Search

anti-Obama t-shirtAn Aurora, CO 5th grader was suspended from school for wearing this anti-Obama t-shirt.

When he was given the choice of turning the shirt inside out or being suspended, Dalton chose suspension.

“They’re taking away my right of freedom of speech,” he said. “If I have the right to wear this shirt I’m going to use it. And if the only way to use it is get suspended, then I’m going to get suspended.”

Hey. I’ll be the first to say that the shirt is a bit of a stretch of the truth. Now, if the shirt read “Obama is a better friend to terrorists that John McCain”, then I’d have less problems with the accuracy of it.

But to simply say that Obama is the a “terrorists best friend” simply isn’t true. The Associated Press and Rueters are much chummier with terrorists than Barry is. Hell, even Jack Murtha has proved to be a better friend and source of support to terrorists than has Barry-O.

But there is no way the kid should be suspended for wearing this t-shirt, which is as clear a celebration of the First Amendment as any lesson that school has ever taught.

Unless of course ALL political displays are prohibited at their school. To include ALL pro-Obama displays too. Including those proudly shoved down student’s throats by their teachers.

Which means that 98% of the teachers would have to go out to the parking lot and scrape the “Obama Makes Me Moist” bumper stickers off of their Volvos…errr….Ford Escape Hybrids (I forgot that Barry has issued a statement telling his followers that they are no longer permitted to drive foreign made vehicles).

If the kid had simply worn a ChimpyBushMcHitler t-shirt, or a Palin is a Pig t-shirt, I’m sure there woulnd’t have been any problems. Hell, the kid probably would have gotten an A for his civic activism.

Like little Jeffrey Eden — you remember Jeffery don’t you? He’s the kid who got a special award and an A for creating a diorama titled Bush/Hitler and How History Repeats Itself.

It’s not political messages that the school opposes…it’s just the wrong political messages that they oppose.

Liberal teachers, professors, and the entirety of liberal academia has done more to fuck up kids than all the drugs and unprotected sex in the world.  And I say that only half-facetiously.

_________

OTHERS

The Jawa Report (taking time off from nailing Ethan Winner) — Well I guess “best friend” is a little strong, more like “just had dinner with best friend of best friend of some terrorists.”

Holy-hell. Even the American Communist Lovers Union (ACLU) backs the kid on this one:

New York chapter of the Civil Liberties Union sent the Law Blog the following in an e-mail: “The wearing of this t-shirt can only be prohibited if it could cause a risk of material disruption at the school,” wrote Murray. “It is hard to see how this t-shirt could be viewed this way. Students have a constitutional right to express their opinions about politics, and this t-shirt was not vulgar or anything other than a political statement. While the courts have recently cut back on student’s rights of expression, this case clearly seems to be an illegal curtailment of this student’s rights. ”

44 Responses to “Kid Gets Suspended for Being Anti-Obama”

Please. If he’s not ordered to ditch the t-shirt, the next step is for some kid to show up with a Palin is a Pig t-shirt. These are 10 year olds. Their sole job is to get their fannys in their seats and keep them there. They are there to learn, not to out do each other with provocative political zingers crudely lettered on t-shirts.

But there is no way the kid should be suspended for wearing this t-shirt, which is as clear a celebration of the First Amendment as any lesson that school has ever taught.

Are you serious? This is the right of their parents First Amendment.
That is a major libel if ever I saw one. Hey, I don’t agree with McCain but i’m not gonna call him a member of the KKK! That would be deeply offensive even if some lefties thought it to be true.

Come on now Robbie, you can’t justify this crap.
It does your cause no good!

Jonny

No, it’s not libel, jackass. Your ilk has already called McCain every slur under the sun. There is no problem with the message on the shirt except for the fact that he is 10 years old, he is not in a public forum but a school setting, and the message is disruptive to the purpose of education, contrary to what those idiots the aclu say.

Liberal teachers, professors, and the entirety of liberal academia has done more to fuck up kids than all the drugs and unprotected sex in the world. And I say that only half-facetiously.

