High school students sue to wear anti-gay clothing at school

[Dope Nose]

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/308356,6_1_NA22_LAWSUIT_S1.article

Students sue school for suppressing anti-gay speech

March 22, 2007
By Lisa Fedorowicz sun-times news group

Two Neuqua Valley High School students are suing the school's board, principal and dean for the right to wear anti-gay clothing during school hours.

Heidi Zamecnik and Alexander Nuxoll are seeking a court injunction that prevents the Indian Prairie School District 204 Board of Education, Superintendent Howard Crouse, and Neuqua Valley High School officials from prohibiting them from wearing clothing expressing their displeasure with homosexuality a day after the school allows other students to display messages promoting homosexual behavior.

Neuqua Principal Michael Popp and Dean of Students Bryan Wells also are named in the federal lawsuit filed Wednesday by the students and their parents.

The lawsuit did not indicate what written messages the students planned to wear on their shirts.

Teen reprimanded for shirt last year

During her first two years of high school, Zamecnik, a Naperville resident, did not outwardly object to the "Day of Silence" in which students wear pro-gay messages on T-shirts.

But the current senior was reprimanded during her junior year on April 20, 2006, a day after the national "Day of Silence," for wearing a self-made T-shirt that read "MY DAY OF SILENCE, STRAIGHT ALLIANCE," on the front and "BE HAPPY, NOT GAY" on the back, the suit says.

The "Day of Silence" is an annual event organized by the Gay/Straight Alliance that gives students and teachers nationwide the opportunity to remain quiet all day "to echo" the silence that gay students face all the time, while wearing written messages on shirts, buttons and stickers showing their support of gay lifestyles.

The suit alleges Wells told Zamecnik that her shirt "offended" some students and faculty members and that she must either remove it from her body or leave school. When she refused, her mother was called.

Linda Zamecnik and Wells agreed Wells could alter the shirt's message to read "Be Happy. Be Straight."

But the suit says the agreement was broken when a school counselor crossed out "NOT GAY" in black marker but nothing replaced it.

The suit says Linda Zamecnik discussed the issue with the principal and superintendent, and was told that staff had done nothing wrong.

The suit says Heidi Zamecnik suffered unlawful discrimination, humiliation and punishment by school personnel merely because they didn't agree with her viewpoint.

Students expressing religious viewpoint

Zamecnik claims she was offended when students and staff wore pro-gay shirts on the "Day of Silence" during her freshman and sophomore years, but understood that students reserve the right to express their beliefs. Instead, she remained silent the day after the "Day of Silence," as a means of sharing her viewpoint.

The suit claims Zamecnik noticed during her junior year that many students were intimidated by the pro-gay event and were coerced to support it, prompting her to display her beliefs on a T-shirt a day later.

Heidi's father, Carl Zamecnik, declined comment Wednesday night on behalf of his family, and referred calls to an attorney.

The "Day of Silence" will take place April 18 at Neuqua. On the following day, Zamecnik and Nuxoll, a freshman, want to express through speech and clothing a more religious viewpoint of homosexual behavior. Both Zamecnik and Nuxoll are Christians with very religious beliefs, the suit says.

Zamecnik and Nuxoll claim that Neuqua systematically eliminates any opposing viewpoint of homosexuality. They are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Neuqua and the District 204 Board of Education from prohibiting them from expressing their religious viewpoints.

Because of Zamecnik's family's "sincerely held religious beliefs" against the gay lifestyle, "they wish to share their conviction that true happiness cannot be found through homosexual behavior," the suit says.

Zamecnik and Nuxoll also are seeking a judgment declaring the school's "Dress Guidelines" and "Racial Incidents" in the school handbook as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Zamecnik also is seeking other unspecified damages.

 

[JP]

I don't get it.

 

[Assassin]

I agree with them, why is it okay to be pro gay but not anti gay?

 

[bulok]

I haven't seen an Englishman take a blow like this since Hugh Grant

 

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL , I said before and I say it again.
I love society. it's entertaining.

"Zamecnik noticed during her junior year that many students were intimidated by the pro-gay event"

LOL....

 

[terry78]

I would object, seeing as how they don't have the right to free speech in school, but if kids could wear shirts that are pro-gay, why not vice versa? It's only fair, whether you agree or not.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

maybe if we pray really hard Jesus will turn all those sinful gay people straight!

 

[Liquid Snake]

I think the anti gay person should just get a life. If he wants to embrace his sexuality and be proud of being straight or gay if thats the only ****ing thing you have to be proud of, I mean it's innate, get a life gays and straight people.

 

[Assassin]

are you gay? if not then why does it bother you that they want to be anti gay?

 

[Carcharodon]

The reason for the double-standard is discrimination. The anti-gay shirts are clearly discriminatory, while the pro-gay shirts are quite the opposite. Combine this with the fact that schools are not free-speech platforms (i.e., people can't go down the halls saying, "**** you, you dirty piece of ****!"), and the schools were perfectly justified in reprimanding the anti-gay shirts. It comes down to discrimination.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

"straight Alliance" LMAO "together our straightness can overcome the hottest of hotpants! the leatheriest or leather chaps! the bushiest mustache!!!"

