An elementary school in Kansas has raised a novel question under the First Amendment: whether the freedom of speech includes the right to use the word “freedom.” According to some media reports, Arbor Creek Elementary Principal Melissa Snell stopped the wearing of shirts reading “Freedom,” which have become popular after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The move is clearly a violation under the First Amendment, in my view.
Libs of TikTok posted an email exchange between Arbor Creek Elementary Principal Melissa Snell and an (unnamed) individual in which Snell confirmed the ban. The email stated: “I just want to make sure that you have told your staff to not wear those ‘Freedom’ shirts to school anymore. Thank you.”
Snell allegedly responded: “Yes, I have. Was there someone in particular that you are referring to? If you don’t mind me asking.”
Our crackerjack investigatory unit at Res Ipsa was able to find that person for Snell from what appears to be video of students of Arbor Creek:
Notably, the Olathe Public Schools district itself sells “We All Belong Together” shirts via its Department of Culture and Belonging. However, “Freedom” shirts were banned, at least temporarily.
Deputy Superintendent Lachelle Sigg wrote to the school community that the district “remain[s] committed to […] honoring all first amendment rights and ensuring that personal expression does not disrupt the educational setting.”
If so, that commitment is more rhetorical than actual.
Superintendent Brent Yeager confirmed the emails that Libs of TikTok had posted earlier in the week, but suggested that it was temporary as Snell “reviewed district practices.”
I fail to see why Snell had to suspend the wearing of such shirts pending review. This is clearly a content-based limitation on speech.
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the right of students to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War, famously writing, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
This does not involve the type of “lewd,” “vulgar,” “indecent,” or “plainly offensive” speech discussed in cases such as Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986). It is a statement of solidarity between the freedom of speech, a statement made more poignant and urgent with the murder of Kirk for exercising that right.
It is also not a celebration of unlawful conduct, as in Morse v. Frederick (2007), as opposed to the exercise of our most “Indispensable Right.”
It is a good thing that Joseph Cinqué did not try to enroll at Arbor Creek Elementary:
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Shortly after the left wing nut assassinated Kirk, I saw a tweet from a father who said the boys in his son’s class had all decided to wear a suit and tie to school to honor Charlie. It’d be great if that caught on. Let’s see the left wing nutjobs pretend to be offended by suits and ties and ban them.
It is not the word freedom which is the issue. The problem is that it represents a fascist bigotry group.
Your misuse of words demonstrates you are uneducated and uninformed. The next time you look into a mirror a fascist bigot will be looking back at you.
The actual fascism is YOUR belief that is the problem and your belief that you are allowed to use Government aka FORCE to fight “fascist bigotry” that is entirely in your head.
You are unfortunately free to believe that the message “freedom” is some kind of dog whistle for “fascist bigotry”
You are NOT free to use FORCE aka govenrment to do anything about that or YOU prove yourself to be the ACTUAL fascist.
If the students are restricted from wearing shirts making a political or social statement, then teachers should not be reflecting their political or social agenda in their clothing or classroom (and vice versa) This is school people–let’s spend time educating, not making statements. Students should not be shot down if their opinions don’t agree with the educator. Let’s listen to each other, something better may come out of listening.
It is NOT about the kids wearing shirts.
“The email stated: “I just want to make sure that you have told your STAFF to not wear those ‘Freedom’ shirts to school anymore. Thank you”
It was the staff who were told not to wear the shirts.
Here is an extract from the letter sent by the Superintendent.
“Staff have constitutional rights while working within the district. Those rights, however, may be balanced against other considerations when staff are working in our schools. We recognize that our students are impressionable and see our staff as role models. We also recognize that school environments should remain politically neutral, with a focus on student learning. Consequently, when concerns are brought to our attention that a staff member is wearing attire that may be viewed or perceived as political, and the situation is or may cause a disruption, it is our responsibility to consider the concern. Finally, please know that this situation had nothing to do with any specific student or what your children can wear to school.”
Note the last sentence:
“Finally, please know that this situation had nothing to do with any specific student or what your children can wear to school.”
Turley and the MAGA mob here have consistently said that free speech is limited in the workplace, especially when it is speech of liberals in the workplace.
You are all just a bunch of whining hypocrites.
ATS – you so clearly are clueless.
While there are some very MINOR differences in the first amendment rights of teachers and students.