Not true. I only respected two teachers in my education. My art teacher and my Sociology teacher. I got an A+ in both.
The liberalism of both teachers meant I could find my own path in whatever I did. And I did. And now as a 33 year old I earn $100,000 a year (£55k in the UK) have two properties and have a nice lifestyle.

Not that I’m bragging here - just to say that the liberal education I respected paid dividends in the end.

If a child is born and raised in a home that is loving and nurturing, where there is complete truth about who we are, you can’t give a child any greater place from which to fly.
-Amanda Bearse

Jonny

Your ilk has already called McCain every slur under the sun.

But I’m not a part of any ‘ilk’ you talk of. I’m me. You know, a free thinking independent.

Jonny

Not that I’m bragging here -

You shouldn’t. You have yet to figure out that this is not Euroweenieland and your laws do not apply here.

Libel
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person’s reputation or standing in the community.

Libel redneck - get educated.

Jonny

A wise decision on the school system to cover their asses. I agree with the assertion that it’s for learning, not political grandstanding. Wearing a t-shirt like that is asking for a fight which is asking for some parent (or parents) to sue the pants off the principal for “allowing” such a thing to happen.

Schools ban inflammatory shit all the time. They don’t allow gang colors either. Mine was a private school, so we rarely got to wear anything outside of uniforms, but there were definitely limits on what was acceptable when we did.

Your selective moral outrage makes me giggle.

You shouldn’t. You have yet to figure out that this is not Euroweenieland and your laws do not apply here.

Not laws redneck - hard cash. You have a little of that don’t you?
If not, send me an SOS - my liberal heart will help even the redest of rednecks, and I assume you could do with a little extra?

Jonny

As for libel….not a chance. You could always make the claim that Obama is great friends with Bill Ayers, who is a known and unrepentant terrorist.

The claim is not that far fetched. Sadly.

Sorry Robbie, maybe you didn’t read this?

Libel
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person’s reputation or standing in the community.

You could always make the claim that Obama is great friends with Bill Ayers, who is a known and unrepentant terrorist.

I will freely admit you may have a better idea about Ayers relation to Obama than I do but you can’t just expand a hypothesis onto someone you don’t like.

Hey, my grandad was a founding member of the IRA along with Michael Collins; does that make me a terrorist?

Jonny
Jonny

I am educated, jackass. You, however, are not:

Ignoring the fact that Obama is a terrorist’s best friend is opinion, Robbie is protected by the First Amendment from being sued for libel for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official because the statements were not made with actual malice. Actual malice requires the plaintiff prove Robbie made the statements with the knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. Actual malice is not mere negligence and is almost impossible to prove.

(See, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254.)

Successful libel suits of public officials are rare, and frankly, I can’t think of any that were filed, let alone prevailed in court.

Not laws redneck - hard cash. You have a little of that don’t you?

More cash than you will have in brain cells. Besides being arrogant and wrong on just about everything you post about, you don’t even make sense most of the time.

Oh grow up you dick weed.
I wasn’t accusing Robbie of libel. I like Robbie - even if I witnessed justification of libel i wouldn’t make a move.

I was pointing out that the shirt was in contract of libel.
Whoever wrote those words on the shirt has committed libel.

You really need to get educated with these things redest of redness.

Jonny

More cash than you will have in brain cells. Besides being arrogant and wrong on just about everything you post about, you don’t even make sense most of the time.

You don’t make any effort to contra any of my points,
You’re a waste of my oxygen. Stop breathing.

Jonny

Your selective moral outrage makes me giggle.

Don’t giggle for too long, not all political speech is banned in schools.

Hey, my grandad was a founding member of the IRA along with Michael Collins; does that make me a terrorist?

Brilliant analogy… bwahhhhhh! Obama worked with and kicked off his political career in the home of Ayers and his wife Dohrn. Both are unrepentant terrorists and when Ayers was asked if he regretted the bombings, hie reply was that he regretted that he couldn’t do more. So, yeah, Obama is a terrorist’s best friend.

Your selective moral outrage makes me giggle.

