Reports: Fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama shirt

[flyingimam]

A fifth-grader says he was suspended from school in Aurora, Colo., because he insisted on wearing a T-shirt that describes Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, as "a terrorist's best friend," according to the Associated Press.

"The school district told Daxx Dalton that he had the choice of changing his shirt, turning his shirt inside out or being suspended," KDVR-TV reports. "Daxx chose suspension."

The station says school officials wouldn't discuss the case. The boy's father is said to be weighing a lawsuit.

Reports: Fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama shirt - On Deadline - USATODAY.com (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/09/reports-fifth-g.html)
---------------------

They are lucky there is no defamation lawsuit against him or his legal guardians. Freedom of Speech has limits. This one is called "defamation" and is not protected under freedom of speech at all. the same way threats of one's life are not tolerated.

Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel)


In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

This is utmost lack of education at work. even understanding the rights and the constitution requires one to be educated on it. not just by what u hear around "freedom of speech"

[daihashi]

How is this different from the tons of Anti-Bush merchandise, videos etc etc that's out there. How is this different than labeling McCain a warmonger?

And defamation laws wouldn't really do anything here:

Defamation of character legal definition of Defamation of character. Defamation of character synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Defamation+of+character)


The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

It's unlikely the court would rule in Obama's favor over this. It's a kid for one and this stuff is out there everywhere. There is a reason other politicians aren't suing a number of tshirt companies. It's not like Obama is the first one to get a t-shirt with slanderous remarks on it. :hippy:

[flyingimam]

How is this different from the tons of Anti-Bush merchandise, videos etc etc that's out there. How is this different than labeling McCain a warmonger?

And defamation laws wouldn't really do anything here:

Defamation of character legal definition of Defamation of character. Defamation of character synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Defamation+of+character)



It's unlikely the court would rule in Obama's favor over this. It's a kid for one and this stuff is out there everywhere. There is a reason other politicians aren't suing a number of tshirt companies. It's not like Obama is the first one to get a t-shirt with slanderous remarks on it. :hippy:

I meant it could technically be sued. no1 is suing him though.
However the child's father is considering a lawsuit. that won't fly

and hey: "Most" of THE BUSH BASHING HAS some BACKUP. this simply doesn't have any. is Obama linked to a terrorist group or individual? has he funded terrorism, has he helped them in any way? prove to me that he has, and i give it to ya.

Bush HAS LIED. go ahead bring me evidence to deny it. that is enough excuse to call him a lier and ask for his impeachment for cheating everyone he lied to. He has lied and got A NATION of 300 Million plus people into a war with his lies. a war we are suppose to win!? thats just funny.

Go ahead and do some research on war crimes definition as well. u will find why he is being called a murderer and a war criminal. I aint even gonna open that discussion here cuz it will just get us into a different topic.

At least there is some evidence to be considered in Bush's case for most of major points being made and said about him. Whether accepted or not thats a different story. But, when u run around and call some1 a "terrorist's friend" without any evidence to prove your point, thats defamation.

and for your info defamation laws work very well if some1 has the will to pursue a case over it, many examples out there.

refer to Defamation, Libel and Slander Law (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html)

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

Now the kid or his guardian have no proof or evidence to back their claim up. It's just malice and u know it. don't argue over something that u @ heart know about.

and I agree there are some claims against bush that are pure malice as well without any backup.

[Psycho4Bud]

This is almost laughable.....

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[daihashi]

[B]
Now the kid or his guardian have no proof or evidence to back their claim up. It's just malice and u know it. don't argue over something that u @ heart know about.

and I agree there are some claims against bush that are pure malice as well without any backup.

I can find a way to link Obama and terrorists preferring him and I'll do it if you ask me. It doesn't matter how solid it is as it would be an open debate... which in essence would throw defamation out the window.

It basically doesn't matter how flimsy it is. It's pretty much been determined that you can say anything you want about a person in the public spotlight without having to worry about it.

Why are you so defensive. I simply posted a supreme court ruling. I'm sorry but your argument for defamation is invalid. It's as simple as that.

[bombdiggity]

daihashi is the man!

[Breukelen advocaat]

The shirt was homemade, and refleceted the views of the kid's father.

Sending a child to school wearing something like this is indicative of very bad parenting, whoever the target of the attack is.

[daihashi]

The shirt was homemade, and refleceted the views of the kid's father.

Sending a child to school wearing something like this is indicative of very bad parenting, whoever the target of the attack is.

I agree with this whole heartedly. I hate seeing kids used in this manner. They are too young to even understand what politics are about or what each candidate stands for.

[Psycho4Bud]

Wonder if there would have been a suspension for a Pro-Obama shirt?

