Oh citizenzero, you’ve got to be kidding! Middle school, High School, community college civics class? You’re yanking our collective chains, right?
Elections: a third of the United States Senate every two years for a six year term; and every two years for the gerrymandered criminals of the house, like federal felon ‘Puke’ Cunningham ……
You are such an embarrassment, the Democans and Republicrats are laughing their asses off!
The Chinese had a custom of embedding (Chinese) words into paintings.
Will our children live in such a authoritarian state that they will do the same on their T-shirts?
Are they allowed to wear arm bands in support of a cause?
Buttons with messages?
Bumper stickers on their notebooks?
Next will be school uniforms in public school.