first Amendment - free speech - homeland terrorist

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

deep

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
28,598
Location
A far distance down.
sticker.gif


Student wins T-shirt battle

LANSDALE, Pa. A Pennsylvania student is off the hook after the American Civil Liberties Union defended his right to wear a political T-shirt to school.
Chris Schiano's (skee-AH'-nohz) T-shirt said "International Terrorist" and had a picture of President Bush.

A security guard at his high school north of Philadelphia told him to take it off. He refused.

Schiano says he's well versed in the First Amendment. He says he "knew right off they had no legal footing to stand on."

The principal says after hearing from the A-C-L-U, school officials realized that the shirt, while potentially offensive, didn't violate the school's dress code. It had no references to sex, drugs, ethnic intimidation or explicit language.

Schiano says he's now wearing the shirt to school and no one's given him a hard time.


story. here
 
I guess the school has a fairly broad dress code. I know some local schools that have prevented students from wearing certain colors because of the message it carried.

Actually, I prefer uniforms as it allows the focus to be on education, and not what was wore to school by any given student.
 
Hmm...these things are open to interpretation, it's not a clear first amendment issue and schools do have some amount of power in determining what's appropriate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the school could've proven it was "disruptive" to the "learning environment" or could legitimately provoke fighting, wouldn't their actions be justified?

I dunno, it's just not as outrageous to me as if that were to happen to some person on the street. It's still a pretty tame shirt (lol) so they probably made the right decision.
 
Again I would like to reiterate(sp?) that sometimes the borders between free speech and poor taste are blurred.

Thats why I really think that the first amendment should be re-examined to include (or remove) issues that weren't around when the constitution was first drafted.

How would anyone like it if I posted on this board that Bono was a cheating, money-grubbing, publicity-seeking SOB who wouldn't know a worthy cause if it fell on him?

I bet you guys wouldn't be so keen on my free speech, right?
 
I strongly disagree there, free speech is not governed by taste, any speech is judged on the basis of its merits and unless speech explicitly incites harm or some issues of national security I cannot think of good cause to have it silenced.

Problems of this nature can be eliminated by uniforms or dress codes.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I strongly disagree there, free speech is not governed by taste, any speech is judged on the basis of its merits and unless speech explicitly incites harm or some issues of national security I cannot think of good cause to have it silenced.

Problems of this nature can be eliminated by uniforms or dress codes.

Hello Wanderer,

I think that calling Bush an international terrorist incites harm, don't you think? It's a blatant personal attack which could be interpreted by some people as giving license to hunt him down and kill him because he's a terrorist who is a danger to the U.S. like Osama Bin Laden.

There are many people with twisted minds who can see this as allowing "open season" on Bush - which is wrong.
 
It's not really, it is free speech, now the Secret Service investigates threats against the president and after more than a few attempts and sucesses over the years they take such things very seriously, such a thing is distinct from condemning the actions of this administration and openly flaunting that opinion.

I think that anybody who would try to assassinate the President is probably not going to be swayed one way or the other by the message of t-shirts or protests.
 
A_Wanderer said:

I think that anybody who would try to assassinate the President is probably not going to be swayed one way or the other by the message of t-shirts or protests.

That may be true but what does it say about the public if such a personal slander is gone unchecked and if everybody shrugs it off......?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of violence or freedom of instigation.

btw - I'm deeply saddened about what is happening in Sydney right now and in the context of this post I'd like to ask you if the rioters are justified for exercising their freedom of speech by attacking people of middle-Eastern appearance.
 
Violence is not free speech, it is an infringement of rights and a violation of the no-harm principle. Now there is no right to not be offended and nor should there be. I will give two distinguishing examples of speech one that should be protected as free speech the other an incitement to violence that should not be protected. Free speech does not cover inciting violence but it does cover offensive speech.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Violence is not free speech, it is an infringement of rights and a violation of the no-harm principle. Now there is no right to not be offended and nor should there be. I will give two distinguishing examples of speech one that should be protected as free speech the other an incitement to violence that should not be protected. Free speech does not cover inciting violence but it does cover offensive speech.