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Breukelen advocaat]

A child in school has no right to "insist" on wearing anything - especially regarding politics. Try insisting on wearing a political button, much less a T-Shirt, to many jobs and see how long you last until they show you the door. What the hell are these kids being told by their elders?

Each new generation of parents gets worse than the previous one.

It's no wonder the whole country is going to hell in a handbasket.

[flyingimam]

I can find a way to link Obama and terrorists preferring him and I'll do it if you ask me. It doesn't matter how solid it is as it would be an open debate... which in essence would throw defamation out the window.

Terrorists may prefer many things, including our lovely CEOs and financial crunch. Are our CEOs connected to terrorists as well now? if yes then i have no point debating on this issue anymore.


It basically doesn't matter how flimsy it is. It's pretty much been determined that you can say anything you want about a person in the public spotlight without having to worry about it.

I somewhat agree with this statement, "practically" thats how it is. But technically it's otherwise and if u got a good case, u can make an exception to the usual flow.


Why are you so defensive. I simply posted a supreme court ruling. I'm sorry but your argument for defamation is invalid. It's as simple as that.

I was just trying to clear the point u probably may have missed in your own post, check at the bottom of your quote:


A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

If u please, u may view it at being defensive, however u like it. but then again thats part of a debate, people try to defend their stance using whatever source, evidence or backup that they have. Call my argument invalid, the law says otherwise and u can check again to understand my point, i merely copied the same ruling from a different source and here u have it from ur own quote man.

I never have any harsh feelings debating these stuff:rastasmoke:


A child in school has no right to "insist" on wearing anything - especially regarding politics. Try insisting on wearing a political button, much less a T-Shirt, to many jobs and see how long you last until they show you the door. What the hell are these kids being told by their elders?

Each new generation of parents gets worse than the previous one.

It's no wonder the whole country is going to hell in a handbasket.

agreed. Even though I might not personally like this, but schools have their own rules and believe it or not freedom of speech the way we think of it, is a bit limited there.

reminds me of "what would jesus bong" and that wasnt even on school property. just during a school program. and that would be something protected under normal freedom of speech but students got disciplined over it and apparently the law was on school's side.

[jaytug]

Each new generation of parents gets worse than the previous one.


What could this quote possibly mean? Honestly. Haven't you ever been at a family gathering, and somebody's great-whatever goes off on an embarrassing tangent about "colored people"? By most accounts -- like, you know, history books -- the good ol' days really weren't that good, not only because of less advanced science and medicine but also because of bigoted, ridiculous views on life and philosophy, amazingly even MORE ridiculous than what is common believed today.

[Reefer Rogue]

He should've been able to wear the shirt, school censorship is ridiculous.

[Breukelen advocaat]

What could this quote possibly mean? Honestly. Haven't you ever been at a family gathering, and somebody's great-whatever goes off on an embarrassing tangent about "colored people"? By most accounts -- like, you know, history books -- the good ol' days really weren't that good, not only because of less advanced science and medicine but also because of bigoted, ridiculous views on life and philosophy, amazingly even MORE ridiculous than what is common believed today.
If each generation has been getting better, then life must have been unbearabe in the not-so-distant past. This negates any concept that the character of people is constantly improving. The opposite is true.

[texas grass]

Wonder if there would have been a suspension for a Pro-Obama shirt?


most likely not.

but if he were wearing a death metal tshirt or any other type of tshirt with a politically incorrect statement they would have been suspended too

[Markass]

A child in school has no right to "insist" on wearing anything - especially regarding politics. Try insisting on wearing a political button, much less a T-Shirt, to many jobs and see how long you last until they show you the door. What the hell are these kids being told by their elders?

Each new generation of parents gets worse than the previous one.

It's no wonder the whole country is going to hell in a handbasket.

if you actually think the reason this country's going to shit is because of parents, you need to open your eyes just a little bit more..

[daihashi]

I was just trying to clear the point u probably may have missed in your own post, check at the bottom of your quote:

You really don't understand. It doesn't have to be true.. but it can't be flat out false. If you can find a way to link it then you are allowed to post it. Again it can be argued that he would become a terrorists best friend. This becomes an opinionated debate. Which in the eyes of the court are valid.

Don't believe me? Feel free to look through countless defamation cases. I am not going to go through it for you as I am not the one trying to prove or defend anything. I simply stated a fact.




If u please, u may view it at being defensive, however u like it. but then again thats part of a debate, people try to defend their stance using whatever source, evidence or backup that they have. Call my argument invalid, the law says otherwise and u can check again to understand my point, i merely copied the same ruling from a different source and here u have it from ur own quote man.


No... the law says it's invalid, you really have a misunderstanding. Perhaps you should take time out and review the entire case instead of making empty remarks.


reminds me of "what would jesus bong" and that wasnt even on school property. just during a school program. and that would be something protected under normal freedom of speech but students got disciplined over it and apparently the law was on school's side.

