A violation of rights?

[RvW]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York teen-ager has alleged teachers violated her civil rights when they suspended her from school for wearing a "Barbie is a Lesbian" T-shirt.
Lawyers who filed a lawsuit on her behalf in Manhattan federal court on Thursday said 14-year-old Natalie Young is openly lesbian and that a teacher laughed at her, calling the garment and its reference to the popular Barbie doll "inappropriate."

Young alleged that the principal held her for three hours in an office at the school in the borough of Queens on April 10, 2002 and refused to allow her to return to class while she wore the T-shirt.

A spokesman for the city education department, a defendant in the lawsuit, declined immediate comment.

Young was suspended for the day and the principal threatened to send her home again if she wore the T-shirt to school in future, the lawsuit alleged.

"Schools cannot legally engage in this type of selective, content-based suppression of speech," lawyer Dan Perez said. "If she had worn a 'Barbie Supports the Troops in the War in Iraq' T-shirt, she would have been called a patriot."

Perez said that on another school day before the T-shirt incident, teachers made Young remove rainbow coloured beads from her hair, although she was not suspended then.

The lawsuit, which names the education department, school principal and several teachers as defendants, seeks a declaration from the court that Young's constitutional right to free speech was violated. It asks the department to issue guidelines on students' dress and on dealing with students' expression of their sexual orientation.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the name of the student's mother, Kathleen Hodges, because Young is a minor, also seeks unspecified monetary damages.

"That is not the most important issue here but if a jury decides to contribute to Natalie's college fund, all the better," Perez said.


I have to say I think this is pathetic.
I think it is a violation of every OTHER childs rights not to have an atmosphere FREE from sexualy oriented material.

A violation of civil rights? Cmon!, the freedom of speach is just that, a freedom to SPEAK (not to wear a shirt with sexualy oriented material in a school, OR any other public place for that matter, especially when she, and her fellow classmates are minor children!)

I am curious, why do people who think they are "different" find some need to convince the rest of the world? And what parent would consider allowing a child to announce these sort of things so openly when the subject is something that should be addressed in the home and placed a little further down on the priority list for a 14 year old child!

This kind of thing makes me shake my head and wonder why life cant be a little more simple, and a little less intentionally, and unnecessarily controversial.

[ 06-25-2003, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[happybrew]

Is it equally inappropriate then, when the "Health" class goes into the hows and whats of "reproductive health" in the detail that they do? I think it is. And I was required to take that class to graduate from high school all those years ago. That class still gives me the willies! Then I had to take an even worse class to graduate from the U of O! I really had no desire to know about the mechanics of two guys or two girls going at it, but I had to sit there and listen to it when it came up in the AIDS prevention lesson. EEEK! It was none of my business, I don't care about it, I don't want to know! I'm not going to go out and judge anybody, but I also don't want it shoved in my face either. I had to have it shoved in my face as a graduation requirement. How wonderful. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

happybrew

[Mr. Carp]

That is total BS... IMHO, someone is just our for money and for publicity. Give me a break.. She is 14. She probably doesn't even know what the constitution is yet. This is ridiculous. She should be suspended in my opinion for wearing stuff like that.

[RvW]

Happybrew. Would "reproductive health" demonstrating "alternative lifestyles" be an oxymoron?

I Hope we can keep this conversation politically correct to avoid it being scrubbed. It is an issue worth discussion on all levels except intollerance.

Seriously, I think your comments go a little beyond the meaning of my post, but you are right, Heck, my grandparents went to a christian school where just the word "sex" would have them clapping erasers for a week. And to think, they have 11 children, and 37 grandchildren...wow, instincs, hormonal/bodily changes, and a home discussion of the "birds and bees" just doesnt push the envelope of a civil societies boundaries does it?


One thing just occured to me...what if it had been an ADULT (say a teacher) wearing this shirt?

[ 06-25-2003, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[2LEYS]

I don't think she will win her case. I may be mistaken but freedom of speech doesn't apply in school. I am pretty sure previous cases have set a precedent.

It is a shame though that part of the school budget will have to be spent fighting this crap when it could buy books or something.

[maggot]

I think the shirt is probably disruptive and a distraction for others in the class.....especially the guys :grin:

[crabbait]

Whether or not it is a violation of her rights depends on what other slogans are routinely allowed in school. If she has been singled out because her shirt said something about homosexuality while other political or topical slogans are allowed, she wins hands down. The school cannot decide which slogans are appropriate based on whether or not they agree with the message.

C of the R - Would it surprize you to find that Lesbians have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted diseases of any group?

[k9jeff]

I hope she did'nt pray on the way to the office :grin:

[Straydog]

To a degree, she has already won and accomplished her goal. She has aquired a great deal of attention and publicity which is the only reason she wore it, in my opinion.

Had the school ignored it she would have likely gotten some attention for a day or so from her peers but otherwise it would have blown over.

Having said that, it ticks me off that people seem to think they need to make statements in that manner. As the father of a 9 year old Barbie fan I do find it offensive and would be unhappy if it showed up at our school.

Each school should have a stated dress code and if it is in violation of that code she should have no case.

However, New York isn't rural So. Oregon, thank God!

[Straydog]

Originally posted by crabbait:
The school cannot decide which slogans are appropriate based on whether or not they agree with the message.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes, I believe they can if they state such up front in a dress code. Our schools do not allow any sexually explicit or descriptive slogans. Perhaps it just hasn't been challenged and what you say is true but so far it is working.

However, my guess is that each state and even school district may have different guidelines.

[Silver Hilton]

I suspect that you could craft some guidelines that would legally ban the shirt. However, it sounds to me like the girl is pushing gay rights visibility, and is being specifically targeted for those acts. Forcing her to remove the beads from her hair is out of line, I think. Targeting one form of political speech, while allowing other political speech, is a no-no.