Public Schools are GOVERNMENT, and the first amendment PROHIBITS ALL content based restrictions on freedom of expression by GOVERNMENT in ALL contexts.
Outside an actual public forum for free speech – such as the US Capital, Govenrment CAN have CONTENT NEUTRAL restrictions on expression in SOME contexts.
But it CAN NOT allow some content while prohibiting others.
A Public school can probably bar teachers and staff from ANY message in their attire,
But the moment it allows SOME messages it MUST allow nearly all other expression.
“Turley and the MAGA mob here have consistently said that free speech is limited in the workplace, especially when it is speech of liberals in the workplace.”
Absolutely – and if this was a private school – it would be free to engage in content based restrictions on expression.
But this is NOT a private school. It is a PUBLIC school – aka GOVERNMENT.
The First amendment is a SUGGESTION to people in their private lives. It is a COMMAND to Government.
Government has a TINY bit more latitude in its role as an employer, but under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can Government make CONTENT based rules – outside of the very very narrow prohibitions that Turley discussed in the article – criminal advocacy, and obscenity.
The school district can likely bar ALL messages on teachers attire, but it CAN NOT allow some and not others.
If you wish to allow schools to engage in content based moderation of attire – then you must divorce them from government. A private employer – such as Disney, or ABC is free to make content based decisions regarding the allowable messaging of its employees.
While this is literally US law and constitution, There is a rock solid foundation for this.
Government is NOT dynamically regulated by the continuous free choices of free people aka the free market.
Gopvenrment is FORCE, and at best “the people” get to regulate it in infrequent elections.
Disney’s stock has lost 10% – that is $20B since Kimmel’s clueless opening. Disney shareholders are paying the price in real time.
A private school principle whose decisions offended a significant portion of parents would not last a day.
Government is different – Government is FORCE
Disney lost value because it betrayed the buyers of its products. There was a mass campaign to cut subscriptions in reaction to them shutting down Kimmel’s show.
While not the only one apparently clueless about Kimmel’s opening, it’s typically lied about. He expressed grief for Kirk on the first show after the shooting, but was appalled by Trump’s lack of concern about it that was instantly turned into a handwaving over how great the new ballroom would be. Was it insensitive to show that Trump is a heartless psychopath? Maybe, but if you support a heartless psychopath then I guess you would be offended.
If these idiots can ban a tee shirt with freedom on it under the premise that it’s offensive or divisive then I would put forth that fat old women with their hair dyed blue (an obvious expression through display of their woke libtardedness)should be banned alike.
Prove me wrong…
Madman: In keeping with your scenario, fat old men with no hair could be banned as well. Especially if they drool.
Joe Biden?
Nothing to see just another Annoyingus failed attempts of personal attacks. The intellectual inability to connect the two examples of the same expressionism speaks volumes. If you view Mz. Smell you will understand everything.
And outside of government you would be correct.
Further the decisions of private actors – individuals and businesses are subject to the evaluation, reward and punishment of the rest of us. If we LIKE that some private school bans bald fat old men – we can reward that schools by sending our kids.
What is wrong with Government schools is NOT that they choose the values they inculcate in children.
It is that unanswerable bureaucrats and not parents determine those values.
The purpose of the first amendment is to establish that our values – in politics, religion , culture, anything, are NOT imposed on us by FORCE by government, but are determined by the people acting freely on their own.
YOU are free to try to persuade the rest of us to adopt your values.
you are NOT permitted to use FORCE aka govenrment to impose those values.
They are answerable as they report to the elected members of the school board. Plus the parents have far more time interacting with their own children than even the most dedicated teacher could manage. I don’t know why any inculcating of values would be going on – if that was possible, then the teachers or the parents would use that magic ability to inculcate them with math, science, reading, history, with a side of reading the original Greek and Roman philosophers in the original language.
As far as I can tell they are considering banning the Turning Point merchandise propaganda shirt.
Everyone commenting about Children being denied their freedom shirts stop. The issue is about STAFF wearing them. Not students. Jesus, reading comprehension is so bad.
Notably, the Olathe Public Schools district itself sells “We All Belong Together” shirts via its Department of Culture and Belonging. However, “Freedom” shirts were banned, at least temporarily.
Deputy Superintendent Lachelle Sigg wrote to the school community that the district “remain[s] committed to […] honoring all first amendment rights and ensuring that personal expression does not disrupt the educational setting.”
If so, that commitment is more rhetorical than actual.