Wanderer, I don't understand that at all and believe me I'm not trying to be difficult. I really need to understand this "free speech" issue.....its driving me mad.

I don't know you personally so what on earth would give me the right to call you a son of a bitch and post a "Wanted" picture of you in your neighbourhood with the word "Killer" on it?

What right does someone (who doesn't know the president personally) have to label the president a terrorist? What has Bush done to possibly justify that horrible description?? Was HE the one who ordered the attacks on Sept.11th? Was HE the one behind the Bali bombings? Did he EVER say that he condones the killing of innocent people?

Bush has the near-impossible job of defending over 300 million people - why would any sane person begrudge him for that? Personally, I'd be grateful that someone is looking out for me and my family and doing all they could to protect me.

People like Prof. Ward Churcill, who said that the people who were killed on 9/11 had it coming and then compared the victims to Nazis, strengthens my belief that Americans have WAY too much freedom of speech.

Am I wrong?
 
AchtungBono said:

I don't know you personally so what on earth would give me the right to call you a son of a bitch and post a "Wanted" picture of you in your neighbourhood with the word "Killer" on it?
This wouldn't be legal. One can sue for slander, unless the party making the statements can prove otherwise.
AchtungBono said:

What right does someone (who doesn't know the president personally) have to label the president a terrorist? What has Bush done to possibly justify that horrible description?? Was HE the one who ordered the attacks on Sept.11th? Was HE the one behind the Bali bombings? Did he EVER say that he condones the killing of innocent people?

Public figures have less protection. This shirt is not inciting violence.

Many disagree with Bush's policy and believe his actions to be horrific acts against innocent people. They are allowed those beliefs, but they wouldn't be allowed to actually use language to incite violence.

AchtungBono said:

Americans have WAY too much freedom of speech.


You can't have too much freedom of speech.
 
I feel that your wrong because although the speech itself may be absurd today that freedom guarantees that totalitarianism can never prosper. Part of free speech is having to have wankers like Churchill going off calling victims of terror "Little Eichmans" or seeing some tosser punk carp on about "Zionazis", but it also gives people the freedom to call them out and highlight their bullshit. The other part of free speech is being able to bring government abuses to light and protect the public from their governments.

Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society. If it is compromised then other liberties can be quickly eroded. This logic applies towards so-called "hate speech laws" as well as broad sedition laws - the threats to free speech come from both the left and the right.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Public figures have less protection. This shirt is not inciting violence.

That is the correct analysis for public speech. But in the confines of a school, the right of expression is far more limited.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Doesn't that vary from school to school?

Likely, as some schools may not articulate a dress code policy that is as strict as it could be. For instance, there are plenty of public schools that require a uniform and prohibit t-shirts with any message or commercial logo.
 
nbcrusader said:
That is the correct analysis for public speech. But in the confines of a school, the right of expression is far more limited.

And frankly, that's not always a good thing [but sometimes]. The Supreme Court agrees with you based on a case involving a school confiscating student papers because of "controversial" material. When a student walks in the doors of a school, they automatically have their right to free speech limited by the constitution and SC precedent. That being said, if the school had no prior rule about it, he should wear it.

AchtungBono -- Bush is a public figure and we have every right to call him whatever we want. If someone wants to say his policies suck, they can. Hell, if they want to burn the American flag in protest to Bush's policies, they can.

I highly doubt I would ever burn an American flag, but I can if it comes to that. The First Amendment is the greatest amendment our Founding Fathers gave us. It gives us the right to speak out when the government is doing something wrong. It gives us the right to go to whatever church, synagogue, or temple we want to go to. It gives the press the right to report on whatever stories it deems are important. Could you imagine if Woodward and Bernstein had not been able to write about Watergate because the government controlled their paper? Could you imagine not being able to celebrate Christmas because Christianity was not allowed? Could you imagine what would happen if your own family had the ability to turn you into the government if you spoke out against Our Dear Leader?

The freedom to wear a shirt that calls your leader an international terrorist is a freedom few people in this country have. As Thomas Jefferson said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
 
Back
Top Bottom