As to the shirt being sexual content, give me a freakin' break. What is sexual content is the basic wardrobe of many of these girls. Any t-shirt message is sex-lite compared to how some of the kids dress. If you contend that the other students have a right to a sexual content free environment, you have to look at the entire mix of music, film, magazines and TV that these kids see everyday. While I wish we could reduce the load of sexual messaging that our kids receive, trends seem to indicate that it isn't happening. I get annoyed everytime I go shopping with my daughter, and see the basic offerings being pushed to our kids. It's more than a little disgusting that our 9 and 10 year olds are being persuaded to primp and priss to look 'sexy'.

However, I would beg to point out that this shirt's message isn't about sexual content, unlike the previously mentioned material. Calling Barbie a lesbian isn't describing sexual acts, it's discussing sexual orientation. To see this, analyse the phrase "Barbie is a heterosexual". Is that statement offensive or sexual? If it isn't, then how can it become so by replacing the noun?


I have to smile at this story a bit, however. As a father of two kids, I find myself wondering how they will dress in high school in order to offend their parents. I guess this will be one way.

[HammondSeaRanger]

wait a second ... barbie is a lesbian ?

[BrionLutz]

cotr,

I think it is a violation of every OTHER childs rights not to have an atmosphere FREE from sexualy oriented material.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hmm...I don't think you get out much. Kids T-shirts are full of sexually oriented material.

If you really want to "clean" the atmosphere you better start with advertising to kids which is very sexually oriented.

Brion

[2LEYS]

I don't even think a shirt that says "Barbie Is Heterosexual" is appropriate to wear in school.

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by BluePig:
wait a second ... barbie is a lesbian ?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well, c'mon, have you ever seen her actually kiss Ken?

[BonkBonkBonk]

leave it to the liberals to sue over stupid stuff
"hey, im a crook, but i fell into someones house and impaled myself on a kinife, its the homeowners fault!"

[ 06-28-2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[The Fishing Geek]

I didn't see where she mentions here political leanings in that story. Do you know the family?

[Degner]

Originally posted by crabbait:


C of the R - Would it surprize you to find that Lesbians have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted diseases of any group? [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I would think that people who refrain from sex have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted diseases of any group. Is that taught in schools?

[True]

What did Mattel have to say about this? Could it be construed as defamation of character or slander? I'm not saying that lesbianism is a bad thing here folks. I'm all for it myself, men can be macho, egotistic, cynical and narcissists (too many 's's?). That's why "I" married a real woman. :grin: :grin: :grin:

I wonder if she's just a tool in someone's little plan...(the girl that is, not my wife).

True

[ 06-26-2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: True ]

[Degner]

They need to market this. Barby with a crue cut and suit. They could call it Butch Barby. We are talking millions here.

[RvW]

Whether or not it is a violation of her rights depends on what other slogans are routinely allowed in school. If she has been singled out because her shirt said something about homosexuality while other political or topical slogans are allowed, she wins hands down. The school cannot decide which slogans are appropriate based on whether or not they agree with the message.

C of the R - Would it surprize you to find that Lesbians have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted diseases of any group?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Crabbait. What would you think of a TEACHER wearing the shirt to school? In fact, what if ALL the teachers wore a similar shirt with a sexual statement and only one was fired? Would it be a violation of that one persons "rights"?

As far as Lesbian STDs. Im not sure how the question applies to the subject at hand. I will say this however, just in case you are curious, Im not at all concerned with any persons sexual preference but my own.

I suspect that you could craft some guidelines that would legally ban the shirt. However, it sounds to me like the girl is pushing gay rights visibility, and is being specifically targeted for those acts. Forcing her to remove the beads from her hair is out of line, I think. Targeting one form of political speech, while allowing other political speech, is a no-no.

As to the shirt being sexual content, give me a freakin' break. What is sexual content is the basic wardrobe of many of these girls. Any t-shirt message is sex-lite compared to how some of the kids dress. If you contend that the other students have a right to a sexual content free environment, you have to look at the entire mix of music, film, magazines and TV that these kids see everyday. While I wish we could reduce the load of sexual messaging that our kids receive, trends seem to indicate that it isn't happening. I get annoyed everytime I go shopping with my daughter, and see the basic offerings being pushed to our kids. It's more than a little disgusting that our 9 and 10 year olds are being persuaded to primp and priss to look 'sexy'.

However, I would beg to point out that this shirt's message isn't about sexual content, unlike the previously mentioned material. Calling Barbie a lesbian isn't describing sexual acts, it's discussing sexual orientation. To see this, analyse the phrase "Barbie is a heterosexual". Is that statement offensive or sexual? If it isn't, then how can it become so by replacing the noun?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">SH, To define this girls act as "pushing gay rights" is no less inappropriate in an adolecent school! "Barbi is a lesbian" is a political statement??? I fail to see how one persons choice of who they want in thier bedroom became
an issue worthy of discussion by ANYONE other than those people in the BEDROOM. This applies to everyone, but to be discusing it in relation to a childs personal decisions is insane, and I find it very rude to even consider allowing a child to voice thier sexual preference especially in a school.

Hmm...I don't think you get out much. Kids T-shirts are full of sexually oriented material.

If you really want to "clean" the atmosphere you better start with advertising to kids which is very sexually oriented.

Brion

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion, I get out plenty my friend, I have three children, two are teens and I am well aware of how common "sexual material" is among them. Does that make it OK for a 14 year old to announce thier sexual preference in a public school? Not in my opionion. Does it mean I should just turn the other cheek and pretend theres not a problem, especially in situations as presented in this news story? Again, I dont think so.
So what am I going to do about a world full of sexual content in our childrens everyday lives? Well, I will continue to educate my own children, and place limits on what I feel, and the rest of my family feels is inappropriate. Is this something every parent might want to consider, or would your 14 year old child get away with it because most every other child does?

The only sex that belongs in school is an education of the bodily functions IMHO, and all else should be a responsibility for the PARENTS to enlighten thier children.

Our society is saturated with sex, and it is rediculous!, almost everything you see on TV has some sort of sexual reference, inuendo, or pitch. Gee, I wonder how people learned about sex when there was no advertising, television, some sort of parade!

