March 06, 2007
Tyler Harper wore an anti-homosexuality T-shirt to school, apparently responding to a pro-gay-rights event put on at the school by the Gay-Straight Alliance at the school. On the front, the T-shirt said, "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned," and on the back, it said "Homosexuality is Shameful." The principal insisted that Harper take off the T-shirt. Harper sued, claiming this violated his First Amendment rights.Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has vacated the Ninth Circuit's opinion, but I fear we'll be seeing more rulings like this. Read the rest of Volokh's commentary here.Harper's speech is constitutionally unprotected, the Ninth Circuit just ruled today, in an opinion written by Judge Reinhardt and joined by Judge Thomas; Judge Kozinski dissented. According to the majority, "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation" -- which essentially means expressions of viewpoints that are hostile to certain races, religions, and sexual orientations -- are simply unprotected by the First Amendment in K-12 schools. Such speech, Judge Reinhardt said, violates "the rights of other students" by constituting a "verbal assault[] that may destroy the self-esteem of our most vulnerable teenagers and interfere with their educational development."
Posted by: Ragnar at
11:39 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.
Would you consider a shirt with an anti Semetic shirt to be acceptable?
The Supreme Court vacated the ruling because the point was moot, the student had already graduated and was no lonmger in school.
MSM is now reporting Scooter Libby as having been convicted of 4 out of the five inditments. do you think Bush will pardon Libby ?
Posted by: JOHN RYAN at March 06, 2007 01:03 PM (TcoRJ)
But here's the thing, John Ryan. It doesn't matter what you or your fascist butt buddies think the law should be. What matters is what the law is. The shirt was constitutionally permissible.
Viewpoint discrimination is an especially abhorrent element of leftist ideology. Thankfully, the Supreme Court is unanimous on the unconstitutionality of viewpoint prohibitions. See, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul
That's a 1992 ruling, but the current court would not vary on this.
Posted by: wooga at March 06, 2007 02:21 PM (t9sT5)
No, I don't.
Would you consider a shirt with an anti Semetic shirt to be acceptable?
"Acceptable?" What does my personal "acceptance" have to do with anything? The question is not whether a message is "acceptable" to me or anyone else individually. Go read up on the First Amendment and get back to me.
The Supreme Court vacated the ruling because the point was moot, the student had already graduated and was no lonmger in school.
Yes, nothing to see here. The Supreme Court's vacating of the Ninth Circuit opinion has no significance. As you know, the Supreme Court makes it a point of vacating most appellate panel decisions that become moot prior to S.C. review. For example, in the case of Roe v. Wade, the court declined to issue a decision and vacated the Fifth Circuit opinion owing to the fact that the case was moot--baby Roe had, after all, already been born.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at March 06, 2007 06:50 PM (c/4ax)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 06, 2007 08:09 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: greyrooster at March 06, 2007 09:32 PM (wTIrf)
Now if SCOTUS would just vacate the Ninth Circuit instead of just their opinions, we'd all be better off.
Posted by: memphis761 at March 07, 2007 10:22 AM (YHZAl)
Posted by: sandpiper at March 07, 2007 11:37 AM (gJhPg)
34 queries taking 0.069 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
