The Colorado Independent - Latest Comments in Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

robberra — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:11:19 -0000

If we get to the point that a controversial t-shirt is too disruptive to a school, then school has probably stopped being a place where kids learn to think and becomes a place where kids learn only rote memorization.
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.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

Kaley — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:01:42 -0000

ShaneS - I'm a sixteen year old daughter of a pastor, and for the record, no one forced my beliefs on me. Just beacuse if you don't worship THE God you go to hell, doesn't mean that anyone's forcing us.
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.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

bob — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:04:29 -0000

where can i get that t-shirt?

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

bob — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:35:44 -0000

Where can i get a t-shirt like that?

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

lane — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:43:17 -0000

in school kids dont have freedom of speech. they have rules they have to follow at risk of suspention or expultion.
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.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

freelyb — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:35:54 -0000

Yup, another baby bully in the making.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

frank — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:11:55 -0000

It all goes both ways, remember that the last two years have been a Demicrate controlled senate and house passing laws and allowing the deregulation of housing giving those who cant pay money to buy houses and taking money from these orginizations to fund their campaigns( look at the records) some of the things that have caused us to be in the economic crisis we are in now. What this country needs is to realize that the president does not write laws the congress does. Look at who you vote for based on what the have done or stood for in the past. Before you vote look at what the person running for office really has done not the party propaganda. All the bull from the presidental candidates is only cheap talk to get you to vote for them. They will only get done what congress lets them

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

aaron truitt — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:46:43 -0000

Calling anti-Americans "anti-Americans" is not stifling speech, it simply suggests an appropriate perspective for the argument.

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.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

Cody — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:49:45 -0000

I love the last line...

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!!!!!!

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

Jerry C — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:52:48 -0000

Has anyone noticed that his shirt was mearly a statment of fact? One of Obama's best friends is Bill Ayers, a man who took part in terrorists attacks back in the 60's and to this day does not appologize for it, he even says he wished he could have done more damage!
Therefore, his free speech since Obama truly is a terrorists best friend!

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

L N — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:45:59 -0000

I don't think the kid should be suspended

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

argggg — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:45:30 -0000

i think he should not be suspended. i think obomastinks any way. plus he should be able to wear it because it isn't like there was a naked person on it

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

odama+h8er\ — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:34:54 -0000

lol, im sayin this not cuz i hate obama but becuz this is stuped. so wat if he wore that shirt, its FOS ( Freedom Of Speech) my school also wouldnt let us do this ether (hell i wish i thout of this sooner) all i can say is wish u felow obama hates good luck in court. lol,lmao,lmfao,rofl,roflcopter-odama+h8er\ out

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

brantl — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:53:32 -0000

This idiot parent thinks he's entitled to protest at someone's house? I hope they get him for disturbing the peace. The kid? If they have regulation that you can't wear campaign stuff to school, then he shouldn't get to wear it, otherwise, let him parade his ignorance. I don't know what a GEOGRAPHY teacher is going into any comparative political lecture for, though.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

Dawn — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:27:20 -0000

I think you guys are all missing the point here.

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.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

Mr. Moderate — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:33:19 -0000

It's too bad this guy uses his kids to advance his extremist right wing views. No it wouldn't be appropriate if it was directed at McCain either.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

Paulie — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:14:07 -0000

Schools have the right to impose rules to maintain order, discipline, and provide protection for everyone else's child. For example, schools maintain the right to go through students' lockers without permission to look for drugs. The same rules or rights of the constitution do not always apply. Or like my boss told his staff once, "This is not a democracy."

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.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

rhetoricus — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:48:45 -0000

Riggghht. And if a kid had a t-shirt that said "John 'The Prince' McCain is a traitor who sold out American to the VietCong. What other treason does he have planned?" you'd be perfectly happy with it.

Idiot. Or perhaps the kid should just iron a porn picture onto his shirt. Freedom of Speech, you know.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

John Buoy — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:35:30 -0000

Dumb-ass NASCAR trailer-trash hicks. These are the people who DESERVE to die in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting not to "defend our freedoms" but to protect the commercial interests of our Republican rulers. Hail Halliburton! Hail Exxon-Mobil! Hail McSame-Palin.

Stupid Billhillies!

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

Wally — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:48:10 -0000

I would let the kid wear the shirt so long as it was ok for another kid to wear a "Bush is a criminal" shirt.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

truthandgoodness — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:23:12 -0000

another parent left behind.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

11SeptInsideJob — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:50:44 -0000

Whatever happened to free speech???

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

MNUSA — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:28:24 -0000

Yeah, that really sounds like something an eleven year old boy is concerned about. His hateful father is using him as a pawn, poor kid.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

MNUSA — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:23:56 -0000

Yeah, that sounds like something an eleven year old would come up with all right. He's a pawn of his hateful father, poor kid.

Re: Aurora fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama T-shirt

Mr. Young — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:58:57 -0000

The school has the Supreme Court on their side. Look at the case law that deals with a school's right to limit free speech. See Bong Hits for Jesus and even more frivilous cases. The school has every right to do this.