A T-shirt saying "Barbi is a lesbian" doesnt fall into any political lean catergory, ITS A DOLL!, a non living thing, A TOY!... Heck does it even define the girls suposed sexual preference?

This is what urks me, why is a 14 year old child so consumed with sex to have to announce this? Does sit occur to anyone else that this child is trying to find herself outside a crowd? TO be recoginized for something that no 14 year old child even deserves to be recognized for, or "as" beyond her family and maybe a guidance counselor at school?

I wonder if she's just a tool in someone's little plan

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I suspect this too True, I think theres another way the parents would have taken legal action against the school. Maybe even two.

I think the parents may have expected a request to remove the shirt, OR, we all know how brutally honest and cruel children are, maybe the parents might have expected this 14 year old kid to be harassed, maybe even beaten by classmates, which would have resulted in civil action...Or maybe there was a backup plan, say an accusation of a sexual advance from a teacher?


Theres so many reasons why this lawsuit is a farce, and I maintain my oppinion that the child was rightfully disceplined with regard to the shirt.

As far as the beads...Were they an expression of a sexual preference?

That would be tough to prove in a court of law, maybe as tough as saying " a man who wears an ear-ring in his right ear is gay"

Paleeze!

School is to learn accedemics, not the sexual orientation of your CHILD classmates!

[happybrew]

COTR: I'm a little confused at what you were getting at in your reply. The point I was trying to get at was that the public educational system sometimes, but not always, goes far beyond what her tee-shirt said, yet it is not considered by the educational system to be inappropriate. I consider both to be inappropriate. It's not that I have anything against people who have "alternative lifestyles", I just don't want it shoved in my face. Heck, a couple of months ago we had a lesbian couple at our home for a BBQ with another family, and we did all we could to make them feel welcome, and had some nice conversation.

Of course, a lot of people would consider my quite vocal stance on other reproductive issues to be shoving it in their face as well.

happybrew

[happybrew]

Silver Hilton: You are correct about teenager's fashions. I propose that, now that the Taliban is gone from Afghanistan, that we import all of those spare burkhas, and adopt them as the dress code in our high schools! :shocked:

happybrew

[RvW]

Maybe Barbi should file suit against the school, I mean it was an announcement that SHE is lesbain, and a violation of Barbis rights when the school censored the shirt announcing her sexual preference right?

When and how did Barbi come out of the closet though? And how is Ken taking this whole thing? He must be devastated. Would he have grounds to a civil suit as well, being that for so many years, Mattel has portrayed him as heterosexual?, and this false portrayal to the worlds children has caused Ken irrifutable mental anguish?

Did Ken make the shirts? Is this his attempt to share some of the spotlight with Barbi? I wonder if its just a money making scam between both Ken and Barbi? Barbi isnt really a lesbian, but she made millions on the shirts, what a racket!

I guess Barbi doesnt have much choice but to be a lesbian. From what I hear, Ken is far from anotomically correct.

[RvW]

Happybrew. I think vocalizing your distaste for an alternative lifestyle (although in school lessons) goes beyond what might be acceptable to those who actually do prefer an "alternative lifestyle". I dont think I need to tell you of the difference between an adult being educated by a qualified teacher, and a 14 YO child making a statement. Theres no relevance. Nor is there relavence to specific sexual functions of men with men, women with women in a "reproductive" teaching. Men with men or women with women dont reproduce!....

I wasnt critisizing other than to say "be careful" The rest of my post was not addressing only you. I couldnt agree more with your statements.

[ 06-26-2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[happybrew]

COTR: It's not distaste per se, just that I don't want to know. I am equally appalled if a heterosexual tries to give me descriptions of what he/she does. I see how I gave that impression, though. Mea culpa. It was late. :blush: Thanks for the caution.

I do disagree about any difference between a teacher talking about it and a teenage student talking about it. In both cases, you have people who are compelled to be there. It is, in effect, a work-place setting, and so workplace standards should apply. Adopting a dress code so that other people's sensibilities are respected is entirely appropriate. On the other hand, compelling others to not just be exposed to things that offend their sensibilities, but to be compelled to learn those things in detail or suffer the consequences is even more wrong. In the case of the teenager, you have a case of exposure to something that could be construed as offensive to some. In the case of the class, it goes beyond exposure. The student is compelled to learn it, to be tested on it, and to pass the test, or else be denied a substantial benefit. Had I refused to take those classes, or had I flunked those classes, I would have been denied a diploma, both in high school and in college, as those classes were required for graduation. What the teenager did was extremely mild in comparison. One could always look the other way so as not to view the offending tee-shirt. With the classes, one does not have this option.

happybrew

[crabbait]

Straydog - We agree. Banning all sexually or politically oriented slogans, if clearly stated, is probably all right. Banning only the sexually or politically oriented material that we don't happen to agree with won't fly (like banning Ralph Nader or Al Sharpton t-shirts while allowing the Dem/Rep front runners). The rule has to be fair and consistently administered or you have disparate treatment.

C of the R - Same goes for all teachers wearing slogans and only one getting fired. Disparate treatment unless some other reason can be shown for the enforcement action.

Degner - I was talking about real people, not Ken and Barbie dolls with no sex organs. There are really only two groups: Those that have some form of sex and admit it and those who have some form of sex and deny it. I really loved the cute little Texas high schooler who was President of her Abstinence Club....and pregnant in her junior year! D'OH!

[ 06-27-2003, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[BrionLutz]

cotr,

Brion, I get out plenty my friend, I have three children, two are teens and I am well aware of how common "sexual material" is among them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Then you realize that many of the kids wear much more sexually oriented T-shirts. What do you think it means when the T-shirt says "**** Star"?

Does that make it OK for a 14 year old to announce thier sexual preference in a public school?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Her T-shirt said "Barbie is a Lesbian", not that she was one. So you've already gone beyond the issue. Whether the girls is or isn't is immaterial.

Regarding kids telling other kids or their teachers their sexual orientation, teenagers do talk about sex a lot. If you get upset with that, they'll make sure they don't talk about it around you but that's about it.

