dksuddeth

This idiot should be tried and executed for violating his oath of office and trying to rewrite the constitution and force society to operate according to his own ideals. Not only has this traitor redefined the second amendment in the 9th circuit, but now he's made it so that you only have first amendment rights as long as he agrees with the message.

http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1307&year=

Appeals court rejects request to rehear anti-gay T-shirt case

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week denied an appeal for the full court to hear the case of a student who was prohibited from wearing a T-shirt with anti-gay statements.

The appeal followed a 2-1 9th Circuit panel decision in April in favor of the Poway Unified School District in Poway.

In April, the panel found administrators at Poway High School did not violate Tyler Harper’s First Amendment rights when they banned him from wearing a T-shirt that read “Be ashamed, our school embraced what God has condemned,” on the front, and “Homosexuality is shameful,” on the back.

In a fiery opinion released Monday, the judges opposed to granting the re-hearing said Harper’s shirt was tantamount to wearing a shirt that says, “Hide Your Sisters — The Blacks Are Coming,” and said allowing such slogans violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1969 precedent in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

In Tinker, the Court ruled that in order to censor a student publication, administrators must prove that the material would create a “substantial disruption” of normal school activities or would invade the rights of others.

“The dissenters still don’t get the message — or Tinker!” the opinion read. “Advising a young high school or grade school student while he is in class that he and other gays and lesbians are shameful, and that God disapproves of him, is not simply ‘unpleasant and offensive.’ It strikes at the very core of the young student’s dignity and self-worth.”

The opinion went on to say that school administrators’ prohibition of the anti-gay T-shirt was “consistent with Tinker’s protection of the right of individual students ‘to be secure and to be let alone.’”

Five judges supported Harper’s request for an en banc hearing, and in a dissent they said by not rehearing the case, the court was permitting the district to engage in viewpoint discrimination.

“Harper’s shirt was undoubtedly unpleasant and offensive to some students, but Tinker does not permit school administrators to ban speech on the basis of ‘a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” the dissent read.

Robert Tyler, Harper’s lawyer, could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.
Harper was a sophomore in April 2004 when he wore the controversial T-shirt in response to a Gay-Straight Alliance club’s “Day of Silence” at his school. He was asked to remain in the office for the remainder of the school day, but was not suspended.

He responded by filing a lawsuit against school administrators, claiming they had violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion. A federal district court initially upheld Harper’s First Amendment claims, but the 9th Circuit panel overturned its decision, citing Tinker.

Harper’s final appeal option is with the U.S. Supreme Court, which must be filed within 90 days.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Frosstbyte

When you are a minor and in a school, your constitutional rights are somewhat abridged. Lots of schools have rules against kids wearing shirts with swear words and advertisements about drugs and alcohol on them because they are considered disruptive. I knew of one person when I was in high school who was suspended for wearing a shirt with a racial slur on it. Is this somehow different?

I mean, sure, the wording is relatively "polite" insofar as it doesn't say "God condemns all you ass-fucking fags to burn in hell," but the message is essentially the same.

The first amendment right to free speech is not absolute and does not protect you from all consequences of your exercise of free speech. It says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . ." It says nothing about a school making a rule that you can't wear t-shirts that are offensive. Try showing up to a client meeting in an office wearing a bikini, covered in feces and hungover. If you did and got fired, you'd have a tough case for saying that your employers had violated your first amendment rights.

Codes of conduct exist all over the place. Public schools have them and they are much more strict than what the first amendment allows. This kid violated that code of conduct (I'd assume knowingly) and got busted. Seems pretty clear to me. The ruling doesn't say he can't wear it at home or on the street or in a park or to church or that it must be burned as offensive to all good Americans. It says that this t-shirt violated this school's rules and those rules allow for a constitutional abridgement of first amendment rights under Tinker. Every court reading that decision subsequently would read it that narrowly. He didn't make it a rule that no one can wear t-shirts that criticize gay lifestyles.

