-
Website
http://coloradoindependent.com -
Original page
http://coloradoindependent.com/8932/aurora-fifth-grader-suspended-over-anti-obama-t-shirt -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Schools are for children to learn how to think rationally and to argue in a respectful, factual way. I am sorry for Daxx that he and his father don't "get it". Perhaps with the presidential debates on Friday, Daxx's teacher can use this as a teaching moment to have a classroom debate following the usual rules.
When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water.
Actually, that would be an accurate statement since Atta has crashed, at most, one plane. McCain has crashed at least 4.
As to the appropriateness of the shirt, in this day and age, free speech is restricted in public schools. Right or wrong? It depends.
From the article, it sounds like a wild hair fell across this kid's dad's a$$ one morning so he scribbled on a t-shirt and told/encouraged his son to wear it and refuse to take it off. Whether that's true or not, the man sounds like a complete jackass. Who protests outside of a doctor's private home because you disagree with the law?
Idiot. Or perhaps the kid should just iron a porn picture onto his shirt. Freedom of Speech, you know.
Funny these same people who cry foul re free speech are the same ones who try to force their religious viewpoints on other people so they certainly don't believe in freedom of religion. Hypocrites all.
Not patriots...schizo zealots..
All hail the obamamessiah.
Ah, he11
Think about it man. And I am a McCain supporter. This is just a dumb parent putting dumb clothes on a kid.
That kind of shirt should be used as a catalyst for class discussions, not censored. He's entitled to his (wrong) opinion, and he's entitled to express it.
Oh, and I voted for Obama.
His parents are trash and shouldn't be allowed to vote....
PIGS....................................................................................................
This is a free speech issue plain and simple. Recently a Law professor explained to me that flag burning is acceptable no matter who it offends because it's believed that the 1st amendment was most specifically referring to this kind of free speech.
That shirt could only be described as "antagonistic speech". That is not allowed in schools. Schools can set behavior standards that must be followed by the students.
The child free speech was not violated. Nobody claimed he violated any law. He can wear the shirt anywhere that allows "antagonistic speech".
Like saying people "hate America," saying they don't "support the troops" and are unpatriotic for questioning a mis-managed war?
Like calling all media outlets, besides Fox News of course, "liberal" and "hate America crowd" whenever they ask tough questions, report facts, or basically do their job?
Like removing citizens from the President's town hall meetings if they have bumper stickers for the other political party?
Like fencing off protestors at Presidential events away from the actual event?
Like outing a career CIA agent in charge of the anti-nuclear-proliferation team on Iraq and Iran because her former diplomat (to Iraq and Africa) husband exposed one of the major lies used to deceive the American public, a week after the White House already admitted the yellow cake uranium claim was false and shouldn't have been in the SOTU speech?
Like painting a VP candidate as a victim being attacked by "the liberal media" when it was one silly tabloid that ran a controversial story, and the Alaskan newspapers were the ones to first start the baby rumor because no one knew she was pregnant when she was 7 months along?
Like firing DOJ lawyers for not being partisan enough, even though the DOJ is supposed to enforce the law, not a partisan agenda?
Like a VP claiming he's not in the Executive Branch one day to get out of oversight, and claiming Executive Privelege the next?
Like government officials using unsecure, unsafe private email accounts to conduct government business to get around FOIAs and official record keeping (both the White House and the wannabe VP)?
Like arresting 50+ journalists covering the protests at the RNC a few weeks ago?
Like a presidential candidate cancelling a major CNN interview after a CNN news anchor drills your spokesman with a few tough questions?
If you think Liberals will stifle free speech and stifle dissent, they've had the perfect role models for the past 8 years with the current set of Republican goons in Congress and the White House. So spare me the outrage, aaron.
And public schools are not bound by the same "anything goes" free speech laws. Elementary school students can't wear clothing with swear words or lewd pictures, or would you want to protect their free speech right to wear a shirt with the F--- word, or depicts graphic murder or rape? Free speech, right? Students were supposed to wear red/white/blue shirts to be patriotic. There is nothing patriotic about a partisan and offensive t-shirt, no matter who the shirt is talking about. An 11yo kid shouldn't be wearing that kind of thing to school on any day.