All you know for sure is that she wore a T-shirt that was actually not sexually explicit. You might have a definition problem with "sexually explicit".

"5. having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books."

Does it mean I should just turn the other cheek and pretend theres not a problem, especially in situations as presented in this news story?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It means unless her T-shirt is sexually explicit or against some rule that would apply to gay or straight kids, it's none of your beeswax.

So what am I going to do about a world full of sexual content in our childrens everyday lives? Well, I will continue to educate my own children, and place limits on what I feel, and the rest of my family feels is inappropriate.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There you go...and leave the other kids alone.

Our society is saturated with sex, and it is rediculous!, almost everything you see on TV has some sort of sexual reference, inuendo, or pitch.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think that is your real complaint. But don't take out your problem on one kid wearing a harmless T-shirt. An easy target perhaps but it won't solve your problem.

You might want to start with advertising to kids which is really what you are talking about. That would be for Congress and the FCC to limit it but I don't think you'll find the right wing "moralists" currently in charge in favor of tampering with "free enterprise" in this regard.

Now those are some big dogs to take on and that directly addresses your actual problem. However, my guess is you voted those folks in so have no complaint.

I do favor school uniforms.

Brion

[RvW]

Uhh Brion, The issue is the shirt being innaproprite in school, and a request to remove it, being viewed as a violation of rights. Your contention that its not a statement of the individuals sexual preference is exactly my point, thus there IS no violation of a first amendment right to freedom of speech, and is rediculous to speculate.

"All you know for sure is that she wore a T-shirt that was actually not sexually explicit. You might have a definition problem with "sexually explicit"."

As usual, you're exagerating. please quote me using the word explicit.

"It means unless her T-shirt is sexually explicit or against some rule that would apply to gay or straight kids, it's none of your beeswax."

Now theres an intelligent statement. Im opposed to the shirt in a school of minor children, suddenly the content of the shirt is none of my business? Try another another agle Brion, you missed the mark with that one.

Brion, this isnt a poersonal attack, just an observation. (Followed by a personal attack, well outside the AUP - cb)

"I think that is your real complaint. But don't take out your problem on one kid wearing a harmless T-shirt. An easy target perhaps but it won't solve your problem."

"My problem"? I dont have a problem Brion. I agree the school made a reasonable decision to ask the child to remove the shirt. You dont have an issue with a shirt that describes a sexual preference of a doll, in the view of children who dont WANT to be exposed to the sexual content? I think its you who has the problem.

Do you think I am an idiot? Of course children talk about sex, but children talking about sex is a voluntary activity right? Seeing a shirt like that is not. Someone said "dont look" what a good idea, but tell me, how do you know the shirt is offensive or innapropriate UNTIL YOU READ IT!?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand my possition here. My point is, I think a 14 year old child who finds some need to PUBLICLY express a sexual preference is absurd, and irrelevant to what a 14 year old child should be focused on, especially in school. I get the impression you feel its a childs right to do so, and your actually willing to protect that right.

If a random adult ASKED a 14 year old child what thier sexual preference was, would you expect that adult to have some sort of pedophile tendancies and be at least questioned by athorities? Why do I get the impression you think its ok for a child to tell the world, a world that I would hope the majority of doesnt want to know the sexual preference of a child!

I am not challenging free enterprise, "or the FCC, (if by some chance they even apply to the decision of what people wear )

Im challenging the idea that its a 14 year olds right to wear a shirt with depicts a sexual behavior in a public place filled with children.

"my guess is you voted those folks in"

Brion, would you be so kind as to guess my sexual preference too. It would be about as (name calling - cb) as guessing my voting habits.

Is it the governments responsibility to decide what is healthy and approriate for our children? Dear lord I must ask two questions, the first would be "WHY" and the second would be, "are they doing a better job than the parents would if they had the (courage - cb) to take responsibilty for thier childrens education in such subjects as sex.


Why does our society think it is necesary to let the world know thier sexual preference, and why has verballizing it become a crutch for someones self esteem? Why is it so commonplace among adults nowm, that children feel it is important to tell the world too? How did sex become such a huge part of daily life?

When theres a scantily clad women on the television in a beer commercial, do you buy that beer because of this? Does it ever cross your mind that these idiots in the advertising world push thier products with the simplicity of baiting a mouse trap with cheese? Is the american general public so consumed with sex that they make decisions on what foods to buy, what beer to drink, and what car to drive based on how a sexually oriented advertisement effected them?

Is there anyone here who would look at a shirt that says "Barbi is a lesbian" and decide to go buy a Barbi doll for thier child? Cmon. Or maybe the message in the shirt is to encourage a child to question thier own sexuality? Im sorry, but I dont think this is a question CHILDREN should be struggling with.

I am all-for protecting children in thier "age of innocence", it is such a valuable thing.
But seems to be growing shorter and shorter every day due to people like this childs mother making sexual statements such a priotiy for her child to make.

Sex can wait. Especially for children who have no idea how much of thier lives will be dictated by it, controlled by it, and effected by it.

Too many people confuse sex with love, and this child is a sitting duck for huge emotional challenges if she cant accept the idea that her sexual poreference is not something that people in the general public want to know, or even give a rats behind about, or in the worst case, have a problem with enough to ridicule her for. (and it will happen!)

I say let it, but not until she is able to handle it, which for some people, never happens.

[ 06-28-2003, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[BrionLutz]

cotr,

The issue is the shirt being innaproprite in school, and a request to remove it, being viewed as a violation of rights.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Correct.

It was only deemed inappropriate for this girl, not others in the school.

Your contention that its not a statement of the individuals sexual preference is exactly my point

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope...only someone who knew the girl personally would know. You or I have no idea what a T-shirt says about a persons sexual preference.

Im opposed to the shirt in a school of minor children, suddenly the content of the shirt is none of my business?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope...you are opposed to a girl wearing a T-shirt that said "Barbie Is A Lesbian". Unless it is also inappropriate for kids to wear T-shirts saying "Barbie is a Brunette", it is none of your business.