Who said dat? :-)

Obama worked with and kicked off his political career in the home of Ayers and his wife Dohrn. Both are unrepentant terrorists and when Ayers was asked if he regretted the bombings, hie reply was that he regretted that he couldn’t do more. So, yeah, Obama is a terrorist’s best friend.

I really have no idea what you’re talking about.

Night all!

Jonny

I wasn’t accusing Robbie of libel.

Yes, you were. You’re just too stupid to realize it: The republishing or rebroadcast of libel is also actionable. If you are going to falsely claim that the kid or his parents are committing libel (and they are not) you are also accusing by law Robbie of libel for reprinting and the statement and photo, dumbass.

You really need to get educated with these things redest of redness.

How ironic coming from some one who is never right on anything. You’re making a fool of yourself — again.

You don’t make any effort to contra any of my points,
You’re a waste of my oxygen. Stop breathing.

Is that your problem? Lack of oxygen has made you brain dead? It certainly appears so since I have shown you are a dumbass on each and every point you feebly tried to make.

I really have no idea what you’re talking about.

Of course, not. But when has that ever stopped you from giving your arrogant and factually wrong opinions?

Yes, you were. You’re just too stupid to realize it: The republishing or rebroadcast of libel is also actionable

Oh my god! You have passed the redest of redlines you f*cking moron!

Can you not read?:

I wasn’t accusing Robbie of libel. I like Robbie - even if I witnessed justification of libel i wouldn’t make a move.

And by the by, I didn’t make the law that:

Libel
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person’s reputation or standing in the community.

You have no idea if you think people [like Robbie] run the risk of libel by commentating on discussion. Robbie is commentating on a said libelous act and therefore is not committing libel by publishing it on a blog that entices discussion.

You really are a waste of my time. Seriously, stop…… stop……. well, just stop.

Jonny

Can you not read?

I can read, you can’t:

The republishing or rebroadcast of libel is also actionable. If you are going to falsely claim that the kid or his parents are committing libel (and they are not) you are also accusing by law Robbie of libel for reprinting the statement and photo, dumbass.

And by the by, I didn’t make the law that:

That’s not law. It’s a simplistic legal definition for dummies like you. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is the applicable law in the United States.

You have no idea if you think people [like Robbie] run the risk of libel by commentating on discussion. Robbie is commentating on a said libelous act and therefore is not committing libel by publishing it on a blog that entices discussion.

Overlooking your inability to write a coherent sentence, are you nuts? It is no defense to libel if you repeat a statement with knowledge that it is libel. Since the statement at issue - Obama is a terrorist’s best friend, is not libel, it doesn’t matter. But, please keep your whacked out interpretations of US defamation law to yourself. You’re an embarrassment.

The kid’s parents are dickheads. They shouldn’t have allowed their kid to wear the shirt (if they saw it). And, the school probably had a dress policy that forbid this kind of thing. I have to agree with the school on this one. The kid’s a dickhead too. He’s just an attention monger.

WOOOOO! Dianne hit the nail on the head! Can we all shut up about this now? There’s really nothing left to be said. It’s not news, it’s not political, it’s not “suppression of freedom of speech”, it’s some 10 year old douche acting like an idiot and the school not wanting to deal with it.

End of story.

Feel free to shut up about it. As to it not being news, it’s all over the damn internet and on the radio. That you don’t think it’s news, doesn’t make it so. Though I agree it’s right for the school to suspend him, I sympathize with the kid in that you leftards are infamous for your insulting comments to conservative candidates at inappropriate times and inappropriate places.

End of story.

Wow.

The lack of any mention or comment regarding today’s George Will article regarding John McCain’s fitness (really the lack thereof) to be president is painfully and conspicuously absent.

Are we trying to think of ways to spin George Will as a “librul”?

Good luck with that.

Wow.

If you know how to read, you will see that the topic of this comment thread is a fifth grader’s suspension from school — not George Will. There are other blogs that may be discussing George Will. I’m sure a google search will help you find them.

Good luck with that.

The kid chose to be suspended. He was given a choice to either turn it inside out or suspension. He decided to take the more dramatic way out so that he could get the media to interview him. Clever little kid, but way too young to understand politics.

…. way too young to understand politics.

