Why do 7th grade girls think their First Amendment right applies to school grounds?

A California mom says her public school administrators violated her daughter's First Amendment rights when they ordered the seventh-grader to take off her pro-abortion T-shirt...."Abortions are legal in every state of this great country and I am using my first amendment right to encourage women to have abortions." stated the teenager.

The daughter can't be more than 14 years old if she's in the 7th grade (article didn't say) yet she wants to be an activist voice for the pro-abortion crowd at the tender age of 14?

And why would any mother allow her 7th grade daughter to wear a pro-abortion t-shirt to school in the first place. Sick.

It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry.
H. L. Mencken

"Abortions are legal in every state of this great country and I am using my first amendment right to encourage women to have abortions." stated the teenager."

funny thing, manyputz - that particular sentence is nowhere to be found in the linked article. in fact, this is how the first two paragraphs read:

" A California mom says her public school administrators violated her daughter's First Amendment rights when they ordered the seventh-grader to take off her pro-life T-shirt.

Anna Amador has gone to court on behalf of her daughter, who she says was ordered by her principal to change her shirt on "National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day." The shirt the girl was wearing displays two graphic pictures of a fetus growing in the womb."

rcade - this is a blatant misuse of an article and wording. i hope you don't allow this to stand!

CC - READ THE ARTICLE!

CC - READ THE ARTICLE!

#4 | Posted by nanc at 2009-07-06 06:52 PM

I did, but just a quick look to make sure the T-shirt did or didn't say "Abortions tickle" as stated in Manypath's headline. Saw the T-shirt's fetus photos and took that together with Manypath's misleading intro on this page as it being a "pro-abortion" shirt.

MANYPATHS -- your intro is totally misleading -- in fact it's an outright lie.

Bact to the story -- even though I agree with the pro-life message overall, I feel either way the school has the right to regulate the subject matter displayed on any T-shirts the kids to wear to school

I wonder at what age Chrissie thinks kids should be allowed free speech. herm

Herm,

Schools are an interesting issue regarding 'free speech' rights.

You bemoan the curtailing of 'free speech' in regards to this case because you are a strong propononent of the freedom to abort - and thus support any message in display of such support.

Having said that, more than one valedictorian speaker has been denied those very same rights you deem inherent, because their graduation speech invoked their faith 'too much and too often'.

This is a problem I see with the public school system. A private school system (I am not suggesting that privatizing education doesn't open up a whole new can of worms) would be far more insulated from these problems because a degree of insulation exists between the private sector and public political correctness.

If a parent didn't like a dress-code or whatever, another school could be selected that was more in line with their belief-system.

Public schools lack the flexibility that private schools afford. This is due to the relative degree of 'sameness' that government requires.

this is a blatant misuse of an article and wording.

I think that's the point.

"Just a flick of the wrist, and it's done!"

Why do 7th grade girls think their First Amendment right applies to school grounds?

#1 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-07-06 05:46 PM

Because the Supreme Court says it does.

This brat "encourages" women to have abortions?? Sick. The mother should be charged with child abuse.

This brat "encourages" women to have abortions?? Sick. The mother should be charged with child abuse.

No. Just the story is the exact opposite only you'd have to click on the link to find that out. MANYPATH's made up (LIED) throughout his entire intro at the top of the page and didn't tell it truthfully at all. In fact he turned the whole story around 180 degrees. He even used quote marks for quotes that didn't exist.

I think Jeffie fails to differentiate between freedom to express one's SELF and freedom to ram one's faith down throats of others. T-shirts express one, leading one's graduating class in prayer as valedictorian the other. Or do I nitpick? herm

this is a blatant misuse of an article and wording.

I think that's the point.

#8 | Posted by rcade

Disappointing comment there Rcade.....

You are from journalistic roots and you will let this stay?

If this remains without changing it to the true headline and point of the article--what does that say about YOU?

This is NOT an April Fools' joke.

This is YOU and this Drudge Retort to go to a level that is beneath YOU.

Why convulate it with misquotes and lies?

We are perfectly capable of addressing the issues brought up in this article and thread.

#13 | Posted by herm

It's all free speech there Herm--or do you make the difference?

Thank you, Califchris! I relied on the summation above before making my post. Now that I checked the link, what a sick way to posit the story for our comments.
Manypaths? You are usually civil but this was wrong to do. I hope it was your reading glasses and not your agenda.

I get it Manypaths, keep up the good work.

manypaths has actually forced people to read an article, how horrible.

manypaths has actually forced people to read an article, how horrible.

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-07-06 11:43 PM

You don't write an entire intro, and the headline and make it totally false and opposite. You don't put quotes around a sentence in the introl unless it was an actual quote someone made and you don't change the wording either.

If that's the case, then why don't we all just make up a userblog's entire story -- date, time, place, people, events, "facts", quotes and just call it what it really is -- fiction.

Maybe, though, in tilting the meaning of his title and writing the intro completely the opposite of what the actual story was about, was Manypath's way of making a point he also had a right to practice the First Amendment.

The right to write and say whatever he wants?

If so, then it was actually quite clever.

Such a shame. I was stoked to think there was a pro-abortion t-shirt that was made. If we had a 2 kid limit per family we would be better off as a nation.

I think Jeffie fails to differentiate between freedom to express one's SELF and freedom to ram one's faith down throats of others. T-shirts express one, leading one's graduating class in prayer as valedictorian the other. Or do I nitpick? herm

#13 | Posted by herm

You nitpick! :-)

OK - how about another example - certain schools have said 'No' to kids wearing a crucifix at school. Does that bother you in the same sense that this pro-abortion t-shirt issue does?