You have a specific objection to a specific T-shirt. You are trying to generalize it to a complaint about kids being exposed to sex, an interesting topic but irrelevant to the headline you posted.

My point is, I think a 14 year old child who finds some need to PUBLICLY express a sexual preference is absurd, and irrelevant to what a 14 year old child should be focused on, especially in school.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And her parents think it's OK as do many other parents who let their kids where teenage statement t-shirts. The question is whether the school was correct in singling her out.

Your method of debate is so often foolish and somewhat frustrating because you manipulate the facts and wander so far from the issue with irrelevancies that its hard not to follow you into an immature arguement.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ah..you mean like this statement of yours where a kid wearing a harmless T-shirt turns into pedophilia?

If a random adult ASKED a 14 year old child what thier sexual preference was, would you expect that adult to have some sort of pedophile tendancies and be at least questioned by athorities?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

I am not challenging free enterprise, "or the FCC, (if by some chance they even apply to the decision of what people wear.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That was my point. Advertising to kids is much more sexually explicit yet you suppport those who promote it.

As usual, you're exagerating. please quote me using the word explicit.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">See below. You claim the kid was wearing a T-shirt that depicts sexual behavior. That is the definition of explicit.

Im challenging the idea that its a 14 year olds right to wear a shirt with depicts a sexual behavior in a public place filled with children.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

Is it the governments responsibility to decide what is healthy and approriate for our children?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.

Ah so you object to the goverment taking responsibility for deciding what is healthy and appropriate for our children, like the principal saying T-shirt was inappropriate.

As you see above, your arguement is fraught with exaggerations and contradictions.

Why does our society think it is necesary to let the world know thier sexual preference, and why has verballizing it become a crutch for someones self esteem?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wow! Above is the grandaddy of exaggeration and generalization though it does go to the heart of your real complaint which in turn, doesn't really have anything to do with the issue of the girl's t-shirt.

Why should the girl not be allowed to a wear a T-shirt that other kids could wear?

Brion

[RvW]

Brion, its almost embarassing to spend time replying to you, but here goes.

It was only deemed inappropriate for this girl, not others in the school.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Please tell me which crystal ball you gazed into for this information. Do you have some sort of psychic hotline to call that youd like to share with the rest of us, because once again your knowledge goes well beyond what was stated in the article.

Nope...only someone who knew the girl personally would know. You or I have no idea what a T-shirt says about a persons sexual preference.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Uhh, HELLO!, she has filed a CIVIL SUIT! alledging her civil rights were violated by the supression of the freedom of speech to announce she is a lesbian claiming it was the shirt that made the statement right??? Please tell me what part of this you dont understand, because I am struggling trying to figure out your point here. Either the shirt makes the statement, which this girl claims is the case, or it doesnt, which would clearly NOT be a violation of anyones constitutionally protected rights to ask that it be removed. You cant have your cake and eat it to big-guy.

Are you saying it is unreasonable to agree the shirt was innapropriate in school if in fact it was NOT a statement of the girls preference, and that some sort of rights were violated being asked to remove it? You condradict yourself yet again.

Nope...you are opposed to a girl wearing a T-shirt that said "Barbie Is A Lesbian". Unless it is also inappropriate for kids to wear T-shirts saying "Barbie is a Brunette", it is none of your business.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">She made it everyones business by wearing the shirt, and legally defending her right to express a sexual preference via the freedom of speech. Or would you assume that it was only the other children in the school who she felt should know. If this is in-fact the case, I think you both might want to consult the same psychiatrist.

You have a specific objection to a specific T-shirt. You are trying to generalize it to a complaint about kids being exposed to sex, an interesting topic but irrelevant to the headline you posted.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Generalize? Why the heck do you think the girl was asked to remove the shirt Brion? Are you lost? Please, define the word "lesbian" without using the word sex!

And her parents think it's OK as do many other parents who let their kids where teenage statement t-shirts. The question is whether the school was correct in singling her out.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Once again, you assume the girl was singled out. Please stick with facts, it makes it so much easier to keep my thoughts from wandering to yet another irrelevant point.

Ah..you mean like this statement of yours where a kid wearing a harmless T-shirt turns into pedophilia?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Strecthing the boundaries of reason again Brion. What a creative twist you put on this. Bravo.

That was my point. Advertising to kids is much more sexually explicit yet you suppport those who promote it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I support who? please, come back to earth Brion.

As far as the rest of your ramblings, I think we both know how off-base they are. No appology required though.


Baskett, I dont think this is an issue of how the world treats Gay and lesbian people. The debate is more of whether or not the shirt is appropriate in a childrens school, and if her rights were violated by a teachers request to remove it. The shirt in-fact DOESNT say she is a lesbian. So to censor the material on the shirt is in no way a surpression of constitutionally protected statement of the girls sexual preference. I agree the shirt is innapropriate NOT for any reason relative to the girls sexual preference. The girls sexual preference was not attacked when she was asked to remove the shirt.

Again I must ask, who CARES what a childs sexual preference is, its not an issue that needs to be addressed publicly.

[ 06-27-2003, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[STGRule]

You didn't ask me but I looked it up:

Main Entry: 1les·bi·an
Pronunciation: '*** -bE-&n
Function: adjective
Usage: often capitalized
Date: 1591
1 : of or relating to *****s
2 [from the reputed homosexual band associated with Sappho of *****s] : of or relating to homosexuality between females

Nowhere is the word sex used to descibe a lesbian.

[RvW]

Originally posted by STGRule:
You didn't ask me but I looked it up:

Main Entry: 1les·bi·an
Pronunciation: '*** -bE-&n
Function: adjective
Usage: often capitalized
Date: 1591
1 : of or relating to *****s
2 [from the reputed homosexual band associated with Sappho of *****s] : of or relating to homosexuality between females

Nowhere is the word sex used to descibe a lesbian.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Quite the contrary: "Homosexuality"

Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-"sek-sh&-'wa-l&-tE
Function: noun
Date: 1892
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

How nitty gritty do we need to get here. Brion says the word "lesbian" is not sexually definitive. I think I made my point pretty effectively that it is.