_____________________________
Funny part. The staff can wear (approved) shirts. I just wonder if that was passed down to the kids?
The point is that the school district CAN NOT have such a thing as an “approved message” in ANY context.
Commandment #3 violation. If not a Christian kindly invoke your own deity.
ATS
Leave it to a left wing nut to fixate on an irrelevant detail.
The first amendment applies to GOVERNMENT, and prohibits those in GOVERNMENT from imposing CONTENT based proscriptions regardless of the domain.
The distinction between students and staff is irrelevant to this issue.
This sort of thing triggers the right who have been assured that the Democrats are coming to take their guns away. They don’t read the article, just react to what they imagine is some worst case scenario.
“ I fail to see why Snell had to suspend the wearing of such shirts pending review. This is clearly a content-based limitation on speech.”
He fails at a lot of things. The Professor doesn’t seem to understand that school superintendents must ensure rules are followed. It’s part of the new anti-DEI policies President Trump implemented Schools must make sure they are not running afoul of the law otherwise their funding gets threatened by Republicans and MAGA.
Yea right X. It was Republican MAGAs who were censoring speech on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.
Zuckerberg’s confessing that censorship happened is readily available with just a touch of your little finger if you cared to exercise its sinew and muscle fiber. Sorry, I overestimate the ability of your brain to send the proper electrical current to the finger in question. The readers here should understand your lack of experience on the junior high school debate team. Perhaps you’ll do better when you become a freshman in senior high.
Thinkityhrough, readers here are too stupid to understand what they read. They are whining and griping about students not allowed to wear the shirts. It’s the STAFF that is wearing them. Reading comprehension is not exercised here. Your response to me just adds to the ongoing stupidity. It’s not students who are being told not to wear the shirts. It’s the STAFF.
” It’s the STAFF.”
Not relevant – there is no clause in the first amendment that says it does not apply to government staff.
it is not readers that are so stupid as to miss the point – it is YOU.
Staff/students – does not matter.
Content based restrictions on free speach are unconstitutional and WRONG.
x
X says:
October 5, 2025 at 10:39 AM
Thinkityhrough, readers here are too stupid to understand what they read
________________________
From YOU liar
TiT,
Good job owning the slow and dumb one!!
The big deal with respect to the internet and social media is NOT that they were engaged in censorship.
The FREE choices of businesses are between them and their customers. Any private business can censor however it pleases – consistent with the contracts it has with its customers.
The problem with what occured in Social media – and elsewhere is that GOVERNMENT was putting its thumb on the scales – atleast from the Obama administration forward.
Economist Joseph Schumpeter grasped that free markets are brutal – that most everything in a free market FAILS,
That even good ideas FAIL when someone comes out with a better one.
Market forces – otherwise known as the free choices of consumers are relentless and brutal and require CONSTANT improvement. Businesses fight to increase their profits – which requires them to make a better mousetrap OR to make the same mousetrap more efficiently. If they succeed they are BRIEFLY rewarded with profits, while everyone else catches up and the cycle repeats. The REAL rewards going to consumers who see what they want and what they need ever better and ever cheaper relentlessly.
I am not worried about monopolies – there has not been a sustained monopoly anywhere ever without govenrment propping it up.
The concern is NOT with businesses engaged in censorship – Musk loves to wrap himself in free speech.
But the FACT is that his purchase of Twitter was a BUSINESS decision. Twitter – social media as a whole was BLOATED with more than 70% of staff one way or another involved in wasted content moderation effort.
Musk proved that people would accept – possibly even wanted far less content moderation and that 70% of SM employees could be RIFFed.
When Twitter cut 70% of its staff – the rest of social media followed – albeit more quietly and slowly.
AGAIN free markets are RELENTLESS.
Zuckerberg etc. are apologizing – and maybe they mean what they say.
But it does not matter – their job is to give us what we want for the lowest cost possible.
Musk bet that we would be as happy with far less content moderation, and that he could deliver a product that was equally compelling for 70% less cost. And he did – quickly.
Google, Meta, etc HAD to follow.
The only way you can get people to accept higher cost and lower value for the long run is to use FORCE aka Government.
So you support the explicit sex books being put back into elementary schools?
“Musk proved that people would accept – possibly even wanted far less content moderation and that 70% of SM employees could be RIFFed.”