If this remains without changing it to the true headline and point of the article--what does that say about YOU?

What is says about me is that I'm willing to let people try creative things with the posts.

I wouldn't put this on the front page, since it's misleading, but it was interesting to form an opinion based on a kid wearing a pro-abortion shirt to school and then find out it was really pro-life.

Who gives a fuck what the article is about? The comments section is simply here so that we may insult each-other and make racially charged comments.

In fact, until it was pointed out in this thread, I was totally unaware there were even article on the Retort.

The office stinks this morning. I think somebody must have run over a skunk or a Rican.

Have to side with the school here. They should have the right to require anyone to remove clothing that could be disruptive to the learning environment, regardless of the message. If you're not in a class where abortion is up for debate, any t-shirt that throws the subject in peoples' faces could be a distraction. I've argued that all schools should have mandatory dress codes to eliminate any subjectivity with regard to what is and is not appropriate.

"Such a shame. I was stoked to think there was a pro-abortion t-shirt that was made. If we had a 2 kid limit per family we would be better off as a nation."

All you have to do is get rid of the Constitution to do that. I suggest you do it in the name of "freedom" so people don't see what you are doing.

we encourage ours to wear political/religious tees to school - they cannot be offensive. they've been told if called to the office to turn the shirt inside out if need be when someone complains.

manyputz' attempt at humor is lame. and now that i know we can play with the articles...

"Such a shame. I was stoked to think there was a pro-abortion t-shirt that was made. If we had a 2 kid limit per family we would be better off as a nation."

I find this post by Jackass most interesting, and do not want to single him out because this view is common. China has a one-child policy for example. Europe has its people brainwashed into not reproducing so their culture has become moribund. This was foreseen decades ago in the much maligned Papal encyclical Humanae Vitae which contained this prophetic passage:

"Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy."

America is not there yet, but will be someday when they are finished making the Constitution merely a notion.

but it was interesting to form an opinion based on a kid wearing a pro-abortion shirt to school and then find out it was really pro-life.

Was it really that hard to figure this out?

Notice the usual suspects attacking me instead of the school?

I'll consider my point made.

Manypaths? You are usually civil but this was wrong to do. #16 | Posted by Diablo

Gotcha!

"Manypaths? You are usually civil but this was wrong to do.

#16 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-07-06 11:17 PM"

I agree. How dare you make people think ManyPaths.

Bastard!!

We are perfectly capable of addressing the issues brought up in this article and thread.

#14 | Posted by MURPHY

Then why was Joe the only one to do so?

And why would any mother allow her 7th grade daughter to wear a pro-abortion t-shirt to school in the first place. Sick.

#2 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-07-06 06:45 PM |

Really?

How many 14 year old girls go to anti abortion rallies?

STFU Itsy.

Did you find a hobby Chair. You've bee a rare sight around here lately. Wis is slipping without you.

Such a shame. I was stoked to think there was a pro-abortion t-shirt that was made. If we had a 2 kid limit per family we would be better off as a nation.#21 | Posted by jackass at 2009-07-07 02:05 AM | Reply | Flag: PRO-ABORTION, NOT PRO-CHOICE

Classic form, manypaths. Lying is a bit too easy for you.

The reason your lie, that a 14 year old would wear a pro-abortion shirt, doesn't really work is that MOST pro-abortion types have either had or paid for an abortion (which is rare by age 14).

Pro-life rallies often feature children; many/most children understand that 1 in 3 of them are dead from legal abortions in the US. A few have even survived attempted abortions.

Such a shame. I was stoked to think there was a pro-abortion t-shirt that was made. If we had a 2 kid limit per family we would be better off as a nation.

#21 | POSTED BY JACKASS AT 2009-07-07 02:05 AM | REPLY | FLAG

why? so third world countries can grow exponentially and bury us by sheer numbers? populations of first world countries flatten and even decline. Immigration is the only reason for US growth. Your post makes no sense.

Unless your writing from Maldives. Then, feel free and institute some controls - or, better yet, strive to become a first world country.

"Before Plaintiff could eat [breakfast] she was ordered by a school staff member to throw her food out and report immediately to Defendant Smith's office, located in the main office of McSwain Elementary School," the complaint reads."

Did YOU eat BREAKFAST at school?
Is it just me, but my freakin' PARENTS fed me at home...

It's progress Kirk, doncha know. Pretty soon, we parents will just come for the occasional visitation.

"Gotcha!"

Actually, Manypaths, you did not. I commented only on the alleged (and false) quote provided by you that the teen apparently encouraged abortions. That's all. I did not get any enlightenment except that you are manipulative to the point you can imagine "gotcha."
As I wrote: you are usually civil but that was wrong. If all you crave is a debate orgasm, fine by me. But other things in life are more rewarding.

manyputz and civil in the same sentence - BWAH!

STFU Itsy.

#34 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-07-07 03:34 PM

LOL.

That's it?

Still nobody attacking the school over this.

I guess we can all agree that the school is in the right.

See how easy that was?

And here's your shirt Jackass:

Bact to the story -- even though I agree with the pro-life message overall, I feel either way the school has the right to regulate the subject matter displayed on any T-shirts the kids to wear to school

#5 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-07-06 07:11 PM | Reply |

Yes but the reason why is what counts. The school is not sitting on some special land outside of the United States where the bill of rights and constitution are put on hold. nor should being under the age of 18 disqualify you from those protections afforded.

Schools have no right to quash free speech. it should be that they're only interest is in promoting education as intended. If a shirt is disruptive to that education so be it, but be consistent. If this was just some pro-life administrator not wanting to put up with this shirt based on personal reasons, thats just wrong and a direct violation of the first amendment.