Seventh Grader Sues School Over Right to Wear Pro-Life T-Shirt

[Majic Walrus]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_...er_anna_amador_sues_school_on_behalf_of_.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530284,00.html?mep

Two links for the price of one.

Long story short this girl was asked to remove a pro-life shirt on national pro-life shirt day (I know... the fact that there's a day was disturbing to me too) in any case the school claims it was their right and the parents of the child are claiming free speech.

The shirt wasn't that bad but I don't really think that school is a proper forum for spreading political or religious ideas or beliefs. My opinion is that the school should've had uniforms instated a long time ago to prevent something like this from happening.

Either way a pro-life or pro-choice shirt could very easily start a hot button topic and I would understand why the school would ask her to remove it.

 

[Wiseman]

I remember when I was in school there was a whole bunch of pro-life people standing at the end of the school where all the buses pass by and they were holding up signs with pictures of dead babies and saying abortion was murder. I didn't really have anything to contribute to this thread so I figured I'd just mention this instead

 

[StorminNorman]

Since this is a public school, I am absolutely against School Uniforms and I absolutely believe the school was in the wrong here.

 

[Prison Mike]

I may not agree with it, but the kid has a right to wear the pro-life t-shirt. just as another kid has the right to wear a pro-choice t-shirt.

 

[BatMatt]

Seeing as the shirt isn't incredibly graphic (i.e, a picture of an aborted baby), the school doesn't have the right to do what it did.

 

[NHawk19]

The shirt was a little to graphic for elementary school. I agree with her right to wear a pro-life shirt but that particular shirt was in poor taste. Remember she was in a K-8 school at the time.

 

[Figs]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_...er_anna_amador_sues_school_on_behalf_of_.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530284,00.html?mep

Two links for the price of one.

Long story short this girl was asked to remove a pro-life shirt on national pro-life shirt day (I know... the fact that there's a day was disturbing to me too) in any case the school claims it was their right and the parents of the child are claiming free speech.

The shirt wasn't that bad but I don't really think that school is a proper forum for spreading political or religious ideas or beliefs. My opinion is that the school should've had uniforms instated a long time ago to prevent something like this from happening.

Either way a pro-life or pro-choice shirt could very easily start a hot button topic and I would understand why the school would ask her to remove it.

For political/religious beliefs?? What about just moral beliefs? I'm not religious and lean more towards being pro-life, what does religion or politics for that matter have to do with one's right to believe in that?

Also, in regards about schools and how they should be enforcing uniforms would be yet another PC and lazy answer to take care of what they call a 'problem' but is really our freedom and right...so long as the shirt or clothes don't have anything graphic which means anything overtly sexual, violent or with bad language. Forcing all the kids to wear uniforms I think is a horrible idea, as long as their clothes aren't graphic they should wear what they want.

 

[Manic]

When I was in 7th grade, I wasn't allowed to wear solid blue shirts because the administration believed that solid red and solid blue clothing were indicators of being in a gang. We also weren't allowed to wear hats, even between classes, at lunch, or standing around campus afterschool.

This kid needs to suck it up. She wore a shirt with a hot button topic on it. Not to mention the shirt shows two pictures of a fetus on the front, and she attends a school with kids walking around as young as 5 years old.

 

[Figs]

When I was in 7th grade, I wasn't allowed to wear solid blue shirts because the administration believed that solid red and solid blue clothing were indicators of being in a gang. We also weren't allowed to wear hats, even between classes, at lunch, or standing around campus afterschool.

This kid needs to suck it up. She wore a shirt with a hot button topic on it. Not to mention the shirt shows two pictures of a fetus on the front, and she attends a school with kids walking around as young as 5 years old.

There should be nothing wrong with a picture of a baby in the womb(or fetus) unless the shirt makes people feel guilty which is on them. You mention 5 year olds, but I still find it funny how in our country they're more lenient on violence than on something natural like nudity or in this case "oh no!" a baby/fetus.

Only thing that is kind of sad but I will agree on is depending on where you go to school, the not being allowed to wear solid red or blue because of stupid gangs. The hats and glasses thing doesn't make sense though, I don't see what's the harm if your not in class when your wearing them.

 

[NHawk19]

There should be nothing wrong with a picture of a baby in the womb(or fetus) unless the shirt makes people feel guilty which is on them. You mention 5 year olds, but I still find it funny how in our country they're more lenient on violence than on something natural like nudity or in this case "oh no!" a baby/fetus.

Only thing that is kind of sad but I will agree on is depending on where you go to school, the not being allowed to wear solid red or blue because of stupid gangs. The hats and glasses thing doesn't make sense though, I don't see what's the harm if your not in class when your wearing them.

So you're saying that the message could not have been conveyed without the graphics?

 

[Manic]

There should be nothing wrong with a picture of a baby in the womb(or fetus) unless the shirt makes people feel guilty which is on them. You mention 5 year olds, but I still find it funny how in our country they're more lenient on violence than on something natural like nudity or in this case "oh no!" a baby/fetus.

It's a country co-founded by Puritans. They believed showing too much ankle was a sin, and would publicly execute people and shoot Indians who wandered too close to their settlements. Violence was everywhere, but heaven forbid they acknowledged sex, nudity, ect. That's the history of the moral backbone of this country. That, and the crooked businessmen who would sooner revolt than pay taxes.