There are plenty of people in the government right now that you should be worried about infringing on your constitutional rights. Reinhardt's upholding of a school rule intended to prevent people from wearing inappropriate and offensive clothing in the class room probably isn't the one to be going after.

dksuddeth

The courts tried the 'constitution only prohibits the feds' argument once when it pertained to blacks being able to bear arms, hence the 14th amendment. The other, bigger, problem is when reinhardt made previous decisions that allowed pro-gay rights shirts to be worn in schools.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Frosstbyte

You don't find there to be an inherent difference between, wearing a "I'm gay and proud" t-shirt and wearing a "Being gay is shameful and against God" t-shirt?

The first is simply a statement of who the person is. Not really meaningfully different than a Christian wearing a cross or someone who is straight edge drawing x's on the back of his hands. Being gay, by current societal standards, is more provocative than being Christian or being straight edge, but the intent of the message is the same.

The second is a value judgment intended to demean and marginalize another person's identity. It is intended to incite a response because it openly proclaims a belieft that what other people are doing is wrong and they should stop doing it because it is globally offensive.

You've provided precious few morsels about the previous decision. If the t-shirts in those decisions were along the lines of "I'm gay," then the above point stands. If the t-shirts said, "Not being gay is repulsive" or "Anyone who opposes gay marriage should be ashamed," then I suppose we have a fairly common case of reverse discrimination in which the minority receives more rights than the majority due to a societal priority to protect minorities. I'm no fan of reverse discrimination, but it seems to be fairly widespread at this point.

dksuddeth

whether its a statement of who a person is or how a person thinks one should feel about a particular issue SHOULD be irrelevant. free speech is free speech. Does this mean that a shirt wearing your previous comments with swear words be allowed? no, for that is blatantly disruptive but a school should not be allowed to censor something that is clearly guaranteed by the first amendment. Just because something is fairly widespread does not mean that it's right or that it should be legalized by judicial fiat.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Paq

just an aside, but IIRC, my highschool had a rule of "shirts with slogans or pictures that are deemed offensive or questionably offensive are not permitted" most of the time, they ask you to change your shirt or they hold you in the office till someone brings diff clothing. it is their policy, their rules and it is simply life in a school setting. I don't even know how he had a court case to begin with.

__________________
Live.

Chris

Frosstbyte

Paq said it much more concisely than I did, but that's basically the point I was getting at. Schools have dress codes and they've been granted exceedingly wide discretion in determining what does or does not meet the dress codes.

Tophat665

That seems pretty straightforward.

Hmm.
Well, that would surely cause substantial disruption.

Little fast to pull the trigger there, big guy. Do get real. Save your outrage for something meaningful (like whether the Sumpreme Court can overturn an election because they agree with the loser's politics), not whether a school has the right to tell someone to stop being a disruptive punk.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Ustwo

While I think the 9th circus court is loony, schools are NOT a place for free speach in my book. Sit down, shut up, and study.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dksuddeth

that would be an excellent idea, however, the cat is already out of the bag. The school allowed the Gay-Straight Alliance club’s “Day of Silence” to occur, but I guess that's protected free speech or protected peacable assembly.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Children should have the same free speech, free religion, free press, etc. rights as adults. While I may not agree with the shirt, I would defend Tyler Harper's right to wear it with my life. I'd also practice free speech myself explaining why his shirt makes him a massive biggot and a jaskass. The little fucker was purpously trying to be a disruption, of course, but that falls to the side when the issue becomes constitutional. I could wear a big swaztika on my shirt walking through an area heavily populated by Jewish people. Yes, I'd be an asshole, but my actions would be protected by free speech. I'd be wrong from the standpoint of good taste and probably morality, but I would be defended by free speech. All freedoms come with responsibility.

flstf

If I recall correctly, not too long ago some high schools were banning clothes depicting the U.S.A flag because some students in favor of illegal immigrant amnesty may find them offensive. I believe those same schools banned Mexican flag apparel as well.

uncle phil

wow...i can now get away with yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded movie theater?

__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.

guy44

Actually, I remember studying Tinker pretty well, and if I'm correct, this case basically rests upon the "disruption" line of argument. The reality is, a shirt promoting tolerance (i.e., Hate Free Environment, or something) or proclaiming one's homosexuality (i.e., We're Here and We're Queer, or something, although that slogan is so 1990...) almost certainly don't qualify as disruptive. But hate speech like that shirt would qualify without a doubt.

