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
---------------------

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

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"

flyingimam Reviewed by flyingimam on 09-23-2008. Reports: Fifth-grader suspended over anti-Obama shirt 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 Rating: 5

[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.

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.



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

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.