 

[Wiseman]

So you're saying that the message could not have been conveyed without the graphics?

A picture is worth a thousand words

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I gotta side with the school on this one, that type of shirt shouldn't be allowed in an elementary school

 

[Carcharodon]

Seventh grade is elementary school?

In any case, I don't see how this is any different from the case in the 70's with the students wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War. But to those who are against the school's actions, let me pose a question: if the school is indeed obligated to uphold constitutional free-speech, then why do they have the right to take disciplinary action on a kid shouting, "F**K F**K F**K!!!!11!!!1!!!!" through the halls?

Think about it.

 

[Prison Mike]

I do think the whole free speech excuse gets thrown around too often though...

 

[Figs]

So you're saying that the message could not have been conveyed without the graphics?

Like in my previous post there was nothing graphic or violent about the shirt, it just showed a picture of a baby/fetus than a closer picture than the next grid or square was all black.The baby/fetus is a sign of life so as I said before it shouldn't be offensive unless the idea behind the shirt causes people to feel guilty, which is on them.

It's a country co-founded by Puritans. They believed showing too much ankle was a sin, and would publicly execute people and shoot Indians who wandered too close to their settlements. Violence was everywhere, but heaven forbid they acknowledged sex, nudity, ect. That's the history of the moral backbone of this country. That, and the crooked businessmen who would sooner revolt than pay taxes.

Belive me I know all of that, I just think it's ass backwards how we have it here. Personally violence doesn't usually offend me either but out of the two nudity is natural and shouldn't be shunned. All in all though, I don't necessarily think she should sue the school but she does and should have the right to protest about them trying to tell her she cant wear a shirt on something called Pro-Life Day(which I take it is only 1 day out of the year).

 

[Manic]

Seventh grade is elementary school?

It's an elementary school that runs from kindergarten to eighth grade.

 

[Carcharodon]

It's an elementary school that runs from kindergarten to eighth grade.

I did not know that.

 

[Wiseman]

I do think the whole free speech excuse gets thrown around too often though...

**** you.............see it's censored, for your protection

 

[The Lizard]

It's one thing if the girl was wearing a shirt that just had the name of a pro-life organization or some simplistic slogan like "It's a child, not a choice", but the fact that there were photos of fetuses on the shirt was indeed a bit too emotionally provocative.

It would be like a kid wearing an anti-Iraq war shirt that had photos of Iraqi children on it alongside American bombs or graves or something like that.

 

[Figs]

Seventh grade is elementary school?

In any case, I don't see how this is any different from the case in the 70's with the students wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War. But to those who are against the school's actions, let me pose a question: if the school is indeed obligated to uphold constitutional free-speech, then why do they have the right to take disciplinary action on a kid shouting, "F**K F**K F**K!!!!11!!!1!!!!" through the halls?

Think about it.

Two different things though. The girl was not literally grabbing people and trying to shove her Pro-life views down their throats she was just wearing a shirt that stood for something she believed in.

I'm not sure where you heard the story of a kid in the hallway getting in trouble for shouting the F word constantly but in that case it's considered foul language, doesn't offend me at all. I just think they're words. Lots of parents though wouldn't appreciate the schools allowing a kid to just run around shouting constant curse words at that age level if they didn't want their children to hear those words constantly(since in life it would eventually be impossible to keep their children away from it entirely which would be sheltering which is bad anyways).

I can understand if they took action against this girl if she was literally pushing and shoving her views on other kids but she wasn't. If she was though I can understand the school taking her aside because a lot of parents also just like the cursing might not want their children to be pro-life.

 

[katie_girl09]

Well, all I have to say is if they would allow a pro-choice shirt, a pro-life one shouldn't be any different.
And, again, if there is a pro-choice day, I guess it makes sense that there is a pro-life one as well.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

The school had no right to do that.

...Or did they?

 

[Carcharodon]

Two different things though. The girl was not literally grabbing people and trying to shove her Pro-life views down their throats she was just wearing a shirt that stood for something she believed in.

I'm not sure where you heard the story of a kid in the hallway getting in trouble for shouting the F word constantly but in that case it's considered foul language, doesn't offend me at all. I just think they're words. Lots of parents though wouldn't appreciate the schools allowing a kid to just run around shouting constant curse words at that age level if they didn't want their children to hear those words constantly(since in life it would eventually be impossible to keep their children away from it entirely which would be sheltering which is bad anyways).

I can understand if they took action against this girl if she was literally pushing and shoving her views on other kids but she wasn't. If she was though I can understand the school taking her aside because a lot of parents also just like the cursing might not want their children to be pro-life.

You missed the point entirely. The point was that free-speech has never been enforced in the school system the same way it is outside of the school system. Schools have (and always have had) limited censorship ability. She's going to lose this case.

 

[NHawk19]

Like in my previous post there was nothing graphic or violent about the shirt, it just showed a picture of a baby/fetus than a closer picture than the next grid or square was all black.The baby/fetus is a sign of life so as I said before it shouldn't be offensive unless the idea behind the shirt causes people to feel guilty, which is on them.

</p>
And my point is it was a PG-13 shirt in a G rated area. We're not talking about the photos being exposed to adults who can presumably handle the pictures. We're talking about exposure to 5 & 6 year olds.