[ 06-27-2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[BrionLutz]

cotr,

Uhh, HELLO!, she has filed a CIVIL SUIT! alledging her civil rights were violated by the supression of the freedom of speech to announce she is a lesbian claiming it was the shirt that made the statement right???

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope but she did complain that she was told not to wear a T-shirt that says "Barbie Is a Lesbian" and that that action did violate her rights.

Whether the kid is or isn't a lesbian is immaterial.

That was the problem the prinicpal created. The principal based her decision on that issue, not the T-shirt.

She made it everyones business by wearing the shirt, and legally defending her right to express a sexual preference via the freedom of speech.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">But that is not what the t-shirt said. Even if it did, the question is whether t-shirts that said "I'm Straight" were banned along with t-shirts that said "I'm Gay".

You'll notice that in every case you need to go way beyond the facts of the t-shirt. You make some fairly outlandish leaps to it being sexually explicit (it is not) to it somehow promoting pedophilia.

As Freud often said, sometimes a t-shirt is just a t-shirt.

Brion

[Mr. Carp]

cotr: I applaude you for your efforts and your stance on the issue. I agree with everything you have said. 14 year old girls should not be worrying about sexual orientation and a high school is not the place to be expresing those views. Wait until they get to college. You'll see too many views expressed. I just can not get over the fact that some can't see the correlation between lesbian and sex. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! Some people's arguments against you are hilarious.

As far as having a descent debate with a certain few on this site. GOOD LUCK!! Some make it nearly impossible to have an eduacated debate. It turns into meaningless rambling and garble. Just my $0.02.

[RvW]

posted 06-27-2003 09:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cotr,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uhh, HELLO!, she has filed a CIVIL SUIT! alledging her civil rights were violated by the supression of the freedom of speech to announce she is a lesbian claiming it was the shirt that made the statement right???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope but she did complain that she was told not to wear a T-shirt that says "Barbie Is a Lesbian" and that that action did violate her rights.

"Nope" what? Youve simply found a creative way to say exactly what I posted above! Im sorry, but Ive yet to see any constutional entry which guaranties us of a right to chose any shirt we like. The Child claims the shirt was a statement of her sexual preference. READ THE ARTICLE Brion. What is the basis for the civil rights violation suit against the school?

Whether the kid is or isn't a lesbian is immaterial.

Brion, the foundation of the civil suit is based ENTIRELY on the accusation that the school revoked the childs civil rights to say shes gay with the T-shirt! Do you think this story would have even made headlines if the child hadnt said openly that she is gay and that her shirt is a statement to this effect?. what artical did you read dude?

That was the problem the prinicpal created. The principal based her decision on that issue, not the T-shirt.

again, what crystal ball did you gaze into for this information? I read that the teacher laughed when the child announced her sexual preference, and I suspect, with all reasonable efforts to remain impartial to the situation, that the teacher laughed ONLY because the childs sexual preference is irrelevant to the fact that the shirt is not something the teacher was going to allow in her class. Did you know that the freedom of speech does NOT shield you from the consequences of WHAT you say? If it is disruptive, it is well within the legal rights of anyone to disuade the disruptive behavior.
Do you think that just because the constitution allows us the freedom of speech a person can stand up at work and say "Bill Clinton is a fornicating liarr" and be protected by the constitution from being fired, or reprimanded? Not a chance. The fact that standing up and disurbing the feloow employees is the basis for termination or reprimand, NOT the fact that the boss disagrees with the staement...just like the shirt, the teacher didnt suspend the child for being a lesbian, the child was suspended for wearing a disruptive innapropriate shirt!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She made it everyones business by wearing the shirt, and legally defending her right to express a sexual preference via the freedom of speech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is not what the t-shirt said.

Its the T-shirt that the teacher found innapropriate, the child claims her rights were violated When she was asked to remove it, no, the t-shirt didnt say "Im gay" THE CHILD DID! and THAT my friend is the irrelevant issue.

Even if it did, the question is whether t-shirts that said "I'm Straight" were banned along with t-shirts that said "I'm Gay".

If there were such a t-shirt in question, you may have a point, but there wasnt to my knowledge, or anyone elses, so the point is not only moot, but incredibly irrelevant.

You'll notice that in every case you need to go way beyond the facts of the t-shirt. You make some fairly outlandish leaps to it being sexually explicit (it is not) to it somehow promoting pedophilia.

Please read this, its very important to your continuing education on the word "lesbian" as it applies to "BARBI" "barbi is a lesbian" defines Barbis choice to engage in a sexual act with another woman. If you think its OK for students to display this sort of thing in a school full of other 12, 13 14 year olds, I have to assume that you are also just not intelectually capable of understanding the context of my comment which contained the word pedophile, because you are so far out in left field with these statements that I think it would take a labotomy to bring you back. What I was saying is...(try to grasp this ok?)...Why is it OK in your oppinion for a child to announce her sexual preference to all who will listen (teachers, principals whoever)Via a t-shirt (which is clearly stated as the childs intent while also VERBALLY stating it as fact that she IS lesbian) yet it is not socially acceptable for a random adult to ask a child the question that would lead to this answer. (thus leading the rest of the normal world to suspect someone who WOULD ask is quite possibly a pedophile.) Has this sunk in yet? I made no indication that a t-shirt would lead to pedophilia, and I must assume your trying desperately to either fabricate an argument, or defend a desire to view and hear a childs sexual preference. I know this is not a very nice thing to say, but youve backed yourself into a corner Brion, and the post I made has taken a turn in your typical direction of senseless arguing, misquotes, and fabrications. Its gotta stop somewhere.

As Freud often said, sometimes a t-shirt is just a t-shirt.
As the great fishingeek once said, press the "ignore button"

[ 06-28-2003, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[Mr. Carp]

[BrionLutz]

cotr,

[QUOTE] Brion, Ive had 4 people, very partial people mind you, that have collectively said to me in private form that you are either:

(previously deleted personal attack - cb)

Probably best to refocus on the actual issue vs. all the baggage you've attached to it.

