Boy punished for T-shirt with gun image
Posted on March 12th, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, 1st Amendment, CA court, censorship, collectivism, Donald Miller III, education, fascism, freedom, guns, Iraq, Kevin French, LANCASTER, liberty, Millersville, New Jersey, Penn Manor High School, Penn Manor School District, Pennsylvania, police state, politics, Salem, Salem High School, Tina Miller, United States, United States Army, your rightsLANCASTER, Pa. - The family of a middle school student who was given detention for wearing a T-shirt bearing the image of a gun has filed a federal freedom of speech lawsuit against the school district.
Donald Miller III, 14, went to Penn Manor High School in December wearing a T-shirt he said was intended to honor his uncle, a U.S. Army soldier fighting in Iraq.
The shirt bears the image of a military sidearm and on the front pocket says “Volunteer Homeland Security.” On the back, over another image of the weapon, are the words “Special issue Resident Lifetime License - United States Terrorist Hunting Permit - Permit No. 91101 - Gun Owner - No Bag Limit.”
Officials at the Millersville school told him to turn his shirt inside out. When Miller refused, he got two days of detention.
His parents, Donald and Tina Miller of Holtwood, have accused the Penn Manor School District in a lawsuit of violating their son’s First Amendment rights with a “vague Orwellian policy” that stifles both patriotism and free speech.
But an attorney for the school district said school must create a safe environment for students in the post-Columbine era, and bringing even the image of a gun to school violates the district’s policy.
“There’s a much higher level of sensitivity these days,” Penn Manor attorney Kevin French said. “But it’s based on reality.”
The lawsuit was filed in January. A federal judge will hold a conference on the case March 31.
This one is very familiar to me. I had a similar issue with Salem High School in Salem, NJ. I owned at the time (and still do) this Type O Negative t-shirt:
What the image here doesn’t show is that the back says “Express yourself” at the top of the image and “Just say yes” at the bottom. I was requested on a few occasions to not wear it. “Requested” is perhaps the wrong word. I was instructed to not wear it and threatened with detention and expulsion. To turn it inside out that particular day an never to wear it again. Me being such a troublemaker refused. I believe I may have flipped it to get out of the office and back to class but changed back later. Similarly I was told not to wear wallet chains or pocket watches with chains. I continued wearing the shirt (and others like Manson’s hangman and “God is dead” shirts) and the chains but I never bothered taking the issue this far. I did take an image of the principal (who really didn’t like me, the feeling was mutual) who had issued the decree to not wear the items and altered it so it appears she was wearing the shirt and some friends printed it and passed it around school. Of course I caught the shit for that and was in fact threatened by her to have any college recommendation letters and applications sabotaged. The furtherest it got was my parents being called and both my mother and father going off on how immature and ridiculous she was being. To hear nothing but “No sir, no, I do not think I’m being immature.” coming from the principals mouth was priceless.
Unfortunately, I very much doubt his case will succeed. The courts rarely rule in favor of those who bring these cases against the government. The court will likely claim that given the gun crimes which have occurred in the government schools it is reasonable to suppress speech in order to keep from startling other students or something. Given that a CA court just recently ruled that parents have no right to even homeschool their children and that the role of public school was to make good little state drones… I don’t see much luck in this family’s future.
8 Responses to “Boy punished for T-shirt with gun image”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Dress code violations are an interesting subject. Some times, administrators are unaware as to what a symbol represents and consequently it takes them a while to catch up. I’ve seen T-shirts with malevolent-looking snow men banned because they reference rap lyrics that refer to drugs, "I’ve got that snow, man". I’ve seen images of the shocker banned. I’ve personally recommended banning brown shirts because they remind me of Nazi germany.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:52 am
1 - Do parents have the right to censor what their children wear?
2 - If schools are responsible for children during school hours, as they are surrogate parents of sorts, does (1) apply to them as well?
March 13th, 2008 at 10:18 am
1 - Parents have the right to do anything to their children.
2 - Schools will never be surrogate parents no matter what the parents want. At best you can have a contract with the parents outlining your responsibilities.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
1 - Parents can control what goes on in and on their property. If they don’t want the child to wear something than they may set those rules. If the child does not want to obey they can leave the property.
2 - This wouldn’t be an issue with privately owned schools. The school could set any rules they wish. This problem only arises because of government schools. The fact almost all government schools are controlled by local, state and federal government make the issue difficult since they all have different statutes. In this particular case the whole 1st Amendment thing is wrong unless the rule was dictated by Congress which I doubt it was.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Perhaps this can help clarify the issue.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:22 am
bosco, 1 - You know it’s not as black and white as that. In the education thread, you asked a nuanced question that would make John Kerry blush. 2 - What are the schools’ legal responsibilities when a child is under their supervision? (As a teacher you could answer this better than I.) Is this responsibility enough to ever warrant (1). bile, 1 - What rights do parents have outside their property in regards to children? (Or am I taking the term ‘property’ too literally?) 2 - I’m not following your last sentence.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:38 am
1 - None. But that doesn’t mean you can’t say "If you do X I won’t let you back on my property." If the child purchased the shirt they still store it likely in the parents home. They also live there. They can stipulate the shirt can not be worn if the child wants to stay in the home. The parent has rights to their property… not the child.
2 - The family in the story is trying to make this a 1st Amendment issue. It’s not unless the federal Congress had created the law banning the kid from wearing the shirt. I doubt Congress has. As I said… given the mix of authority in our modern schools it’s difficult to say who holds responsibility for some things. Since it was the local authorities who were acting on a local level this is not a 1st Amendment issue unless PA’s constitution has a 1st Amendment regarding freedom of speech and I’m referring to the wrong 1st Amendment.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
1. It’s pretty black and white. You either agree that children are possessions until they reach a magic age or pass some magic test, or you don’t. Unfortunately the same applies to animals, which I tend to like more than people. Parents have the ability to do anything to their children and I (or anyone else) can’t physically stop them. We can however exert control far greater than physical coercion over the people we meet and we should use that to influence parents.
2. Currently schools are responsible for the safety and education (as vague as those terms are) of children. When children are in schools, or on a bus, the administrators/teachers/drivers actions trump any parents actions. The idea of ensuring children’s safety has been extended to the point of monitoring their nutrition. If parents have problems with this, they can argue it with the school board after the fact.