Hardly. Obama is the terrorists’ best friend. The kid’s right. Besides the Ayers/Dorhn connection those countries that support terrorism and terrorist themselves want Obama in the Whitehouse.

Overlooking your inability to write a coherent sentence, are you nuts? It is no defense to libel if you repeat a statement with knowledge that it is libel

But Robbie hasn’t repeated the message verbatim.
He has posted about the t-shirt and has encourgared discussion.
You need to understand the basics before you start suggesting you understand more than you do.

Obama is the terrorists’ best friend. The kid’s right.

To express a deflamitory comment that is untrue to a third party pertaining to an individual is slander.

Jonny

But Robbie hasn’t repeated the message verbatim.
He has posted about the t-shirt and has encourgared discussion.
You need to understand the basics before you start suggesting you understand more than you do.

Look at the photo, dumbass. Can’t get any more verbatim than that. You need to get a brain, period. Even when you are told the correct answer with authority to back it up, you insist on making your same stupid comments.

To express a deflamitory comment that is untrue to a third party pertaining to an individual is slander.

How many times do I have to correct you? The law is different when public officials are involved, dumbass. Obama is a public official.

And, again, it is opinion. And if it wasn’t opinion, it’s true. Truth is a defense to defamation.

But, continue with your bullsh*t that you know more about the US and US law than Americans. You’re always good for a laugh.

Look at the photo, dumbass. Can’t get any more verbatim than that. You need to get a brain, period. Even when you are told the correct answer with authority to back it up, you insist on making your same stupid comments.

Seriously now, are you lacking brain cells?
Using your logic, every newspaper in the world is commiting libel when they report on a news story?
If Robbie posted that picture and said “I agree with everything in this picture and I support the notion that Obama is a terrorist lover” then I’d be agreeing with you.
Using methods of a journalistic nature, Robbie has posted the picture along with a report in his opinion. He is neither the originator nor is he involved in an enterprise to perpetuate the libel.

How many times do I have to correct you? The law is different when public officials are involved, dumbass. Obama is a public official.
And, again, it is opinion. And if it wasn’t opinion, it’s true. Truth is a defense to defamation

You cannot say the T-Shirt shown here is ‘of opinion’. It is making a statement, and a statement to a third party at that. Slander.

Jonny

Seriously now, are you lacking brain cells?

No, you are. If you had brain cells, you would know how stupid you are.

Using methods of a journalistic nature, Robbie has posted the picture along with a report in his opinion. He is neither the originator nor is he involved in an enterprise to perpetuate the libel.

One, the kid’s statement is not libel. Two, you don’t get a pass because you are repeating a defamatory statement made by a another party, jackass. Are you that stupid? Oh, wait… you are. Three, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about when you say “journalistic nature.” I’m not going to direct your sorry ass to NY v. Sullivan again.

You cannot say the T-Shirt shown here is ‘of opinion’. It is making a statement, and a statement to a third party at that. Slander.

Right, dumbass. First, slander is an oral statement, idiot. Two, Obama is a terrorists best friend is what is called an opinion statement. Opinion statements based on expressed facts are not actionable. (See, section 566 of the Restatement Second of Torts). Three, truth is a defense to any defamation claim. Obama is a terrorists best friend is true. Ayers, Dohrn, and countless terrorist have endorsed Obama. I assume an idiot like you will quibble that it doesn’t make them best friends, but under the law, a statement is not false for purposes of a defamation claim if it is substantially true.

Now, stfu. I have better things to do than prove everything out of your arrogant dhimmi mouth is wrong. Seriously. You are not right in the head.

No, you are. If you had brain cells, you would know how stupid you are.

Now that’s funny.

Right, dumbass. First, slander is an oral statement

I stand corrected.

Two, Obama is a terrorists best friend is what is called an opinion statement

No it’s not.

Obama is a terrorists best friend is true

Now your commiting defamation of character.

Now, stfu. I have better things to do than prove everything out of your arrogant dhimmi mouth is wrong.

You obviously don’t have better things to do otherwise you’d be doing them. You have to be right, and you have to have the last word.
But that’s to be expected by a rouge-neck patriot.