And make no mistake - the 9th was correct. That shirt is no different than one saying “Hide Your Sisters — The Blacks Are Coming.” That's hateful and without a doubt disruptive.

By the way, I'm not necessarily making the argument that the Tinker decision is adequate to protect student civil rights. I'm just saying, under Tinker, this decision was correctly decided.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

Mephisto2

Ok, just about here is where I stopped reading.

Anyone else see the irony in this rant?



Mr Mephisto

hannukah harry

children do have the same free speach rights. if that kid wants to wear his shirt, he's free to do so. but he can't wear it in school. just like he probably can't wear hats. and the girls (probably) can't wear daisy dukes or super-mini skirts.

i have a job. when i'm at work, i can only wear clothes that meet certain criteria. are my first amendment rights being denied? how is this kid being at school any different?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Willravel

Children do not enjoy the same freedoms and responsibilities as adults.

In High School my car was searched for drugs as often as twice a week. They never found anything because there was nothing to find, of course, but the thought that no one needed a warrent to search my car because I was 16 instead of 18 disgusted me. I never parked on campus, but they were allowed to search my car none the less. I spoke out when several faculty members decided that evolution was going to take a back seat to creationism. Not only wasn't I heard, but I was suspended for putting together a petition to fix the curriculum. When I was maybe 14 or 15, I asked my dad why I couldn't vote yet. He explained that children weren't responsible or mature enough to vote. I argued that many adults were irresponsible and immature, but they were allowed to vote. There are limits to how much freedom minors can exercise.

As far as the comparison to a dress code at work...are you legally required to go to your job? Will a truency officer hunt you down if you don't go to work? If you don't like the dress code at your job, then you can find another job. If you don't like your school's dress code, that's too bad.

hannukah harry

what does that have to do with my contention that minors do have the same free speach rights?

if you weren't parking on campus, then no, they did not have a right to search your car. you should have called the cops. gone and gotten a court order if you didn't want them to do it. but if you wanted to park on campus, they had the right to make you accept searches as a condition of parking on campus.

and why didn't you do something about that? that's a clear violation of your rights and would not have held up in court. people in power will always exert as much power as they can, if you don't say something, do something, when they overstep their authority, why bitch about it? or is it possible that maybe the manner in which you went about this petition had to do with your suspension and not the petition itself? (i wouldn't know, just something to think about).

voting isn't a freedom. it's an inalienable right and responsibility of living in a free society. you aren't free to vote. it's your responsibility to do so (which many people choose to ignore and not vote). we also don't let people under 21 drink alcohol. but any 12 year old can make a sign and protest his inability to vote or drink. to my knowledge, there are no limits to the first amendment based on being a minor. if there are some you know of, i'd appreciate you filling me in.

you're not legally required to go to public school. you can be home schooled. and once you turn 16, you're not required to go to school at all.

yeah, it's too bad if you don't like your schools dress code. it's too bad if you don't like your jobs dress code. it's too bad if you don't like the (unspoken) norms of appropriate dress at church/synagogue, funerals, etc.

the comparison between school and work dress codes works fine. when you're not on your own time, you don't necessarily have the right to wear whatever you want. hell, even when you are on your own time, you can't wear whatever you want. otherwise i'd be doing my grocery shopping in the nude.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Frosstbyte

Yes, I noticed it and waltzed on by. I'm too prone to exaggeration myself to let it stop me from getting into a discussion.

dksuddeth

no, but then again, i'm told i'm a closed minded extremist. Maybe you could explain whats ironic about wanting a justice impeached and executed for, what I consider, rewriting the constitution with his decisions based on his ideology.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Paq

i hate myself for saying this


but i wholeheartedly agree with ustwo. i have tons of friends who teach and that's the best way i know they can get their jobs done....

__________________
Live.

Chris

The_Jazz

I think that this arguement starts and ends with the fact that what you're alleging he's done is not a capital crime. It's not even a jailable offense since you're not alleging that he's done it in a criminal way (i.e. taking bribes). It's possible to remove a federal judge for decisions but not to jail him.