But the reason you think that such an observation is stifling is that you don't want to confront the truth. People like you are afraid to admit you're anti-American so such accusations do tend to shut you up.
But really - Who is the audience for this child's T Shirt? Not the other kids - they can't vote yet. It's us.
Let this stupid kid wear his shirt. But the school should have a serious discussion with the father. Those are his father's words, not an impressionable child.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...
Dann Dalton should be ashamed for involving his 11 year old son in this publicity stunt. What 11 year old child even cares about politics? He's obviously just trying to stir the pot. Better dead than Red, right Dann? You keep fighting the good fight.
And Shawna - I'm sure that someone wearing a shirt stating 'McCain, a terrorist's best friend' would have beed suspended as well. Actually - they probably wouldn't have made it through the front door.
If this right-wing fanatic "father" doesn't like Obama, that's his business. To design (if that what you can call it) this shirt for his 11 year old son to wear to school makes me think that he maybe one of those folks who should not have had children to begin with.
A government of the money, by the money, and for the money!
The boy is learning that those in power, whoever they may be, can suppress speech if they don't like it, and that is how the USA works. The lesson he *should* be learning is that all forms of speech (with narrow exceptions like libel or incitement, which clearly don't apply here) are respected, and that the "marketplace of ideas" is how we come to our decisions.
If people didn't like his shirt, the topic should have engendered discussions in classes and perhaps debates at school assemblies. If his ideas are valid, they should be upheld. If they're not, that too will come out in the course of robust debate.
All hail the Two Party System!
No thanks, I'll vote third party,
Hmm..... guess I'll just quote the Bible to the zealots:
"The sins of the parents will be vistied upon the children."
In this case it appears the parent's sins are incompassion, intolerance, racial and gender bigotry, and bullying.
I do feel very sorry for the boy and the father should hang his head in shame.
A kid in school DOES NOT have free speech rights that citizens do in public.
A kid was suspended for holding up a banner that said "Bong hits 4 Jesus" and challenged that suspension as a violation of his rights. The Supreme Court upheld the suspension and said that while at a school function, students could have their "speech" controlled by the school so as not to disturb the learning environment.
The dad's a jerk, and in this case, he's also wrong. He'll lose his case.
Thank you.
This isn't about "liberal loons" or "right wingnuts", it's a question about freedom of speech and the extent to which we should limit it in our schools. A cogent discussion about this incident would not include the words "liberal" "conservative" "Obama" or "McCain." Instead, we would start with the generic question: 1. Should we allow t-shirts with political slogans to be worn in schools? (Remember that students don't necessarily have the same rights in school as the rest of us have in the real world.) 2. If not, then where do we draw the line, and what objective criteria can be established for that line? Admittedly, that's the difficult part, and in my view, the "disruption" standard leaves too much discretion in the hands of administrators. I think rules abridging a student's right to speech should be narrowly defined and applied sparingly. And naturally, they should apply equally without regard to party affilation. Some may disagree, but their objection will be based upon questions of school management, not knee-jerk red-blue bluster.
When my husband was younger he was suspended for wearing a Rob Zombie tshirt that had "666" on it. No one - no liberals or conservatives - came to his aid then, or blasted the district for restricting his freedom of speech, even though wearing the number of the Beast on your shirt is OBVIOUSLY protected speech.
People need to grow up and learn the difference between protected speech and non-protected speech.
http://www.cafepress.com/JGuadagniDesign
http://www.cafepress.com/JGuadagniDesign
Why assume that everyone who actually works to help children is liberal? Because some truck driver who supports anti-abortion terrrorists said so?
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Using his kids to do his dirty work.
The school had every right to suspend the kid after he refused his other options.
Unless they inherited it, of course. Like Bush.
Furthermore, political free speech is not protected under the law.
Stupid Billhillies!
Go into the military and see how much of your rights you get to exercise. Try explaining your rights to your commanding officer.
Just like your boss has the right to fire you for not following his code of conduct and dress in the workplace, schools, which have your child and my child in them must impose rules to maintain others' safety and *their* freedom - freedom from stress, anxiety, to learn, to a safe environment. Since Columbine, school's have imposed stricter and stricter rules on behavior and exacted zero tolerance. The focus in school is on learning not disrupting my child's education because you want to make a point or get your 15 minutes of idiot fame.