Jonny

You have to be right, and you have to have the last word.

I don’t have to be right. I am right. And no matter how many times you are proven wrong, you have to have the last word to be wrong again. You are a pompous, arrogant, british poof.

p.s.: Obama is a terrorists best friend is true.

You are a pompous, arrogant, british poof.

Ha, ha, ha - stop it, you’re killing me.

‘Pompous’? No.
‘Arrogant’? Maybe a little
‘British’? Yep.
‘Poof’? Nope - you homophobe you.

And no, you haven’t proved yourself correct. A couple of errors in terminology I will put my hand up to, but the core of my point still remains correct.

Jonny

And no, you haven’t proved yourself correct. A couple of errors in terminology I will put my hand up to, but the core of my point still remains correct.

You were and are absolutely wrong on everything, britpoof.

I think we are missing the issue here(media and everyone else). The kid did not get suspended for wearing the particular t-shirt. If anybody was paying attention to the superintendents words you would realize that what the t-shirt said had nothing to do with the suspension. The t-shirt was disrupting the learning environment. The kid was then given two choices; take the t-shirt off or turn it inside out. These options were given to him so that the learning environment could resume normally. He refused to do either and as a result he was suspended. It was his refusal to comply which got him suspended, not his Dad’s political views.

Understood Ken, but the provocation of the statement on the shirt lead to the school giving the two choices to the kid.

You can see HERE that the kid really doesn’t have a clue.
His father is treating him like a puppet.

Jonny

I think we are missing the issue here(media and everyone else).

Uh, no. Only the idiot from the UK is claiming it is defamatory. Robbie and everyone else recognizes it as a school speech issue.

If anybody was paying attention to the superintendents words you would realize that what the t-shirt said had nothing to do with the suspension. The t-shirt was disrupting the learning environment.

What the t-shirt said had everything to do with his suspension. If the t-shirt was plain, do you think the supt. would have given him the order to take it off or get suspended? Of course, not.

[S]tudent expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school…” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (1969) 393 U. S. 503, 513)

The kid’s “expression” was suppressed when he was ordered to remove the shirt or get suspended. The issue is now whether the shirt would have been materially and substantially disruptive to the work and discipline of the school. I think it was. Others, disagree.

Yes, I understand that. Consider this, if I was singing really loudly and badly about don’t kill goats because they smell heavenly, at your place of work at the desk right next to yours, and it was keeping you from doing your job, you have some choices to make. You could ask me to stop, or tell a superior. Then I have a choice to make. I can stop or not. Then the company has choices to make. Disicpline me or let me do what I’m doing. Chances are I will be disciplined If I don’t comply. Would you say that is a violation of my 1st amendment or is preserving the work environment

Heh. During Gulf war I, I was working in an office where one guy was against the war and put up antiwar signs, followed by prowar signs by others, followed by an upside down flag by the moonbat, followed by the janitors, who were vets, getting really pissed off and ripping all his signs down, which pissed off the moonbat, who posted more signs, followed by more support the troops signs by others, followed by you are all warmongers signs by the moonbat, followed by you are a traitor signs by the others, followed by people from different offices coming by to see what was going on, followed by the supervisor ripping all the signs down, and ordering everyone to effin knock it off.

Were our first amendment rights violated????

I don’t think so, but I’m sure the workplace was not pleasant. I’m not one for violating the first amendment, but to preserve the environment I am for expressing your right in the proper setting and at appropriate times. But you never did answer my question.

It’s a really good point Ken - goats DO smell heavenly don’t they. ;-)

Jonny

I don’t think so, but I’m sure the workplace was not pleasant. I’m not one for violating the first amendment, but to preserve the environment I am for expressing your right in the proper setting and at appropriate times. But you never did answer my question.

My post was tongue in cheek. It was actually a lot of fun giving the moonbat a hard time, though the supervisor didn’t think so. And, I didn’t know your question was addressed to me.

The factual scenario you gave is not a first amendment case. Where’s the state action? Where’s the political speech? Not all speech is protected speech. Can’t violate a right you never had to begin with.

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.