Discussion for article #234818
Could they have gone to a crowded assembly with t-shirts bearing pictures of a fire?
(Of course, *that would have been clever, not something intended only to say fck you and your foreign holiday! You want to do something about it?)
1 Like
This decision appears to give governments, schools, etc., the power to deny free-speech at their whim (described as a cioncern for public safety) UNLESS there is a formal PERMIT for the “speech”, a parade-permit or the like. This really puts a damper on public speech. Because the “fear” of violence may be either uninformed or actually bogus.
“License they mean when they cry, Liberty!”
J. Milton.
Let us face it, quite often people like this want the right to do anything they want to do without repercussions. The High School administration was protecting this young man from the worst consequences of his actions. The problem is, he does not believe that the worst possible outcome from his decision could ever happen even though it could.
Go to any bar on May 5th and you’ll note that we too in the US celebrate the holiday.
1 Like
Fore sure. “Worst case” never happens, right?
LOL. All those Catholics on the Supreme Court – letting the school have authority over what students wear is in their DNA.
More seriously, the school seemed to have easily met the light burden required to show that their decision was based on more than the concern that someone would be offended by the shirts.
Courts have long given schools a lot of leeway on matters of safety.