Your *right* to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose and you don't have the *right* to exercise your freedom of speech to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Conservative or Liberal, this kid is a moron. He's the kind of smart ass who cares more about being right than being human, and doesn't realize everyone laughs behind his back. He probably doesn't have many friends, and likely never will. His dad sounds like the same sort. The schools should just issue and apology and let him have his 1st amendment rights, because honestly, he's not worth the time, and never will be.
This opinion he's expressing means nothing to him. He scribbled something controversial on a t-shirt with a magic marker. He knew what would happen, he knew how to spin it. He's not a victim. He manufactured this situation. The only thing he's expressing is a cry for attention. He's trying to act cool, and he's really just showing what kind of loser he is. If this kid ever gets a girlfriend, she'll be an un-opinionated, people pleasing, push over with no self-esteem.
Therefore, his free speech since Obama truly is a terrorists best friend!
Daxx Dalton said on Monday he’s willing to leave his anti-Obama shirt at home for a while. “Except on Election Day,” he told Ayers, “when I’m going to wear it again.”
This kid is obviously smart. Kids will not have school on election day!!!!!!
Glossary
Absolute privilege — The right of legislators, judges and government officials to speak without threat of libel when acting in their official capacities.
Actual malice — In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court defined actual malice as a state of mind in which a person or publication makes an untrue and defamatory statement about a person “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” In order to recover damages for libel or defamation, a public official or public figure must be able to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice.
Appropriation of likeness — Generally, a person’s right to privacy allows him to determine the use of his name or likeness, except in some public scenarios. Improper invasion of a person’s privacy occurs when one uses his likeness for commercial gain or in such a way that “a person of ordinary sensibilities” would be offended.
Associational rights — These rights, which forbid the government from preventing people from joining organizations, are found implicitly in the First Amendment guarantee to speak and assemble freely. So long as the association or group in question does not present a clear and present danger, or advocate illegal activity, it is fully protected by the First Amendment (unless subject to a “time, place and manner” restriction). However, this right does not always work both ways, as there are certain situations where the government may force a group to include members.
Bad tendency — The bad-tendency test finds its roots in English common law, where it stood for the proposition that the government could restrict speech that would have the tendency to cause or incite illegal activity. Articulated in 1907 in the Supreme Court case Patterson v. Colorado, the test only stood for a dozen years. It was overruled when Justice Holmes, speaking for the majority, implicitly rejected this test with the advent of the “clear and present danger” test in Schenck v. United States (1919). This test, while analytically similar, requires a showing that the speech will cause a real and imminent threat.
Captive audience — The government has the ability to limit speech that would otherwise be protected if that speech is being imposed on a captive audience, which occurs when it would be impractical for the listener to be able to escape that speech. This is often used in cases of minors. See cases.
Central Hudson test — The Supreme Court devised this test in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980) to determine when commercial speech would receive First Amendment protection. When deciding if the First Amendment should shield commercial speech, courts must consider whether:
The expression of commercial speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading.
The asserted government interest is substantial.
The regulation directly advances the asserted government interest.
The regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.
Certiorari (writ of certiorari) — Certiorari, meaning in Latin to “be more fully informed,” is the procedure used by the Supreme Court and appellate courts to review the cases they hear. After receiving an appeal, the court decides whether to grant certiorari and review the lower court’s case. If it grants certiorari, or “cert,” then the higher court reviews the case. If the court denies cert, then the lower court ruling stands. In the Supreme Court, the votes of four justices are required to grant certiorari.
Clear and present danger — In Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated this test, which said that the government may suppress speech that presents a clear and present danger, as long as the government can show that that danger is both real and imminent.
Compelled speech — As a general rule, the government cannot force an individual to express himself in a way that he would not otherwise do. This principle stems from West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), which held that a state could not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. However, complications arise when commercial speech is involved, because companies, not people, are expressing themselves, and some advertising and other commercial speech can be regulated.