A kid was told she could not wear a t-shirt because it was "inappropriate". The t-shirt was not obscence, not sexually explicit, the school didn't really seem to have a standard which it was applying equally. Since there did not seem to be any rule regarding t-shirt slogans, she felt she was being unfairly targeted.

Brion

[ 06-28-2003, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[RvW]

You just dont get it do you brion, "losing"??

I am debating, there is no win or lose, only the oposition such as yourself, to the sensible opionion, lets leave it up to the court shall we? You DO have faith in a judicial system dont you?

A kid was told she could not wear a t-shirt because it was "inappropriate". The t-shirt was not obscence, not sexually explicit, the school didn't really seem to have a standard which it was applying equally. Since there did not seem to be any rule regarding t-shirt slogans, she felt she was being unfairly targeted.

See this is where you are terribly mistaken, but I am done wasting my time trying to learn you on the issue..and it appears nobody else is interested either. So chalk up a "win" Brion, and leave the game...please!

[ 06-28-2003, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[Baskett-o-fish]

does the school have a dress code? Does the school send other kids home for similar type issues? If this was a private school with a dress code they school would have a say in this. It would seem to me her civil rights are being violated. She is free to express herself any way she chooses. If she knows at this early of an age that she is a lesbian and she is proud of who she is why would anyone want to say this is not acceptable! in his day and age in the USA so many people are affraid to say yes im gay and im ok with it. How many people get beat up, discriminated against, shuned by there family because they are gay. Who cares what there sexual orientation is. let them be proud of them selves and be at eace with the choices they have made. I have many gay friends of both sexes and I could care less they are gay. They are good people.

If people spent less time worrying about what others were doing or who was comming out of the closet and focused more on there own lives and families I think that everyone would be better off. Whens the last time you had an open honest discussion with your kids (if you have any) about sex. It sounds like this young lady is freely talking to her parents about her sexuality and they are embracing her decision.

[STGRule]

TWEEEEET (whistle time out). The name-calling, personal attacks, and non-productive sarcasm is waaaay too thick in here "gentlemen". Knock if off? Okay?
( Just in case there is a question, it applies to ALL that have replied in the last hour or so )

[ 06-28-2003, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[crabbait]

If you will allow me to take my mod hat off for a moment, I would like to add my personal opinion on this issue, if I may:

First, for the record from the article: "Lawyers who filed a lawsuit on her behalf in Manhattan federal court on Thursday said 14-year-old Natalie Young is openly lesbian and that a teacher laughed at her, calling the garment and its reference to the popular Barbie doll "inappropriate."

The article makes no reference as to why the teacher laughed at her, only that the girl is openly lesbian and that the teacher laughed, calling the garment "inappropriate". I don't know why they even mentioned the teacher laughing unless it was to be critical of her for being disrespectful to the girl.

"The lawsuit, which names the education department, school principal and several teachers as defendants, seeks a declaration from the court that Young's constitutional right to free speech was violated. It asks the department to issue guidelines on students' dress and on dealing with students' expression of their sexual orientation."

From this it seems clear to me that there is no written guideline that the teacher and principle were following. In the absence of a clear policy, it would appear that they were deciding what was and what was not appropriate on a case by case basis. From the available information, it is impossible to tell whether or not any consistent rule was being applied, which is the crux of the matter. If the content was deemed inappropriate because of the fact that it related to homosexual instead of because it related to sexual, and other t-shirts with even mildly sexual comments were allowed, then she has a very strong case.

By the way (grit your teeth and open your mind for a moment) Lesbian is an expression of sexual preference, not a sexual act, and as such is not at all explicit. Example: A nun who admits she is a Lesbian is only stating her preference, not that she has acted on the preference in any way. The state of being and the associated act are not necessarily linked. The girl in the article could easily be a virgin in every sense of the word having had no sexual contact of any kind. It just says who she is attracted to.

One other little thing and I will put my hat back on and go away: In my opinion, repression and intolerance is what got us into this mess. Is it all right for you to hold hands with your partner as you walk down the street? If the answer is yes for you and your opposite sex mate, it should also be yes for the other possible combinations. To demand that anyone not hetrosexual keep the news locked away for fear of "trouble" is repressive.

I believe it says "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". I think that includes everybody.

By the way, my girl and I are both practicing hetrosexuals. We just try to respect everybody. My sexual preference was not a matter of "choice", it was purely a physiological response.

[RvW]

A very good post crabbait. Angles I have not considered. But it seems to me that the girl was defending her use of the shirt as a contitutionally protected tool as it relates to her sexual preference, which by all means should be protected.
However, I think the teachers who made the decision that the shirt was innapropriate were well within thier bounds when considering only the content of the shirt, and not the personal habits (or favored sex pref)of the person wearing it.

I insist that it made no difference WHO was wearing the shirt, the teachers would have found it to be innapropriate in a grade school, and rightfully requested its removal.

A request to have the court declare a violation of this particular childs civil rights to freedom of speech would be asking the court to decide if the defendants are intollerant to the childs sexual preference and her right to be a lesbian. The court cannot do this because the shirt did not say she is a lesbian, therefore the request to remove it cant be assumed to be due to anything other than it being innapropriate for its content and not the childs intended message.
This is all the court is being asked to do, declare a violation of this childs rights.

I dont see it.

[BrionLutz]

cotr,

I am debating, there is no win or lose, only the oposition such as yourself, to the sensible opionion, lets leave it up to the court shall we?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So that's why you posted a public message asking for public comments on a public forum in the "Wild West" section of that public forum...so we could leave it up to the courts &lt;grin&gt;?

My comments had to do with what prompted you to post the wildly emotional personal attacks. Since the moderators deleted your comments, seems little point in your wanting to talk about them.

The point in my comments is that many folks have invested the t-shirt with a lot of issues and other emotional baggage that really has nothing to do with the specific issue of the girls T-shirt and why the school adminstrators singled her T-shirt out for censorship.