DK, you and I have had amicable discussions in the past, but recently you're upped your rhetoric to include very violent overtones. Personally, I'm just not going to engage in conversations of that type, espeically when your responses to my posts are becoming increasingly personal. I think I'll be staying out of "Politics" for the most part for a while. Good luck.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

If a sitting federal justice(s) makes a ruling that completely contradicts the constitution, like removing the need for a search warrant based on 'terrorism' investigations, you don't think that justice should at least be tried after impeachment?

Jazz, I'm sorry if you've taken some of my comments personally offensive and while I freely admit that I take some things to a personal level, this is done to try to get people thinking about things on a personal level, not just as a 'big picture' aspect of the issue.

As to my violent overtones....alot of people have this notion that violence is never the answer, that there is ALWAYS a peaceful solution, but I believe that this is just plain wrong. When dealing with most people on a personal level, peaceful solutions can usually work, but when dealing with an entity comprised of specific masses (like a government), sometimes violence is the only option a free people have left. If that offends you....well, that wouldn't be my problem. Maybe that's something that you need to take a look at within yourself and see where you truly lie within the issues of today. I don't know, to me it seems like you don't get it, that you're perfectly fine with how things are run today. I find that quite disturbing, personally.

Anyway, if you feel the need to stay out of conversations that I'm involved in because talk of violence offends you then please do so, but understand that, despite our differences of opinions, you're voice will be missed.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Jinn

I fail to see how a schools prohibition or even suspension for certain conduct is in ANY way infringing on first amendment rights.

First Amendment rights have and ALWAYS have come with a caveat. You are allowed to say what you want when you want, but you must also accept the consequences. the First Amendment allows you to yell fire in a crowded building, but that does not mean you aren't breaking other laws. Just as the First Amendment allowed him to wear the t-shirt, a school prohibiting him from wearing it does not impede his rights.

School Authority != Government Authority. If they want to prohibit people from dying their hair in their high school, they can do so without violating a student's right to "expression." The students are still absolutely freee to exercise their rights, but they must accept the consequences clearly laid out in my school's rules.

And furthermore, he's not "rewriting" the Constitution or any such nonsense. The decision has a firm legal standing and it AGREES with the Constitution, whether you agree with HIM or not.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

JumpinJesus

I'm not a lawyer or a judge so my opinion is uneducated at best in this area.

The way I understand it, is that many decisions made in courts regarding the legality of laws and their enforcement is done largely by precedent. That is, lawyers and judges use the rulings of prior cases to decide the legality or constitutionality of the case they are arguing. If this is true, then this judge was entirely correct in his decision.

I have to say, though, that arguing for the execution of a judge whose decision we disagree with is a bit dramatic.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

level five

seems like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth from just this. on one hand, you disagree with the contention that children don't have the same rights as their parents - apparently relating to being on campus - and then you said a student doesn't have the same civil rights on campus when it comes to searching as they would off campus.

i'm not trying to start something, i just don't understand what appears to be contradictory points of view. if i'm missing something i'm certainly open to seeing the error of my ways.

p.s. sorry, i don't have the expertise to quote the quote in this. feel free to clean things up if you'd like as i won't take offense.

xepherys

I feel a bit on the fence about this issue. While I 100% supports Constitutional rights, I also don't believe his rights were dashed in this case. First of all, "public" schools are not "public" in quite the sense that one might think. They have the right AND the responsibility to supply an ample learning environment for all attending students. An 18-y/o senior at high school is (generally) not permitted to smoke on school grounds. Is this a violation of a right he is granted by other laws? I don't believe so. There is a Constitutional right to bear arms, that doesn't mean I support 12-y/o's going to class with pistols. *shrug*

hannukah harry

kids don't have the same civil rights as adults. in many cases they do, but depending on the situation, there are lots of times even adults don't have their rights. when at work, company rules usually override civil liberties. if you're at school, school rules do. but if your car is not on campus, it seems like there would be no basis for the school to search his car, while on campus random (or not so random) search may be quite legit.