 

[I_Hate_U_All]

This is hilarious.

I never thought I'd see the day heterosexuals would be fighting for the right to express themselves.

what a world, mr. sparkle, eh?

 

[bulok]

The reason for the double-standard is discrimination. The anti-gay shirts are clearly discriminatory, while the pro-gay shirts are quite the opposite. Combine this with the fact that schools are not free-speech platforms (i.e., people can't go down the halls saying, "**** you, you dirty piece of ****!"), and the schools were perfectly justified in reprimanding the anti-gay shirts. It comes down to discrimination.

discrimination how?

 

[Kyalesyin]

I would object, seeing as how they don't have the right to free speech in school, but if kids could wear shirts that are pro-gay, why not vice versa? It's only fair, whether you agree or not.

Pretty much with you on that. My standpoint has always been:

They got the right to say it. I got the right to ignore them. And/or throw heavy objects at them.

 

[Kaboom]

soon we will have no first amendment.

 

[Carcharodon]

discrimination how?

Fine, prejudice. The point is that if you went into school wearing a shirt that was anti-Jew, or anti-Black, you'd be reprimanded. Why should this be any different?

 

[Liquid Snake]

I agree with Wall Crawler and that's the reason the sueing doesn''t even make sense. I think the school officials were right to suggest you can be pro straight but not anti-gay.

But What would happen in a case like wearing a pro Nazi sign?

 

[Kaboom]

Fine, prejudice. The point is that if you went into school wearing a shirt that was anti-Jew, or anti-Black, you'd be reprimanded. Why should this be any different?

I agree with Wall Crawler and that's the reason the sueing doesn''t even make sense. I think the school officials were right to suggest you can be pro straight but not anti-gay.

But What would happen in a case like wearing a pro Nazi sign?

freedom of speech does not mean "i am free to say whatever I want as long as I dont offend you."

freedom of speech means "i am free to say whatever I want"

it can be regulated as to place, time, and mode...but not to content.

moreover, schools, as parts of government are not free to endorse certain speech and restrict others. If they allow some, they must as a matter of law allow at all.

 

[rdh007]

That's gay.

 

[Carcharodon]

freedom of speech does not mean "i am free to say whatever I want as long as I dont offend you."

freedom of speech means "i am free to say whatever I want"

it can be regulated as to place, time, and mode...but not to content.

moreover, schools, as parts of government are not free to endorse certain speech and restrict others. If they allow some, they must as a matter of law allow at all.

You're wrong. Flat-out wrong, and I don't say that too often to many people. The fact of the matter is that schools can and do govern what the student body says and how they behave...and they are fully within their legal right to do so.

By your logic, a student should be able to walk up to a black student and call him the, "N," word. That's not how it works. Sorry, man.

 

[Dope Nose]

Fighting for the right to wear Tigger
ACLU sues Napa school over dress code that requires solid colors, bans all denim
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/21/MNGRUOOVAD1.DTL

Tigger clothing ban causes family to sue school district
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/03/20/news/local/doc4600675b2df0c516194680.txt

Toni Kay Scott, 14, shows sister Sydni, 11, a Tigger sock -- part of the clothing she wore to school in violation of a dress code.

 

[Super Kal]

I support their reason to sue... if "pro-gays" have the right to support their beliefs, "anti-gays" should have the right to support theirs as well.

 

[Orko Is King]

Well, blacks and Jews are next I suppose...

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Well, it seems like she got in trouble for the "Not Gay" part of her shirt, that's where the problem comes in. I'm sure the pro-gay shirts didn't say "Be Happy, Be Gay" or "Be Gay, Not Straight". The girl in question was obviously baiting people, she wanted the publicity, she wanted a fight. Now that she's suing the school, I'd say she wanted the money and this was an easy ploy for her to get money she doesn't deserve. F her!

 

[Kaboom]

You're wrong. Flat-out wrong, and I don't say that too often to many people. The fact of the matter is that schools can and do govern what the student body says and how they behave...and they are fully within their legal right to do so.

By your logic, a student should be able to walk up to a black student and call him the, "N," word. That's not how it works. Sorry, man.

if you notice, I discussed freedom of speech and "content" before talking about schools.

I started talking about schools only after i talked about the legal effects of "endorsing" one particular view.

Before you tell me I'm wrong about somehting, it would help to take a class on constitutional law.

I've taken 2.
Ive got As in both.

And I'm pretty sure we studied the first amendment.

In fact, in a landmark Supreme Court decision concerning schools and freedom of speech. Perhaps the most quoted passage on the issue is (paraphrasing) an individual does not surrent their rights to free speech at the schoolhouse gate.

The case that came from, if i remember correctly involved student protests over the Vietname war. The individual war a black arm band. The arm band is now in the National Civil Rights Museum.

Before you tell me I'm Flat out wrong you may want to bone up on your knowledge of the first amendment, "endorsement," due process, regulations as to "time, place, mode" and "inflammatory speech prohibitions."

Then maybe we can talk.