What Musk proved is that some users would accept less moderation and most advertisers would not, leading to a vast decline in advertising revenue and a tide of users going to Bluesky. Prior to being saddled with a huge pile of debt by the purchase by Musk, Twitter had only one positive cash-flow year. The number of moderators eliminated weren’t enough to make up for the advertisers abandoning the platform. Hence, Musk trying, desperately, to sue the advertisers in an effort to bring them back.
What YOU fail to see is this is an elementary school principal with Blue hair imposing a free speech restriction on staff and/or students at a public school. She is Not a School Superintendent, she is a principal at one school. This has nothing to do with DEI.
And YOU fail to see that a PUBLIC school superintendent is BARRED by the first amendment from CONTENT BASED rules of any kind with respect to expression.
While neither Trump nor DEI were mentioned in the article – you are still loosely correct.
A PUBLIC (govenrment) school can not sell DEI without allowing the expression of divergent or conflicting ideas.
Are you prepared to get “equal time” in schools to actual Nazi’s ? If not, then allowing DEI without allowing competing messages violates the first amendment.
Of course DEI also violates the civil rights act.
Outside of government you can do as you please.
For over a decade – unfortunately with Government also putting its thumb on the scales unconstitutionally we have a wave of ESG and DEI moves in the private sector. But these have proven to be a FAILURE, and are slowly being purged, because free markets punish failure.
Have you all forgotten this “At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors… you have to force behaviors”? These people running education haven’t forgotten and will continue to “force behavior” at educational institutions until they face consequences. A school principal with blue hair, how professional.
So, how does that square with similar restrictions on staff wearing LGBTQ rainbow shirts or having flags in their rooms?
The anti-DEI crowd is always griping about teachers wearing apparel that supports some movement or cause should not be part of their job description.
If you can ban LGBTQ or other liberal causes shirt you can’t wear a Charlie Kirk “Freedom” shirt.
The only reason this is news is because Charlie Kirk supporters lose their minds at any hint of disrespect or slight about Charlie and start howling and whining about it until they get their way. It should be called the Charlie tantrum syndrome.
The part you failed to post george
Notably, the Olathe Public Schools district itself sells “We All Belong Together” shirts via its Department of Culture and Belonging. However, “Freedom” shirts were banned, at least temporarily.
Deputy Superintendent Lachelle Sigg wrote to the school community that the district “remain[s] committed to […] honoring all first amendment rights and ensuring that personal expression does not disrupt the educational setting.”
If so, that commitment is more rhetorical than actual.
So the staff can wear (approved) shirts. LOL
Yes. Staff can wear approved shirts. The Charlie Kirk freedom shirt was temporarily banned pending a review of the rules. They did not ban them permanently. The “We Belong Together” shirt seems to have gone through the same process.
It’s MAGA losing its sh!t because anything slightly disrespectful of Kirk calls for immediate whining and griping until they get what they want.
It’s a tantrum over a process MAGA demanded when they were all upset over DEI.
“Staff can wear approved shirts.”
And there you have it FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION.
A public school CAN NOT engage in “content moderation” PERIOD.
Either all staff attire must be devoid of ANY message or all messesges except vulgarity, obscentiy, and criminality are allowed.
Govenrment – can NOT advocated for a viewpoint.
“The Charlie Kirk freedom shirt was temporarily banned pending a review of the rules.”
There is no need for a review of the rules – the First amendment is not complex.
“The “We Belong Together” shirt seems to have gone through the same process.”
The first amendment BARS a process that determines what viewpoints are allowed and which are not.
This is NOT about Kirk. It is NOT about “Freedom” shirts.
It is absolutely about the soft fascism of the left.
Your own posts make it clear
YOU DO NOT GET IT.
You talk about an approval process – as if that is allowed.
The actual first amendment requirement is ALL is allowed EXCEPT a very tiny bit that is prohibited – obscenity, incitement.
An “approval” process is NOT allowed. Govenrment CAN NOT make decisions based on viewpoint.
Nailed it John.
I just wonder what the approved T-shirts look like?
X did you miss the main part.
APPROVED T shirts.
Pleas tell us what is wrong with (Freedom)
Sounds like you Nazis hate any free speech. Unless YOU approve it
“So, how does that square with similar restrictions on staff wearing LGBTQ rainbow shirts or having flags in their rooms?”