Content discrimination — A law that discriminates based on the content of a message — as opposed to the time, place or manner in which that message is made, or the reactions it incites in people — is considered presumptively unconstitutional.
Content neutrality — The opposite of content–based laws, content–neutral regulation of speech means the restrictions are placed on any speech regardless of what it says. For example, although a law might be able to regulate whether pamphlets could be distributed in a public school, it could not discriminate against only Christian or Muslim pamphlets Such content neutral regulations that interfere with speech are examined under a balancing test, comparing the state’s interest in prohibiting the activity in question and the level of interference with the speaker, which is often determined by looking at available avenues of communication. See cases.
Copyright — The Constitution’s copyright clause and the First Amendment foster creativity and freedom of expression. Ideally, these two parts of the Constitution work hand in hand to ensure greater artistic, technological and scientific advancement. But oftentimes, particularly in the age of the Internet, copyright and the First Amendment collide.
The copyright clause: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution reads: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The First Amendment, the first 45 words of the Bill of Rights, provides that "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." The question becomes how to balance these two sometimes-competing principles.
Some inherent degree of tension exists between the First Amendment and copyright. Copyright allows creators of expressive conduct to control the flow of certain information and expression, while the First Amendment ensures the free flow of information and expression.
One purpose of copyright law is to provide protection for the creator of an expressive work. The main purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure public access to information. Copyright protection reduces access to some information by limiting the extent to which it can be copied by others. "By allowing the removal of certain speech from the marketplace of ideas, however, copyright appears to fly in the face of the goals of the First Amendment," legal scholar Stephen Fraser has written. Georgetown law professor Julie Cohen explains that "intellectual property protection, and particularly copyright protection, is a form of censorship."
Copyright creates property rights for the creators of certain works. This is why copyright, along with patent and trademark law, is labeled under the rubric of intellectual property. If a person copies another's work without permission, that person has trespassed on the creator's property, or copyrighted expression. This is called copyright infringement. If a person directly copies another's expression, that person has committed direct copyright infringement. If a person or company enables others to commit copyright infringement, they have committed contributory or vicarious infringement.
Registration of a work with the U.S. Copyright Office is prima facie evidence of a valid right to a work in question; however, even without registration an author may own certain rights in his work, as determined by common law. However, without a valid registration, an author cannot institute an infringement action, nor can she recover certain remedies, including attorneys’ fees.
Copyright exists to increase knowledge. It does so by providing creators with an economic incentive to produce work. Copyright protects "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." It protects books, artwork, sculptures, paintings, musical compositions and many other forms. The U.S. Supreme Court has written: "It should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be an engine of free expression" (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 1985).
The theory is that if people could freely copy anyone else's work without paying for it, there would be no incentive for the creation of new material. Why take your time to create a product if you will receive no reward?
However, the law also recognizes that if copyright law is too rigid, then there will be a dramatic reduction in the public's access to information. Copyright law attempts to resolve this dilemma to a degree by distinguishing between expression and ideas.See Cases.
Facial challenge — A challenge that claims a law is inherently unconstitutional (unconstitutional on its face), as opposed to a law that is applied in a particular situation unconstitutionally.
Fair use — The U.S. Copyright Act has a fair-use exemption, allowing a defendant to a copyright-infringement claim to escape liability on the theory that it is only equitable that he should be able to use the original work in some manner. Fair-use inquiries are examined case by case and depend on four factors:
The purpose and the character of the use.
The nature of the original copyrighted work.
The amount of the original work used in the secondary work.
The economic impact of the use.
False light — A form of invasion of privacy in which a person is presented in way that leaves a negative and inaccurate impression about that person. False light is a tort theory under which a claimant might sue for damage to reputation. in this case the shirt could be qualifyed as
Fighting words — the U.S. Supreme Court defined fighting words as those words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” if you dont belive me look it up.
You'll probably raise your kids to be so open-minded their brains fall out.
I personally think the shirt was tasteless. It was neither creative, nor was it well-made, but the child had the right to do as he pleased. The dad seemed to be an utter -ss, however.
And as great as it is, Shane, to have you bash my beliefs, my God, and my Creator, I would appreciate it if you would learn about my lifestyle before you assume that's how children of God are raised.