Last I checked Obama wasn't a religious figure; which we clearly have a seperation of in our schools. But nice try at the comparison.

[daihashi]

if you actually think the reason this country's going to shit is because of parents, you need to open your eyes just a little bit more..

Wow.. that's all I have to say to the blind man above.

[TheMetal1]

I'm not sure if Constitutional Rights are relevant when the elementary school has "Improper Dress" guidelines in place. Many K-8 and even K-12 schools will not allow ANY type of clothing that will disrupt the class and expose the other students to lost learning time. This goes for anything with vulgarity, profanity and revealing shorts/skirts on girls. I mean, it would be Freedom of Expression for a student to sit in class with a shirt that says "I'm with Boner!" (with an arrow pointing downstairs :rasta:)... but how much ruckus do you think that would bring a classroom? Haha

But yeah... I'm pretty sure that most schools in CO do have that improper dress code. Faculty is allowed to determine if a piece of clothing will disrupt the learning environment for everyone. They didn't say he had to throw it away. Just change it, turn it inside out... or go home. He was still allowed to choose ;)

Besides... he probably thinks he's sooo badass now for getting suspended :stoned:

[DaBudhaStank]

He should've been able to wear the shirt, school censorship is ridiculous.

He should learn who Obama is and what terrorists are first. Kid probably cant even read the word "terrorist".

[illnillinois]

:S4::S4:OBAMA:S4::S4:

Obama is a chump!!

[illnillinois]

Obama is my hero.

Why?

Because when the mud starts flingin', Obama will walk away cleaner than McCain.

that would be a first..

Obama is the answer to all the questions, even to Who is the AntiChrist?

l8r

[rebgirl420]

I don't have a problem with people to wear political stuff as they please but this is retarded. What the hell does a 5th grader know about politics? It's his father vicariously living through his son.

Not appropriate.

[Reefer Rogue]

He should learn who Obama is and what terrorists are first. Kid probably cant even read the word "terrorist".

You're probably correct he doesn't know but it's not beyond possibility. I assume he's had information directed at him by his father, whether he divulged that is unknown. Regardless of what it says, my point is that one should be allowed to wear what they want and not be punished for being peaceful, when you're not harming anyone, you've done nothing wrong. Perhaps a stretch but i think it could hold. I guess the limits come in with racism etc but arguably there should be no limits because we're in general principle a civilized society and can distinguinsh between right and wrong without government or authoritarian involvement or interference. This is a point which goes beyond the shirt, the key values here are liberty and freedom from domination of the state power telling the people what is in their best interest. Well, only ourselves can determine this, doing our own good in our own way. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

[job1.5]

if you read the whole article, it states that the child was not suspended for the shirt, but infact because he was not listening , and being disruptive. school is not the place for politics. it is a place to learn, and anyone causing a distraction like this should be suspended.

[Breukelen advocaat]

I blame the kids parents. :stoned:

After all, they probably bought it for him.
Actually, the kid's father made it.

But you're not supposed to blame parents. ;)

[flyingimam]

yeah it was badly a makeshift one... looked like they used lip liner for the red color... home technology eh? lol

and if u actually see the kid's father's face u will figure this whole thing out... certain faces talk outloud even in a still picture!! :D

[jcmoney1015]

When your'e in school you dont have any rights. For the same reason they are able to search a locker or your backpack without a warrant they are also able to regulate what you wear. The fathers lawsuit will do nothing besides lose them a lot of money that could be used to make other ugly terrbile t-shirts to be worn at home.

[tuscani]

He should learn who Obama is and what terrorists are first. Kid probably cant even read the word "terrorist".

maybe you couldnt read those words by fifth grade, but im sure this kid could. That is rediculous to be suspended over a T shirt like that.... i hope the parents can sue the school system over this...I'm glad the kid stood up and chose suspension also, i would glad to miss some days of school at his age also. its not like his t shirt was about drugs or sex... //

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I don't think freedom of speech is limitless in the context of a public school; there are rules of appropriate attire. There was a kid in my high-school who wore a shirt 3 days in a row that read, in big letters, "Fuck you, you Fucking Fuck". He was eventually booted for refusing to take it off.


If you wanna wear a pro Obama or McCain shirt, have at it. If you want to wear an anti-Obama or McCain shirt, have at it. But when you're gonna spew outright bullshit, calling Obama a terrorist, that's where I'd draw the line. Were I principal I wouldn't allow an "Obama = Terrorist" shirt, and I wouldn't allow a "Bush = Nazi" shirt either. These aren't valid opinions, they're childish insults; and frankly my biggest objection is that in a school environment, they advocate a mindset of reactionary sheeple rather than critical thinkers.