What is your question ? Regardless, there is a difference between a teacher expressing themselves through their attire. Schools can ALLOW that with little restriction or disallow that nearly entirely. They can NOT allow some expression and not others.
Classrooms are different. A teacher may be assigned a classroom, but that classroom is NOT her property.
It is Public property. Viewpoint expression by govenrment itself is prohibitted. Just as a teacher can not have a cross or a creche in a PUBLIC school classroom or building. They can however WEAR a cross if other expression is ALSO allowed.
“The anti-DEI crowd is always griping about teachers wearing apparel that supports some movement or cause should not be part of their job description.”
DEI is discrimination – it violates the constitution, the 14th amendment and the civil rights act.
A SCHOOL can not schill for DEI without giving equal time to actual NAZI’s.
Teachers apparel is different – either a school can bar ALL expression which is likely the best choice,
or it can bar ONLY that expression that is obscene, vulgar. criminal or inciting violence.
What a school can not do is engage in content based choices.
It can allow all expression or None. It can NOT pick and chose.
“If you can ban LGBTQ or other liberal causes shirt you can’t wear a Charlie Kirk “Freedom” shirt.”
Correct – it is all expression or NONE.
Much of the country knew very little of Charlie Kirk until the left assassinated him.
Like Charlie Hebedo in France YOU have made him into a Martyr.
That is YOUR doing – your going to have to live with it.
Regardless, while this issue is coming to head because many students are wearing “Freedom” shirts because of Charlie. The core issue has NOTHING to do with WHAT is being expressed.
I would prefer the abolition of Government run schools, and private schools that made their own choices regarding allowed expression. Given we will not see that soon, the next best alternative is VERY CONSERVATIVE dress codes for Teachers – ZERO allowable expression in the workplace – complete NEUTRAL viewpoint.
With respect to students whatever rules a school chooses they must be content neutral.
So that we are clear – Content Neutral rules – mean nearly everything is allowed, Where as the required GOVERNMENT content neutral expression – such as classroooms and teachers attire mean NO veiwpoint can be expressed.
One thing is obvious from the comments: A majority of them have a comprehension deficit.
Communists can’t just have students protected rights triggering the more-equal commie teachers fragile emotions.
Commies think they can take away humans God-given rights. They cannot. even with violence they cannot.
The Constitution is a statement of FACTS which commies and kings don’t like to hear because it stirs man’s true nature to be free.
Freedom is the communism eliminator. Socialism is slavery.
The one thing they will not hand out with all their ‘freebies’ is freedom.
This is why communists can’t just go away and start a commune themselves to prove it works, as it will fail spectacularly.
Communism requires total world domination of all humans to ‘prove’ it was right all along. No communist is able to dispute this.
Where in the article is there anything about communism?
simple Socialism and communism follow each other. Try Cuba as a starting point
These restrictions are issued by products of the American educational enterprise, not of the local communities. They are often simple reactions to or rebellion against their communities. So, parents must take up arms to stop them. Crazy. Call this educational activism and compare with judicial activism, the one taught by colleges of education and the other by law schools.
So you’re calling for the downfall of the education system and have parents take over? Good luck with that.
Explain why our schools are falling farther behind.
Calif is one of the worse
Oklahoma is at the bottom. Apparently many here failed basic reading comprehension in school.
While I doubt most anything you claim – the FACT is that ALL US education has VASTLY increased in cost and dramatically decreased in quality over the past 50+ years. The period of time in which democrats have taken over and teachers have slowly drifted to the FAR left.
We MUST fix that, if the nation is to have a future it must graduate competent adults.
The first step is to REMOVE all those who have failed miserably for the past 50 years from any power.
That is the price of failure.
So I was right… yes George
“and have parents take over?”
Absolutely – Nature has made parents responsible for their kids – NOT government.
To paraphrase Churchill.
Parents are the worst people to raise kids – except all others.
“So you’re calling for the downfall of the education system”
Such a call would be irrelevant, since that downfall occurred many decades ago.
It isn’t clear if students are prohibited from wearing the shirts; l’ve only read that the principal banned staff from wearing them.
https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/10/04/school-principal-banned-staffs-kirk-freedom-shirts-n4944469
The video…. reread or else detention.
A federal judge in Michigan recently upheld a public school’s ban on shirts bearing the logo “Let’s Go Brandon.” The court concluded that the shirts conveyed a profane meaning, which allowed the school to ban it. So perhaps “Freedom” conveys some other hidden meaning. Soon we can ban all words.
“Some hidden meaning” huh? At least ban your comment.
And the judge was WRONG. The first amendment protects euphamistic speech.
The few types of restrictions on speech that are allowed are only NARROWLY allowed.
You may not be allowed to say “F$%K” on TV, but you can say “made love”.
“You may not be allowed to say “F$%K” on TV, but you can say “made love”.”
Seriously? Maybe that word is still banned in some public broadcasting segments, but it has been commonplace on “TV” in general for over 25 years. “The Sopranos” accomplished that pretty handily, I regret to say.
I’m sure a rainbow shirt would be just fine with these folks.
Well maybe the people of this school district, if they are so inclined should sue. Since this has been settled by SCOTUS before, maybe they should sue the teachers and administrators personally and demand compensation for their expenses. Surely these officials are aware of the law and the court cases on freedom of expression.
They should have this resolved by tomorrow 10/6/2025 with the tee shirts on full display.
And so what if some parents are behind this. I’m sure the rainbow t-shirts, BLM , anti fascist t-shirts also had a little parental help since I suspect the parents bought them.
Freedom requires vigilance and immediate reaction otherwise you wake up one day and it’s no longer there. With the NEA and the AFT trying to indoctrinate in the classroom, this is sort of a “Back At You”.
I’m sure the Anonymous naysayers at Lexington and Concord probably said, “Well they only want a few old cannons and gunpowder”. “Best just to go back to bed”. “Ignore the guy on the horseback saying The Redcoats Are Coming”. “He’s just a troublemaker from Boston”.
Its about children and t-shirts, so what does this article have to do with Lexington and Concord?
No, it’s about staff wearing the t-shirts. Not students.
Not True, and Not relevant.
I always knew that Turley likes to insert some spice in his limp opinions to get a reaction, now he’s tossing chucks of red meat to a mob.
Its so easy to get a reaction a mob; anything to get views eh Turley?
Apparently you object to students celebrating or promoting “Freedom.” May one know why?
Promote freedom? They can’t spell it, let alone define it. That’s promotion?
You as a female, maybe with children, you would force your children to wear provokative clothing to school in order to disrupt classes for other children?
If you have children, but I have the feeling you don’t, they should be taken away from maniacs like you.
1. FYI, the smug, condescending, and hateful attitude makes you the monster in the eyes of normal people.
2. Anyone who claims to be provoked by the word “freedom” is engaged in a bad faith, manipulative power play to exert control. Either that, or the person pretending to be offended is mentally unbalanced.
Either way, the viewpoints of anyone claiming to be offended by the word “freedom” are not credible. They are either made in bad faith or the ramblings of a psychotic and normal people must discount the opinion to zero and ignore it.
amen and awomen
^from our “provakative” commenter^
It’s not students. It’s staff. Read the article again.
Does it make any difference? If you had read the whole thing, The staff is allowed to wear (approved) t-shirts.
I bet the one like Floyd, BLM or rainbow is approved.
If you took the time to read for comprehension you would arrive at a conclusion that explains the difference. Obviously there is a process of approving those kinds of messages. The “we belong together” t-shirts were already approved. The Charlie Kirk “freedom” shirts were not. That’s is why they were banned TEMPORARILY until a review was completed. MAGA, in its instant need to lose its sh!t over anything disrespectful or insulting about Kirk jumped the gun and went all Karen on the district because of a policy THEY demanded about DEI.
If a BLM shirt passed the review then it meets the rules.
X
As always you not only have it wrong – but you fly in the face of a century of law and precident.
First – Staff, Students – does not matter.
Regardless as others have pointed out the video involves students getting detention
That is STUDENTS – not staff.
Regardless, the first amendment does NOT allow for an approval process.
This is also true of the constitution generally.
Freedom INHERENTLY means all is allowed except what little is rejected.
There are quirks as Teachers are employees. Government as an employer can bar ALL teacher expression.
But it can NOT allow some and not others. If it allow any expression – then aside from the very very few things the courts have found that can be infringed on – incitement and obscentity – all else is allowed if ANY is allowed.
With respect to students Government can bar obscenity incitement, criminal advocacy, and things that are clearly intended to be disruptive in class. Even if a school adopts a “no viewpoints” position as it can with teachers, it can not restrict expression that is not disruptive. A school can require uniforms, but it can not bar armbands. A school could bar t-shirts entirely, But it can not bar non t-shirts with a message.
Regardless, there is no “Pass review”
All must be allowed except what is explicitly restricted and all restrictions must pass constitutional muster.
The default is what is on the shirt FREEDOM.
BLM, DEI, …. Tshirts are not allowed – they are a RIGHT of students.
When YOU rant about DEI – you are talking about curriculum – NOT the political expression of students or teachers.
But then you do not understand the difference. The classroom and the curiculum are NOT legitmate means of Teachers engaging in free expression – they are GOVERNMENT fascilities and there is NO GOVERNMENT right to free speech. The First amendment restricts GOVERNMENTS ability to restrict the rights of others. Government does not have rights – it has powers.
Government may not shill for DEI or BLM or LGBTQ+
DEI violates the 14th amendment and the civil rights act – it is NOT allowed in a classroom, or anywhere govenrment funds.
A teacher can advocate for DEI but NOT as part of her role as Teacher. Not as part of the curiculum, not as part of the job.
A student can advocate for ANYTHING – but can not disrupt class.
not true, not relevant.
Ellen Evans, its not about students wearing the t-shirts. It’s the STAFF. The controversy is being overblown by pearl-clutching reactionaries already hypertensive about any slight or disrespect about their new saint Charlie Kirk. That’s all it is.
The first amendment is the law of the land, it is not pearl clutching.
Among other reasons it DENIES government any role in determining our politics, our culture, our religion, our values.
The first amendment means that “We the People” acting individually outside of government will determine our politics, our culture, our religion and our values – and that process will be completely divorced from the use of FORCE aka government
Wrong again X
Fascist Democrats hate Freedom. Time to outlaw public unions the poltical army….and abolish the democrat party.
Got a plan how to outlaw unions Adolf?
FDR gave the perfect rationale against public sector unions. I recommend reading it. And FDR was instrumental in defeating Adolph. Your ignorance is appalling.
FDR never was against unions, they actually thrived and expanded during his 3 terms. And, FDR did promote unions. Guess you never got beyond 8th grade history.
If you knew history you would know that FDR WAS against PUBLIC unions.
You must have been one of his advisor, I gather. FDR signed-off on unions, pressured by Eleanor Roosevelt herself.
No offense, but you’re a moron. Government schools have failed you. hullbobby referred to PUBLIC unions. He even capitalized it for effect. He’s right. You are wrong. FDR famously opposed unionization of government workers. Use your Google machine to learn.
So he was still against them, but signed off to make his wife happy
Not public unions – private ones.
One of the differences between conservatives and libertarians – a differences that libertarians are winning on, is that conservatives tend to oppose ALL unions, Libertarians accept private unions – even unions shops and even opposing so called right to work laws.
Libertarians support a near absolute right to contract.
You can join a union – or not, you can negotiate as an individual or a member of a group.
There is no difference between a business as a group of shareholders and a union as a group of employees.
That does not make unions good or evil. Being legitimate does not always mean that you make good choices. Unions in this country came about because of bad choices by employers.
But we had massive big business failure in the 70’s as a consequence of union failure.
We do not bar businesses because some have gone bankrupt.
We do not bar unions because they have not always been good
Public unions are barred for many reasons – among them because govenrment is “owned” by the people and govenrment employees are part of the people
Government employees can get what they want through their vote.
ATS you are a complete MORON.
No one is saying FDR opposed Unions.
But he Vociferously opposed Public Unions – Unions of govenrment employees.
ATS – you aparently are clueless too.
Yes FDR was for Unions AND absolutely totally completely opposed to Public Sector unions.
While FDR was a disasterous president – he was close to correct regarding unions.
Govenrment has ZERO role in private unions – EXCEPT depriving both employers and employees from using FORCE, and functioning as a neutral arbiter where there is a contract dispute.
With respect to public unions – FDR was correct – they can not be allowed.
The private economy and govenrment are entirely different.
As stated many time before; the willful violation of any Constitutional Right by a citizen, alien, Government entity(Judicial) or organization should be punishable by a Fine of up to $100,000 and 10 Years of imprisonment. This stops the clearly blatant violations of the restrictions against US Civil Rights!
Violation? Those are children who have no minds, incapable of independent thinking. Nothing willful in the schools’ actions, just a conscientious school principal trying to protect those kids from their predator parents who are abusing them as political pawns, keeping politics out of education. And this guy wants to fine everyone with a heartbeat. Deranged thinking.
Ano
Those are children who have no minds, incapable of independent thinking.
________________________
Don’t ya love how libs can’t wait to de-mean everyone who doesn’t think the same way.
You must be one of those mindless children.
If that is true, then Dustoff must be one of the more mature “mindless children” who is somehow and nonetheless capable of having enough mind to see through you.
What is mindless and childish is these silly exchanges/responses.
Please, let’s have thought-stimulating conversations today, to thank the good professor for the mental stimulation, –even if just to result in our procreation of children with more discerning minds.
Lin,
As always, a great take down of the annony moron!! Well done and keep it up!
Lin, you can’t have thought-stimulating discussions when over half the commenters can’t even read for comprehension. They keep harping on how bad the district is because they’re banning students from wearing the t-shirts.
It’s about the staff and the ban is temporary because the rules are being reviewed and deciding if they meet their policy requirements. That’s it.
MAGA went bathsh!t crazy because due to the reading comprehension failure keeps thinking its the students who are being denied wearing the shirts.
Massive Self Own.
for the umpteenth time – the first amendment does not care whether this is staff or students.
You keep inverting the first amendment – pretending that free expression requires prior approval – that is called prior restraint and is absolutely not allowed regarding free speech.
You also fail to grasp that as Turley pointed out the district ALREADY allows some political advocacy.
The first amendment makes this ALL OR NOTHING
The first amendment prohibits exactly the kind of star chamber review you are claiming occured here and is acceptable.
Thanks Lin (-:
What if it was a BLM shirt? Or Free Palestine? Or (pick the cause de jour). Would you say the same?
Sometimes consistency is hard
Why are you using a hypothetical whig98? The article is about a specific t-shirt.
BUT it does say the school does have approved t-shirts for the staff. I wonder what they are
The first amendment is about ALL expression.
It BARS government from disfavoring select speech.
“I just want to make sure that you have told your staff to not wear those ‘Freedom’ shirts to school anymore. Thank you.” From the facts mentioned in the article, it sounds like the staff were being told not to wear the shirts, not the kids.
It sounds?
Ditto.
Yet you leftists want them to SECRETLY change their gender in collusion with radical teachers and administrators.
What does the article have to do with, or mention, gender?
“Those are children who have no minds”
Really ?
“incapable of independent thinking.”
Really ?
Sounds more like a description of a left wing nut than these children.
“Nothing willful in the schools’ actions”
No just stupid and unconstitutional
“just a conscientious school principal trying to protect those kids from their predator parents who are abusing them as political pawns”
Not true and not relevant.
Cultivating the political views of a child is NOT a legitimate or even allowed role for a PUBLIC school.
What you call “conscientious” is really called authoritarian and immoral.
Whatever the flaws of parents as parents, all other choices are WORSE – much worse.
Sounds like the parents are using their kids to make a political statement.
Yah that in America we have FREEDOM
Democrats hate free people
They hate the unafraid. We are far less easy to control. Why do you think politicians turn everything into a panic? To get us clamoring for increased control, which happens again and again, as informed people have seen.
Oh boy, someone is od-ing on caffeine this morning. Unafraid.. . control… panic… control? And you are informed?
COVID vaccine ring a bell?
Ellen,
That is a great point!! They, the leftists, are afraid. That is why they try to demonize anything and everything that would be a direct counter to their narrative and agenda. That is why they desire censorship.
“I just want to make sure that you have told your staff to not wear those ‘Freedom’ shirts to school anymore. Thank you.”
Kinda like transing them, right?
That has nothing to do with this article.
REGARDLESS, that is allowed.
Whether children engage in free expression on their own or at the direction of their parents is NOT RELEVANT.
Government is forbidden from enquiring into the motives, intentions etc of those engaged in free speech.
A school district issue that’s been dealt with since the beginning of time. Yawnnn…. go back to bed folks.
But he fools will keep pushing it.
Sure, but I bet if a school tried to ban BLM support slogans, you would be up in arms. Freedom is not a matter of politics – or at least, it usen’t to be.
Can’t remember the last time I saw the contraction, usen’t. Bravo Ellen Evans!
I’ve never seen it and I am intrigued.
Saw that too. Maybe Ellen is in the school valedictorian?
Just maybe she made it all the way. Unlike yourself.
Ellen is one of the teachers.