As you can see from your opening message, your original complaint has more to do with an array of social issues that don't have anything to do with the specifics of the girl's humorous, not sexually explicit T-shirt or the school's not allowing her to wear it.

Brion

[RvW]

Your certainly entitled to that opinion Brion. &lt;grin&gt;

And, you are more than welcomed to post the article again, with whatever followups suit you.


So that's why you posted a public message asking for public comments on a public forum in the "Wild West" section of that public forum...so we could leave it up to the courts

Well B, it looks like this matter extends beyond you and I, and the citizens who are actually involved coming to terms. A court ruling not only seems like the Wilfred Brimley, but a conclusive, socially accepted method for resolve as well yeah?

My comments had to do with what prompted you to post the wildly emotional personal attacks. Since the moderators deleted your comments, seems little point in your wanting to talk about them.

It appears your goal is to react with such rediculousness to debateable points leading to personal comments directed at you. Now that there isnt any visable, would you care to discuss the headline? or is it not adequate restitution to be free of the personal comments, (meant for humorous effect only) and redirect your efforts?

The point in my comments is that many folks have invested the t-shirt with a lot of issues and other emotional baggage that really has nothing to do with the specific issue of the girls T-shirt and why the school adminstrators singled her T-shirt out for censorship.

As you can see from your opening message, your original complaint has more to do with an array of social issues that don't have anything to do with the specifics of the girl's humorous, not sexually explicit T-shirt or the school's not allowing her to wear it.


Reaching again B- "emotional baggage"? My comments as presented deal with my opinion as to how frustrating it is to see individuals as young as 14 so concerned with making a sexually oriented statement, that they feel specific rights have been violated when asked not to do it with a tshirt in the presence of other children, and clutter the court and headlines with this trivial plea for acceptance. Why you insist on shoving the word "explicit" down my throat is beyond me, the shirt is sexually oreinted and geared to make reference to sexual content plain and simple...and quite undeniable.

If you feel the shirt is humorous, and unworthy of being challenged as appropriate material for a grade school, maybe you have made your point well enough to find some other issue to riddle with critisism and opinion.

So without further "baggage" to irritate your sensibilities, Ill present what I feel was clearly the issue to begin with.

Was there "A violation of rights"?

Was the shirt innapropriate in a grade school being that of a SEXUAL NATURE?

And last but not least, (contrary to your aproval)
Why has society emphasized the importance of sexual identity to such an extreme, that CHILDREN must make such an effort as to be recognized for thier sexual preference?

(A very valid question Brion, if you disagree, dont answer!)

[ 06-28-2003, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[roadsend]

Brion,

I must be out of it.

"Corn with a P Star", "NINS"

What is this stuff and how is it political?

[BrionLutz]

roadsend,

I must be out of it. "Corn with a P Star", "NINS" What is this stuff and how is it political?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Welcome to the out of touch club &lt;grin&gt;. I get translations all the time.

The terms are sexual not political. NINS is a music group "Nine Inch Nails"...think anatomically. "P/Corn Star"...you're not that out of touch.

Teens wear a lot of sexy (verbally speaking) T's.

If that was the case in this girl's school, then her "Barbie is a Lesbian" T would not be out of line and singling her out was mistake.

That sounds like the case. T-shirt was not sexually explicit and didn't violate any dress code standard.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

cotr,

Was there "A violation of rights"?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Probably. A kid was singled out for discpline when others were not. Those enforcing the rule made an issue of the girl's personal situation. There was no apparent standard she violated.

Was the shirt innapropriate in a grade school being that of a SEXUAL NATURE?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hmmm...a grade school of a sexual nature...sounds a bit progressive.

Again, the girl's T-shirt would only be inappropriate if other kid's T-shirts with a similar statement of "sexual nature" were also deemed inappropriate.

If any kids have been wearing "Corn with a P Star", "NINS" or similar T's the school admin is toast. Whenever I've dropped/picked up the kids from school, those types of T's seem pretty common.

Brion

[fishbane]

If the school doesn't have uniforms like some private schools. Then it was a violation of rights.
Then the students have the right to wear what ever statement they want as long as it isn't vulgar.
This was not a vulgar statement.

If she is or isn't gay isn't the complete point.
She very well maybe gay. Most know when they are in thier teens, weather or not they are virgins. Many even have relations with the sex they are not attracted too before they do with the same sex. Look at redneck country boys.

The supreme court now says you can't have laws based on sexual orrientation.

If there is not a uniform code then it is a free speach issue.
She has as much right to wear her shirt as much as a christian student has to wear a jesus saves shirt.

[lost_sailor]

Not BARBIE! Say it isn't so! :depressed:

[Cool Texan]

So many jokes regarding Barbie...so little time.

As for whether or not there is anything wrong with this shirt...I say no, unless there is a clearly defined, and consistently applied dress code in effect.

I'll be the first one on here, I think (I dont read Brion's 2 page essays) to actually cite a court case in which a ruling was reached. Cohen vs. California. This was a case where a gentleman was prosecuted for wearing a jacket into a courtroom that said "F the Draft"...the F was followed by the other 3 letters though. He sued, claiming his freedom of speech. He won. The court ruled that it was indeed protected speech.

Same rules apply for this girls t-shirt. No specific dress code at school? Its fair game then. The school should notify parents, but leave it at that.

[The Fishing Geek]

Originally posted by Cool Texan:
This was a case where a gentleman was prosecuted for wearing a jacket into a courtroom that said "F the Draft"...the F was followed by the other 3 letters though.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">FGHI the Draft?

With that said, I will tell you that as a journalism geek back in high school I knew without a shadow of a doubt that it had been previously been ruled that the portion of the First Amendment dealing with Freedom of Speech does not apply there. There, as in high school. Sorry.

Edited for clarity.

[ 06-30-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: The Fishing Geek ]

[Cool Texan]

Previously is the key word there. Can you cite any significant court cases which state that the expression of the F word is not covered?