part of why the statements you quoted might seem contradictory is because one is talking about the kid from the article wearing the "disruptive" shirt, the other about car searches by the school, both on- and off-campus. one is a free speech issue, the other isn't. i think you may be comparing apples to oranges and that's where the contradiction comes from.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

level five

uhh...been around long enough to know that kids have no rights n school, but thanks for the primer.

if both situation are on campus then don't the "on campus" rules apply? that was my question. i clearly understand all the rest.

you made the contradictions, not me...

hannukah harry

i guess i'm missing the contradiction... if he's parked on campus, he can be searched, if he's not parked on campus, they shouldn't be able to search his car.

specifically point out the contradiction that you think is there, since i don't see it, and i'll try to adress it.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

dksuddeth

kids have no rights in school? none at all? Then lets start the random body cavity searches as soon as possible.

kids do have rights in school, they just seem to be getting fewer and fewer as time goes on.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

analog

robot_parade

On the 'serious' side: I don't think this is as inflamatory as some make it out to be - this is in a school setting, and schools *have* to be able to enforce some reasonable restrictions on what students wear.

Not so serious:

“Hide Your Sisters — The Blacks Are Coming,”

If the blacks are already coming, isn't it too late to hide your sisters?

MINCKEN

What is it that causes us to flog one another about the 1st Amendment rights of juveniles? Why is our perspective so limited that we cannot see the greater wrong? We the citizens have a contract with our elected servants to insure the future of our United States of America.

It goes something like this; the next generation must be educated well so that they will get a good job and make a lot of money. They will than be able to pay a bunch of taxes to cover the debts I have left them.

If some jerk off’s parents allow him to act outside of the envelope, they should be penalized severely! The kid has caused a disruption in the order of things, thus wasting my tax money and putting the future of my country in jeopardy. If the Constitution be interpreted in such a way as to allow the Uniform Code of Military Justice to govern the lives of the military, make it applicable to school kids also.

It will lessen the waste of taxes, teachers will be allowed to teach, parents will become accountable, our Social Security will be secure.

And if those kids start screaming about the debt our generation has left for them to pay, just tell them BULLSHIT. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION DOES NOT APPLY HERE!

MINCKEN
Fight for peace,
Rape for virginity,
Goodnight,
Goodluck.

dksuddeth

Rienhardt overturns cold blooded killers conviction, because family members wore buttons with victims picture on it.

Anyone still not think that Reinhardt shouldn't be impeached?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

Federal judges, like the Pres and VP, "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II, Sec. 4).

Unpopular, or even improper decisions do not rise to that level.

I dont know the full details of this case, but I do believe that the Rhenquist Court has overturned as many cases from conservative judges in the 9th circuit as from liberal judges in recent terms. Should those conservative judges be equally subject to impeachment?

We have an independent, tiered federal judiciary where decionmaking should not be influenced by politcially motivated threats.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

The_Jazz

So you've come down off your high horse and started to ask if we agree to something potentially plausible and actually legal? You started off this thread with a death threat.

I in no way agree with this decision, but you are ever going to begin to convince me that impeachment is reasonable in this case (on the sole basis that you don't agree with him), you need to lay off the rhetoric and actually discuss the issues. See Post #22.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dc_dux

Some might suggest the same arguments apply for the impeachment of Bush, but I would hope it would be limited to impeachment, and not execution (sorry, I couldnt resist )

Impeachment is a SERIOUS Constitutional remedy and should never be politicized.

There is an excellent interview with former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor worth reading on the threat to an indpendent juidiciary:

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

I did NOT start this off with a death threat. I simply said he should be tried and executed, via due process, which is in NO WAY a death threat. Please do not attribute statements to me that were never made.

I've read it and she's right. One has to consider, how many cases must one have overturned before you consider to remove a justice from the bench?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

This is an extremist position taken by both the far left and the far right based purely on ideological unhappiness with the ruling in question.

It is completely contrary to what O'Connor said:

The many calls for retaliation against judges for rulings in particular cases, run directly counter to the concept of the Framers of the Constitution.

When you can prove that his rulings are made with a willful intent for personal gain and not an honest interpretation of the law with which you, or even the higher court disagree, you may have a case for impeachment.

Even more extremist is a suggestion of execution of a judge, showing complete and utter disdain for the Constitution.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire