E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAn Indiana eighth grader sued his school district in federal court Monday for the right to wear a bracelet promoting breast cancer awareness with the message "I (heart) Boobies," WTHR reported.
The lawsuit says the boy's mother bought the bracelet for him in support of the Carol M. Baldwin Cancer Research Fund, named after actor Alec Baldwin's mother, a cancer survivor. He wore the bracelet to Roosevelt Middle School for two days without causing a disruption. On Jan. 6, the vice principal spotted it and ordered the boy to turn it inside out because it was violating the school's dress code.
The boy's father, Jeremy Glander of Monticello, spoke to the superintendent of the Twin Lakes School Corp., who said the boy couldn't wear the bracelet with the message exposed. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Lafayette on behalf of Glander, saying his son, identified as L.G., has a First Amendment right to wear the bracelet.
Superintendent Tom Fletcher did not immediately return a phone message left Monday by The Associated Press.
ACLU attorney Ken Falk said the boy has not worn the bracelet to school since being warned he could face disciplinary measures if he did. The lawsuit claims the bracelet does not violate the school's dress code, which specifies that "Students should not engage in speech or conduct, including clothing, jewelry, or hairstyle, which is profane, indecent, lewd, vulgar, or offensive to school purposes."
The lawsuit contends the bracelet is not indecent, lewd, vulgar, offensive to school purposes or obscene and is not disruptive of an educational environment.
"It is designed to assist in the fight against breast cancer," the lawsuit says.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled last year that the bracelets were not lewd or vulgar and couldn't be banned by public school officials who found them offensive. That decision is being appealed.
The Indiana lawsuit also contends the boy knows "many other students" at the school who wore the bracelets without disruption and that he has older siblings at Twin Lakes High School and students there have worn the bracelets without being told to remove them.
The lawsuit says the boy wants to wear the bracelet to be an advocate for breast cancer awareness and prevention.
"L.G. believes that breast cancer can strike anyone, including his sister and mother, and that it is important to show support for the fight against breast cancer," the lawsuit says.
In Wisconsin, a ban on the same type of wristbands stands for now, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb declined to issue an injunction barring the principal of Sauk Prairie Middle School from enforcing the rule he imposed last year that banned the breast cancer awareness bracelet from the school.
The "I (heart) Boobies" wristbands also carry the message "Keep a Breast."
The State Journal reports student Kaisey Jenkins and her mother Caran Braun sued the Sauk Prairie School District in September 2011, alleging free speech.
But Crabb said the lawsuit is not likely to succeed on its merits and declined to stop the ban.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
It's nice that the school doesn't have any more serious problems to focus on.
I feel the same about the ACLU. They should spend their efforts and resources fighting more important battles than this.
What's scary to me that 60% of the people that voted are liberal democrats.
What do you think they should be focusing on instead of 1st Amendment Rights?
There is nothing - nothing - more important than the protection of the rights granted by the First Amendment.
If we teach our children to just let it slide, don't be disruptive, then by the time something truly awful occurs, they won't stand up against it.
Really? Nothing? You have got to be kidding me! The First Amendment is important, but not THE most important issue facing America.
I am all for the protection of the 1st Amendment. I just don't think this is the battlefield to fight for it.
Well Matt, what would you rather see the ACLU working on besides First Amendment rights?
Fair enough, but it's important to remember that the freedoms we enjoy via the First Amendment aren't judged on the basis of their enormity or relevance to the general public. So while I'd be the first to say that the case in question is pretty silly, especially when it contains the word 'boobies', it's still a case where a government sponsored institution is infringing on a persons individual freedom.
Where does it stop if a school or government tells you that you aren't allowed to wear or say certain things? It's also only fair to point out that the ACLU has a ridiculous amount of members and are present in every state; so it's not like this is the only case they're currently working on. I don't follow them, but i'd imagine there are several dozen ongoing lawsuits that they're involved with based on nothing but their average yearly funding figures.
1st of all the ACLU is a bunch of crack pots...secondly I really don't believe they or much of anyone else (from what I see written on the vine) has a clue what the 1st amendment really protects and they should look it up before getting on their war horse and babbling about it.
The first amendment was written in response the the British occupational practices of the 13 colonies. The founding fathers wanted to make sure no ruling monarchy or government democracy(whichever we would become) could perform search and seizure of a citizen's private property solely based on that persons beliefs, ideas, writing etc etc.
The British had a practice of doing just this with a governors writ or document. They could literally take what they wanted using virtually any excuse from "enemy of the sate" to "need your livestock to feed the queens men."
In no way does it say you can wear or write or say what you want within some one else's private property/domain. So if you come onto my property doing so and don't leave or stop when I ask you to ...yeah I can take legal action from calling the police to throw your ass off my property, to expelling you from school, to going to court depending on the severity. SO if the school has a policy against it..tough luck on the kid...tell him he can wear it outside of school at home or in public.WAWA...and it doesn't work just because he goes to "public school"
I do think this, and other "little things" are the important battles. There is no better example of the "camel's nose in the tent" analogy - if you wait until the whole head is in the tent because the nose isn't a big enough deal, the enchroachment is that much harder to stop. The only thing I don't understand is why the ACLU seems to be the only lobbying group that understands this.
I hope the child's first amendment rights are protected. The government should not be allowed to restrict speech or expression for any reason.
brian-1077790
Speaking of having a clue, you could fill entire rooms with the records of judicial decisions that directly contradict your pet theory of what the 1st amendment means. Public schools are an arm of the government, by the way. Perhaps you should educate yourself before posting.
Also if it weren't for those crackpots at the ACLU and others like them, who protect you and everyone else from government overreach, we would all be at the mercy of the bureaucrats.
What I find funny is two things.
1) Is that the supporters of the ACLU and this punk, truly think this 8th grade, 13 year old BOY gives a damn about Breast Cancer, and didn't only ware the thing so he could snicker of having "Boobies" on his wrist and buck the "system".
2) That all you leftist, progressive Lib-tards, "forget" or ignore the FACT that the person/people that organized the ACLU and 99% of its original members were also registered members of the American Communist Party or American Socialist Party. You know the ones, with the 58 point plan for bringing about the destruction of the United States. One of which was to flood the courts system with frivolous litigation like this one under the guise of "civil rights" or "Free Speech".
It isn't the fact that they are defending the 1st amendment, but doing so at the expense of common decency. I think more and more people are getting frustrated at the fact that fights like this get the 1st amendment thrown in our faces (which, by the way is an amendment to the constitution, not what was originally written - so don't get high and mighty that it is the constitution, albeit the amended constitution, because we as people can amend it at our choosing) trying to tell us we aren't American when we want decency over a person's ability to say something. An 8 year old child, as decency should dictate, should not be wearing something about boobies. But was does the American public know, other than to keep pushing the boundaries of decency until they aren't recognized. People can say what they wish as long as it is decent. We should be able to insert some common sense into this argument. If we can't, or rather don't, I could argue just about anything to be free speech, regardless of the impact it has on society. It's the first amendment, not the "Get away with everything possible, and pin it in constitutionality" amendment. I do get the argument that we need to be careful what infringes on free speech, because we could start to lose it. But this isn't it; bickering over the constitutionality of something improper on an 8 year old's bracelet.
Can he wear a t-shirt with a picture of breasts on it? Why not? Is there any point in which vulgarity enters into the picture? Of course there is. And why is that? Because it isn't decent. We need to teach our children well, not what they can get away with.
I am all for 1st amendment rights, but we must realize that when we are in certain places certain language and behaviors are not protected. Just as I can't go screaming around my office any negative opinions about my boss, students can't expect to wear/say anything they want while at school. I have family with breast cancer & fully support fundraising for this cause, however I could easily see how a bunch of pre-teen boys wearing "I heart boobies" gear could EASILY turn into a disruption. How about the parents of these kids encourage them to set up fundraising activities to support this cause outside of school instead of allowing all of the money to be spent on the lawsuit.
Your belief in "decency" is irrelevant. Our Constitution protects our rights so your opinions can not override them. The opinions of the majority can't be used to circumvent our freedoms. Only authoritarians believe that their ideals should form the basis of law. It is about what they believe to be for "our own good" but it really is about control and controlling our freedom of speech is something that a professed free society should utterly reject.
Joeybagofdonuts -
Firstly, who the hell are you to tell me what is and is not decent? Short of things that have already held up in precedent, such as falsely inciting panic, threatening to do harm or bodily injury, threatening of one's life, what is or is not decent? We, being the American people under the Constitution, have decided that vulgarity is protected by the 1st Amendment, that lewdness is protected, that bigotry is protected (except in cases of incitement to violence), that hatred is protected, that love is protected, that blasphemy is protected, etc. Freedom of speech and expression is the correct answer to all questions posed above. Don't like somebody else's speech? The answer is: more speech.
ADS80 -
While I agree that normally, the motives of a 13-year-old in wearing a bracelet with the word "boobies" on it would be suspect, the fact remains that he was wearing it for 2 days with no disruption before he was told to take it off. Not only that, but other students of that and other schools have been allowed to wear it. Now sure, when I was 13, I remember snickering over anything that was suggestive. That's the point of this campaign: it takes the word "boobies" and actually makes you think about what breast cancer can mean to people. Once you're over the 5 minutes of novelty, you either forget about it, or you actually begin to absorb the message.
We do allow for some curtailment beyond the usual in schools. We have to allow teachers to silence students and keep the discussions in hand. However, if something is not violating the strictures we have agreed upon, and is not violating the anti-disruption rules, then I see absolutely no need for another infringement on freedom of speech.
Repub or Dem, who really cares this is not for politics... It is a disease that needs to be stamped out and if by buying and wearing, a simple 'I (heart) BOOBIES' bracelet may help by anyone, I'm for it...
My beautiful wife died at the age of 26 from 'BOOBIE' Cancer... So lets fight it any way we can!
htdjpf,
Did you not read the story, his mother bought it for him... Others at the school have been wearing one without being told to take them off... And really you are offended by such an innocent word such as 'BOOBIES'... You need to take a 'Chill Pill' dude or dudette...
Just say he is a bird watcher, there is a sea bird called a Boobie in the Pacific islands.
I have read quite a bit of baloney on this topic and have yet to see anything from a Breast cancer patient, survivor or Doctor.
As an individual that has fought breast cancer, I find this braclet offensive. I would have found it offensive prior to my diagnosis. I feel there are many more ways that funding can be earned for breast cancer that are tasteful, respectful and would not be utilized by a teenager to get a rise out of everyone. Does he truly want to help the fight against breast cancer in men and women?
I have seen bracelets sold for the same cause that say "big and small - save them all" I also find that offensive!
You want to donate money for research, awareness or anything else having to do with cancer, cut out the middle man, someone is making more money off the bracelets than is going to the cause.
What about testicular cancer? Would you mind if your daughter wore a "I (heart) balls" wristband? Trust me! Boys are more into the idea of what boobies mean than brest cancer. You might see "I (heart) boobies" but boys see "I love tits". These kids got all you adults fooled!
Can you imagine what a nightmarish hell it would be if everybody got to have whatever they found offensive banned?
Schools have dress codes folks. There are many things that kids are not allowed to wear at school. Why can't he wear a T-Shirt that says, I Like Tits? (he does) Or KMA? (he means it) or Mean People Suck? (peple that tell him what to do)or whatever he wants? Free Speach right. And don't give me a speech about this 13 year old supporting breast cancer. AND even if he is, if it is against school policy end of story.
I agree that we need to teach children to speak out, however, that DOES NOT mean that they can't be told NO!! This Mom and Dad have WAY to much time on their hands.
Fought The Battle,
I Heart BOOBIES braclets are a product of the 'KEEP A BREAST FOUNDATION', which is a non profit 501 c 3 organization. It promotes arts and education to everyone esp. young people about cancer. They also have alot of other lines of products for sale to help the cause.
I'm surprized you as a alledged survivor have not heard of them, my wife died in 1983 from breast cancer, and as new as they are, I have heard and know of them...
And all of them would be unconstitutional violations of a child's right to free speech under our laws.
Obvioulsy not. It has been that way for decades all over the United States. Free Speech is not limitless!!!
Only authoritarians believe in limits to free speech. Illegal limits on students' speech has existed for many years but that fact doesn't validate them. They are illegal as they violate Constitutional law. All dress codes in public schools should be outlawed.
Polka-
Dress codes are unconstitutional violations of a child's right to free speech???
Surely you jest.
A Veteran,
I believe you are refering to the 'GOONIE' bird which is found on the island's of Midway and Guam... US Navy Vet here...
I am very serious. I wrote an opinion piece about it. Check my column. I fully believe in all our constitutional rights. Children have rights too and the government has no right to limit it. Only a student's parents can do so. There is no legitimate purpose for limiting speech for those people except appeasing certain opinions that are irrelevant to our freedoms.
Polka,
I wish we could actually debate the free speech topic... Cause you do not know of which you speak... I believe your opinion only mattered to you and was completely of base and you probably made a bad grade on that paper... For you need to study the free speech amendment...
Polka14. Thats ridiculous! Your saying boys should be allowed to wear speedos and girls can wear bikinis to school if they want???? Thery can wear shirts with all kinds of dirty sayings? Yeah..ok...lets let kids do what ever they want! I have a dress code at work. Hold on, I'll ask my boss if I can wear a speedo tomorrow!
If you can't debate it then blame yourself. Must be your lack of a counter point??? Authoritarians can't argue against freedom but do oppose it anyway.
Children should be able to wear whatever they want in a government public school! Hyperbole will not help your case! And feel free to ask your boss whatever you want but your boss doesn't have to recognize your first amendment rights because the company you work for isn't the government!!
So if I worked for the IRS, it'd be OK?
Sure. The government should not be allowed to force people to abide by a dress code. It is against the law!
1rst amendment or no 1rst amendment...you mean to tell me that a bracelet with the word "boobies" on it is worth all this dramatic bullsh...t? That of all the lurid,vulgur language and images children in this country are exposed to every day on prime time television and general media this is considered too explicit and suggestive for an eight grader? My God... this country has turned into a bunch of hypocritical "Polly anna's" with no redemption in sight!
Its unbelievable that this would even raise a friggin eyebrow.....and even if it did... its worth all this? "Boobies"? Really? Cut on the damn television from 8-oclock on and see what they hear and see on so called family programming anymore....parental supervision or not! This is true politically correct insanity that needs a strong and imediate cure! "Boobies"...hah...pin that boy down and see what he could have really come up with then start crying.
That's not true. Uniforms for instance keep the peace, for lack of a better term. What happens when a kid in South Carolina decides to wear the stars and bars to school? Can you say fight? I can site you any number of reasons just like this that make sense with relations towards civility and security. Total "freedom of speech" without any regards is not only dangerous it is simply foolish!
"Freedom of Speech" does not mean anyone can do or say whatever the hell they want to whenever the hell they want to.
That, my friends, is called Anarchy.
I (heart boobies) too!!!!!
Let the boy keep and wear his bracelet. It is for a good cause, no matter how anyone else sees it. Free speech argument, does not really hold water. This is a school that has an established dress code. It is up to the school board to determine what is appropriate for their school. Parents don't like it, remove the school board. Simple. Not everything has to be solved in court. School boards answer to the people in their district, not the other way around.
The ACLU, now come on. This is a local matter that should be handled by the parents (and other concerned parents) and the school board.
CBurroughs - Good Morning my friend. Please go to www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYmzdvlvlMoUUA to see a Blue Footed Boobie. I remember the Goonie birds on Midway, I went there in the C-130 I rode from San Diego to Danang back in 1967. My condolences for the loss of your wife in 1983. Smooth Seas and Prevailing Winds. Mike RICE RMCS USN (Retired).
I disagree Army and I actually have teen boys in school. NOT ONE parent has to sit in a class full of teens that will not hesitate to tell you to F@ck off. And there is basically nothing a teacher can do. We have a coach right here in town that is in CCU. He tried to get between two 14 year old boys that were fighting.
Name a school that does not have a police officer on location. Schools are on the edge of control ALL the time. I think this school administration and educatiors should walk off the job in protest. Let the ACLU and let this kids parents come take over.
Let the school system do their job and stay out of the way unless they stop teaching. AND our stinking government has just about done that already!!!!
Simply stated, this is not about a bracelet. This is about what I want and YOU can't tell me no. Hell let's allow the gangs to start wearing their names and colors in school. Why not?????
Polka -- see post 3.12 and tell Sally about free speech!! Apparently she has broken the law.
CBurroughs - Here's another link, for some reason the first one I sent you is no longer available. wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-footed_Booby
Actually it should mean that if our speech is truly free. More people should have the mindset of "While I may disagree with what you say, I will defend to my death your right to say it".
Unless Newsvine is part of the government, no one has broken any laws.
So whithin what part of the law making government do the schools fall? They are state funded, but not a law making nor enforcing leg of the government.
Public schools are run by the government and funded by the government through taxes. It is even overseen by the DoE. A government agency. So public schools have no right to limit the free speech of students. It is unconstitutional regardless of any message sent by this speech or others.
So then ANYONE that works for the government, including teachers, police officers, city, state employees, etc., can't be told what they can and can not wear to work?
Am I right?
My opinions are based on the words of the Constitution. There is nothing in it about exceptions for state employees. Technically all would be against the law limiting the government from infringing on our freedom of speech and expression as clearly written in the first amendment.
And you are certainly entitled to those opinions. I am just trying for some clarity. We will probably never agree, but that too is okay. You have the freedom to say this and I have the freedom to say that........all without the government telling us we can't. For me however, it has nothing to do with rules we as society have seen necessary to put into place through government agencies or officers to control those who have no sense of the rights of others.
The school system can contact the police and I can face criminal charges if my child misses a certain number of classes, but the school system has no right to control what kids wear. Doesn't make sense to me.
The government has no right to legislate morality. I wish we had officially codified a separation of morality and state into law. This nonsense about limiting our freedoms would not be tolerated and we would live in a better and more free nation.
As I said , we won't agree. For lack of a better way of saying this, your rights stop where mine start. We have rules that we have empowerd people (that also have rights) in positions of rule we call government to make and enforce said rules. You like to be naked and walk the streets naked. When you pass my house my 10 year old girl is exposed to your nakedness. Now your right as you see it to be naked is infringing on my rights not to have my adolecent exposed to that. To keep you and I from having a fist fight, society (more than one of us) has decided that walking down the street naked is not okay. Call it what you want, it is what it is. Government is not a living breathing thing, it is made up if American citizens that are supposed to represent the best interests of ALL American citizens. Not just a few that feel entitled to do as they wish, no matter how they affect others!!
I am not going to walk anywhere without clothes but if I did then you should be powerless to stop me under the law. You have no right to not be offended and you have no right to limit any kind of exposure to your children that is obviously beyond your control. You can switch off your television and keep your children locked in their rooms but you can't control the behavior of others! You can control what occurs on your own property but not on the property of others or on public property that belongs to everyone. You start with hyperbole but if you can stop someone from walking without clothes then can you stop someone from walking down the street in an Islamic veil or covered in other clothing or skin art that offends you? Our freedom of expression must not be undermined because people like you don't like certain expression and don't care about our freedoms. Your own admission that you would attack others for expressing it if no one was able to stop you is enough indication of that! Your argument makes no sense. Either the government represents everyone or it doesn't. Either we have freedom of speech and expression for all or no one has those rights.
TX, I was stating my opinion, let him wear it. I also made it clear that I do not think has anything to do with free speech. It has to do with control in the schools. If the local parents, as a whole, feel that should be inappropriate in the school, then I am fine with banning it. School is a learning environment, anything that disrupts that environment should not be allowed, that is not a violation of free speech in that environment. We elect and choose the school boards to make the rules of the districts, including what can and cannot be worn. IF the parents agree with the boy, make it known. If they agree with the vice principle, fine as well.
This would all be so simple if all US public schools would go to uniforms. Not in the uniform, leave.
Couldn't agree more Army and that is exactly what most schools have gone to. At least K-9 grades.
However, according to Polka that is against the law. But he hasn't had one of his kids have the sh!t beaten out of him for his shoes because he wore them to school and some kid wanted them.
"Where does it stop if a school or government tells you that you aren't allowed to wear or say certain things?"
Sono, In the words of Rosan Barr "ARE YOU NEW?"
Been going on since I can remember and I can remember over 40 years worth. The world hasn't stopped turning yet. The big bad government, which is made up of people that are elected or selected to represent the rest of us has yet to swoop down and imprison you! WE are talking about public schools full of children that need direction, NOT the local mall. BUT try walking through the local mall with your willie hanging out and see if you get away with that freedom of expression!!
I don't care what some people like you would like the government to do!! It doesn't exist to punish us for exercising our right to free expression! All actions that legislate what people can dress, what people can say or how we live in any area for any reason are all actions of a tyrannical system of government! Disagree if you want but you only support tyranny if it supports your views! Tyranny of the majority, right??? Yes, how dare some people express themselves differently??!! In your opinion they must be punished! Forced to conform through the power of government!
I <3 Boobies too...
Wonder if I <dicks would be any kind of a problem for high schools??
Good question, why don't you go to one and see if you're a problem?
Hey 3rd Viewfromleft:
It's nice the that ACLU doesn't have more serious problems to focus on:
- Like removing the 10 Commandments from courthouses
- Removing all traces of a "deity" from view.
- Provide abortions to 10-13 year old girls without their parent's knowledge (I'm Pro Choice)
- Provide known Islamic terrorists who have murdered Americans (Women & Children) "Rights" that only Americans are privileged as having.
- etc, etc, etc....
flash8, removing Christian propaganda from government buildings is a very serious and necessary task. Religion and the state have no business colluding. America was founded because of state-enforced religion in England. I've never seen the ACLU try to prevent Christians and their apologists from placing their propaganda anywhere except for public locations, as the founders intended.
Providing rights to prisoners of a war that Congress never declared is also a noble cause. We are not a nation of barbarians.
As far as your ridiculous abortion claim, stick with things that have basis in reality.
@flash
I agree with some of what you said but you as an american nolonger have the rights, to since Nobama signed into law NDAA 2012, Look it up, there are clauses in it that allows the military to enter your home without just cause and hold you without reason othere than you maybe a terrorist.
Really funny when you cry for separation of church and state, you don't want your morals impossed on anyone, but have no problem with Obama using religion as an excuse to raise taxes because Jesus said it's our moral responsibility.
Alan Pugh,
Hahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahaah!
Oh, let me hitch my breath, and then
hahhahahahhahahahahhahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahah!
A basis in reality? Well that's, that's, oh heavens
hehahahahhahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahah!
In what little stand-up club did you pick up the idea that people recognize and respond to reality? That's one funny routine.
Lune
o'really
Obama using religion to raise taxes.. Wow talking about making stuff up.. Nothing like the far right wing lie spin machine.
No he pointed out that Jesus would do what is best for society as a whole...
Do you think Jesus is a free market capitalist or more of a responsible capitalist with socialized tendencies.
I think the Jesus I was taught about tend to have some very socialistic tendencies. And form all that i have read I'm pretty damn sure that is the real truth
GOP members are just pissed because they think they're the exclusive source on Jesus.
If I were that kid, I would go out and special order a thousand of them and hand them out to peeps on campuss! I want one too!
Did I say Christian Alan? No you Kool-Aid drinking fool do you know what deity means? I know your a bi-product of the American School System just by how you think and attempt to articulate... What happened? Did the police knock down your "Occupy Tent"? Or did mommy's I-Pad get stolen so you had to go home?
Miranda Rights to non-military Islamic killers that will enslave, rape and murder your mother/sister if they get the chance? Say no more Alan as I know now you're part of the "Entitlement" generation!
This mother needs to ask herself if she would let a teenage daughter go to school wearing a bracelet that says "I (Heart) Balls" in support of testicular cancer.
@flash8 - Alan Pugh was referring to the 10 commandments in your post . . . . . and last time I checked, deity meant "god" and who's supposedly the guy at the top of the Christian religion? God? Oh, he'd be a deity then, wouldn't he?
As to the Miranda Rights reference - do you even know what the Geneva Convention is?
So is the ACLU going to file suit against the Government for forcing religions to pay for contraception and abortion which are against their religious teachings? Freedom of Religion is First Amendment right too.
@drushalli - "This mother needs to ask herself if she would let a teenage daughter go to school wearing a bracelet that says "I (Heart) Balls" in support of testicular cancer.
A little confused? Did his bracelet read "I (heart) tits"?? I dont think so, so no comparison...
In response to Brian.... At which point in time did a "public" school become the private property of the assistant principal? It is a facility that was funded by public tax dollars, therefore, the public, in general, should be allowed to decide what is best for the students. ANYONE who feels that the rights we have guaranteed to us by the Constitution are not worth a damn, just pack your bags and LEAVE!!!! Remember this little fact---- You are able to say the things that you did in this forum BECAUSE of your First Amendment rights, not in spite of them.
Well Matt, that isn't the way it works. The school board along with school administrators make the rules. I guess we need to change any rule that any parent deams unfair or improper for their little Johnny. There are between 8,000 to 10,000 students here in my 111,000 people city. Do we change the rules fore each. Where does it stop?
First Admendment Rights apply to his parents. He is a minor living in a dictatorship. They are free to move him to a private school where the standards are much stricter if they wish. Don't have any kids do you?
Alan P, you are distorting the truth (I think you know it which makes you very dangerous and begs the question why).
many people like you want truth to be relative so you can get people to believe what you believe.
If I am wrong, then a course in history may be in order. try reading pre-1920 books and you will have a less distorted view, post-modernism is rewriting history. Most people are like lemmings, will follow w/o thinking.
have a good week.
NOT ME MATT!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm a vaginarian!!!!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
For 200 years that passage was interpreted to mean Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion meaning there would be no official state religion. Keeping in mind that the original settlers came here trying to escape a tyrant that was attempting to force his religion on them I can fully understand why it was originally interpreted that way. Now some woman came along with a political agenda and some activist judges changed the law using their interpretation to abrogate our rights to religious freedom guaranteed under the second part of that sentence.
I guess now we will have to work on these words:
And intgepret them to mean We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. I'm sorry to see our country come to this.
Flash, I worked my way from homeless to homeowner and from minimum wage to corporate world without your so-called entitlements (except for six weeks of unemployment a decade ago that helped keep my head above water). How about you address my actual points instead of making baseless, ignorant personal attacks about "mommy's iPad" or "Occupy tents" which have nothing to do with the separation of church and state or treating all men as equal.
Atlas shrugging, if you subscribe to Rand's self-centered, exploit-others-at-all-opportunities Objectivism, I'm afraid that we will not be able to have a dialog. Objectivism is the root of all the damaging changes we've seen in the United States since Reagan. The death of empathy has destroyed our once compassionate and uplifting society.
"The death of empathy has destroyed our once compassionate and uplifting society".
Thank the disease called liberalism for that. There was a time in the USA when people gave a "hand Up" NOT a "Hand Out". See the difference? A man with half a brain, 10 fingers and toes should not be sitting on his ass collecting a check from the government. But the liberal will provide 20 excuses that explain his dependence on the government (Racist/Victimization)
Keep taxing the producers to "Give" to the dregs the "Takers". There once was a time in the USA where people would never "take" due to pride, values, faith, etc.. Now its "I gosta get mines" The producers are now the bad guys and they arn"t sharing (giving) to the dregs (takers).
The liberal mentality is to make the majority of Americans depend on Government, not feel shame or guilt. They want the people to feel Entitled!
Denmark. Sweden. Norway. Germany.
Know world politics and economics before pretending you know which system works best.
Then move there Alan... I have lived and worked as a contractor in the following countries: Turnhout, Belgium, U.K. (To many towns and cities to mention), Zwolle & Amsterdam, Holland (Netherlands) and Kupio, Finnland.
The majority of the "Native Workers" my colleagues there hate the Socialist system, it's like the Unions in the US. Forced taxation up to 60% to pay for the people who do not "wish" to work, higher education (although they need ditch diggers) and socialized medicine (wait in-line months for a procedure) which is based on age. So the older you are the less of a chance you will receive your procedure, cheaper to "maintain" the condition than to correct. Very low home ownership (Taxed to Death), one one (1) car per family because their Taxed to death, do not travel because again, no discretionary income.
So before you spout your Marxist / Communist talking points "live it" rather than just "Google" the info to blather on and on! You Fool!
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"
Please.
http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries_slide.html
I am in constant communication with coworkers from all of these countries and there is no air of resentment that you are speaking of. I'm not saying your anecdotal evidence is fabricated, but I am indeed saying it doesn't match my own or that of any journalistic or scientific survey of the happiest nations, which consistently ranks these nations at the top.
Also, it's poor form voting for your own comments.
You are so Naive to throw a Government Stat as reality? You just keep showing your ignorance. I mean it's so funny the lack of intelligence you are exhibiting. I have no further use for you as you cannot compete with my intellect and world experience. You are just another sniveling child who thinks they are smarter than everyone else when confronted. I pitty you...
Once you can "afford" or you get to a professional level (You're most likely an OWS fan) where executive's ask you to represent the company in a foreign nation / land then we can attempt to have a dialog. FYI, I lived in Europe for over 5 years, so keep talking to the same people who think like you. I said majority of people do you know what that means? Would you like to me to provide you with the definition?
By the way at least 20% of Americans are subsidized by the US government now... You think that happened by chance? The US Tax Payers now pay 1.6 Billion $$ a year for "Poor People's" cell phones which are conveniently called "Obama Phones". In 2008, $700 Million was spent do the math. You probably have an Obama Phone don't you??
flash8, I am a corporate employee of a Fortune 100 company. Take pity on me all day for this hard upper middle class life I have built for myself. Everything you're saying now is an expression of your uncontrollable rage and you're still voting up your own comments to inflate your sense of self-worth. I'm not here to play those types of games.
Do I know what you do for a living? What you make? Where you've lived? No, and I don't care. Your personal experiences are of no concern to me. Your personal experiences (and mine) have nothing to do with the facts, which have clearly stated repeatedly in unbiased survey after survey, WHO ratings, employment and benefits comparisons, literacy, health, intelligence and, yes, happiness, that the above-named nations are at the top of the list consistently.
Why am I not there? Because I have a partner, a sibling and two parents that I could not leave behind. Again, my personal experiences have nothing to do with the above facts. You keep trying to make this about me and about you, but we're just two people. The stats above don't lie, but I'll allow you to rant on. I'll be enjoying a cold one. Good day.
Why is Europe Burning Again today? Because their soooooo happy right? Have you heard of Austerity?
So my little nemmissis, are you going to "toss" another stat my way and from homelessness to fortune 500 to upper middle class too?! You look 23 yrs/old ??? Maybe you should put the "cold-ones" down for awhile and reall think about what you have said in you previous posts. You live in a world of unicorns and fairy dust...
I've toyed with you enough, you've learned your lesson....
what a waste of time and money.....the ACLU will sue for any reason...maybe they and the parents and the school official should be sued for being idiots....
I hope you get cancer. Then we can add stigma to it, so that when you die, you are also ashamed.
William, you are an idiot.
Wear a pink bracelet. Geat a tshirt that says prevent breast cancer. Wear it out of school. That campaign exists and succeeds ONLY because of the suggestion of it. I heart boobies, too. But to sue is absurd. Or maybe some little girls should go around with bracelets that say I heart prostates.
I didn't think so.
The ACLU finally sues something for a good reason (free speech grounds), and you're bitching about it?
GTFO of here.
Mary - so the school acts completely stupid and punishes a child for wearing a bracelet that raises breast cancer awareness and you are upset that lawyers representing him and asserting his rights?
What's wrong with you? There is a problem here and it is censorship and the incredibly stupid and prudish attitudes that pervade across America.
You really thing he was wearing that for awareness? I want to hear you say it.
I would say his motive is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with the bracelet. The school system has a couple centuries of social change to catch up with.
The majority of students who wear this bracelet do not wear it in support of breast cancer - I teach at a private, all-boys school - even they admit they wear it because it says "boobies." The boy can wear his bracelet on the weekend and after school. His parents are teaching him a poor lesson about behavior. Millions of dollars are being wasted because people want to wear bracelets - why not compromise and then spend the money on breast cancer research? How will the boy benefit and feel better with all that money if he wins? If money is not the motivation, why sue?
If girls can go to school with words like "slut" printed on their ass with glitter... i don't see what the problem is...
Some people have way to much money and time on their hands (parents\ACLU). A middle school aged boy where's a I <3 "Boobies" bracelet in support for breast cancer awareness?? Really!!! This is about free speech!!!!! By the way, I've got a bridge........................
You fool me once, shame on you.
You fool me twice, shame on me.
@Kristin-1478323
"Millions of dollars are being wasted because people want to wear bracelets"
Simply, no.
Millions of dollars are being wasted because prudes like you still find words like boobies offensive. Don't get me wrong, your allowed to be offended. It's when you try to take away other peoples constitutional rights where it starts to become ridiculous.
Isn't it a bigger problem to be teaching kids that its alright force your insecurities on to other people because it makes you feel better?
stop making stuff like this taboo and we wouldn't have to deal with it as much as we do.
In fact boobies should be displayed everywhere
William Demuth and Michael-750560, you are both suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
It's not about "insecurities". It's about learning that there is a time and a place for everything. If the boy truly means to support breast cancer research and treatments, then what on earth is the matter with a bracelet that says "I support breast cancer awareness"? I like the "Real men wear pink" t-shirts, or even the simple pink ribbon emblazoned goods. Of coures, grown men still giggle at "boobies" as a word, so why is it a surprise a middle school boy likes it? Kind of a surprise that his mother got it for him in my opinion. I bet that the kid wouldn't wear it if it was pink and said I love boobies instead of what I've seen which is black with white lettering and a red heart. Looks more appropriate at a Hooter's than a school.
@Janie Poo
Insecurities may have been the wrong word to use there. How about, belief system? This isn't a matter of wording it so that its "obviously" more appropriate. It's a matter of why should we have to reword it in the first place.
This has nothing to do with being prudish. An 8-year old boy does not need to be wearing a bracelet such as this, and I would be highly suspect of the intent of this and other boys and the intent DOES matter. Why? If you say it doesn't, you have obviously never taught or worked in a public school setting. Kids in my school district are free to wear these bracelets, and I can confirm that many don't care about anybody at all, much less whether or not they have breast cancer. Boys flash their bracelets at girls and snicker, and boys justify using th eword "Boobies" with, "I was just reading his bracelet!"
Joke is on you free speech warriors! While you are wasting your breath trying to defend the free speech rights of children who not too long ago were supposed to be seen and not heard, they're holding their bracelets up and yelling, "Boobies!" with all the immaturity and lack of civility that will come to define their miserable, self-entitled adulthoods.
Mary and digusted are correct. It is a monumental waste of time and money.
I have two teenage boys and they have friends so I see these inmature little brats all the time.
This happened to my daughters male friend last year, they finally allowed him to wear it when the father went to the principal and explained that his mother had died of breast cancer the previous year.
Nobody got sued though.
What if my daughter wore a I HEART TESTICLES bracelet to support my fight with testicular cancer?
Jak, send me a pic of your daughter and I will let you know.
I would have no issue with I heart testicles. Even if it was meant sexually and not for cancer awareness.
But since we go through great lengths making all these issues taboo they gain more traction in our society
jak I would stand behind her too, as I would my own daughter if it were to happen to her dad, my daughter wears an I heart boobies bracelet too in support of her friend, she also wears another one which in a round about way IS a "testicle" one it's the Lance Armstrong yellow one that says "strong" on it.
Cancer is an equal opportunity killer.
And the moment an 8th grade girl wears a bracelet saying "I love Cock" (to promote prostrate cancer awareness....of course.....) watch what happens, you bunch of hypocrites.
False equivalency.
Boobies is acceptable for kids to say. #$%! is never acceptable for just about anyone to say in their daily life except perhaps farmers and poultry breeders.
Yea, Positrondave, they are going to come with another bracelet stating, " I love brain..." (to collect money and get you one...), but then again we may get money only to get you an "A.B. something"... (please refer to "Young Frankenstein")
Well, considering "cock" is an expletive, and "boobies" is not, you're not exactly comparing apples to apples.
So in your hypocritcal logic, it's ok to use a slang to promote breast cancer awareness, but not prostrate cancer awareness? Should we be PC and have the braclet say "I love Penis"?
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have "I love balls" instead, as "cock" isn't really attached to the prostate?
And also, no, I wouldn't be offended.
Nope! They girls should wear bracelets that say "I love Weiners"!
"Keep balls in play".
I better patent that one before some wristband making assh*le steals it.
I think "I love teabags" would be best.
As mentioned, that's a false equivalency. "I <3 testicles" would be fine by me.
Cock is slang, Boobies is slang, there is no false equivalency, the false equivalency is made up by people whose opinion is; one slang is more acceptable than the other.
One slang term IS more acceptable than the other. Where would get the idea that they are all the same? How does being slang make them equivalent in acceptability? My parents used "boobies" instead of "tits", because "boobies" is generally acceptable for children and "tits" is not. An equivalaent would something like "weewee" vs "cock". "Weewee" is something we allow kids to say. "Cock" is not.
Don't pretend that all slang terms are socially equivalent. You know they are not.
How are they not equivilent? You're the one making up the rules on wether they are or not, so it's a matter of your "opinion" (just as the "N" word is acceptable to some, but the same word is not acceptable to them, when spoken by someone else, but that's a different argument). A slang term is a slang term, wether or not people find one more acceptable or not is relative.
how is boobies acceptable if cock isn't? neither are the medical terminology. breast is the terminology and cock and boobies are both slang.
Yes, but then someone will freak out because it supports zombies....
positrondave: Whether or not a word (slang or not) is acceptable in polite company is always a matter of opinion - the aggregate opinion of the social group. The N-word used to be perfectly acceptable in many social groups. Now, because we have decided as a society that this word represents oppression (and it does) it is no longer acceptable. That is a change based on opinion. In 100 years it may be back in vogue. It already is in some circles. What constitutes appropriate speech is neither fixed nor absolute.
Slang terms are simply informal speech. The fact that a word is slang does not automatically make that word inappropriate or lessen it's legitimacy. Many slang terms go on to become accepted parts of formal speech over time. The two are not equivalent because for the majority population one is a term that is acceptable for use with children and in friendly circles (boobies) and the other is seen as a term for adult use only (cock).
Your insistence on pretending you can't differentiate the two tags you as either ignorant or willfully so. The first is not a 'sin' if you make an effort to learn. The second is just obstinance. You choose. Just as you do not know the people involved, I do not know you, so I cannot make that judgement.
Honestly I think it should all be allowed. Supposedly we live in a country where free speech is the foundation of what we believe in. And yet we censor everything. You can't say this, you can't say that, you might offend someone...free speech my ass...
let's put it this way, if the child said the word out loud in class would that be acceptable or would they be in trouble? pretty sure any kid that says boobies in class would be in trouble.
Yeah, I just said that...
Yep said that too, which nullifies -
I hope you can see why I use the word "Hypocrite".
Again, a slang is a slang, it's a matter of opinion on wether people think it's ok to use, tell me something, why would you want your kid to use a slang term, instead of the proper term? I'd much prefer my child to say "penis" and "breast" rather than slang terms like "weewee". It's disgusting in America we have to resort to using such childish terms on bracelets to bring awareness of such a horrible disease, we are basiclly saying, unless we dumb it down, no one will pay any attention.
You will never hear an educated person use a slang term in formal speech, if you think you do, you are the uneducated one.
I'm not the one pretending, facts are facts, slang is slang. Enough said.
Only in a socially constipated environment, HATR_HURTER. In much of the country "boobies" would be acceptable as long as it has some context (i.e. breasts are the topic of conversation). What repressive region do you live in?
Where are the bracelets for anal cancer? I heart a$$holes. You can sell them in red and blue, depending on your political views.
I can't believe how this has turned into such a debate.....don't you people have lives?!?!?
....apparently not.
baja, socially constipated environment? no, at school our teachers taught us the correct words during sex ed and health and told us that slang words would not be allowed. where do you cut it off at otherwise? i can think of a few references to women's privates that aren't even allowed on here. it's free speech to cuss too, are you also advocating that in school?
Some kids will do anything to be different and need to have attention on them, WHAT NEXT
JFC-3426249
I can't believe how this has turned into such a debate.....don't you people have lives?!?!?
....apparently not.
a guy on a forum during the middle of the day during the work week..........hypocrite much?
There is nothing hypocritical about changes in speech patterns, just as there is nothing hypocritical about changing one's mind or ethics. One is hypocritical when when acts contrary to what they espouse at the time of the act. One is not a hypocrite if they "see the error of their ways" and change both their opinions and actions to match. We all grow.
Four things:
1. Education does not guarantee proper formal speech, just as being rich does not guarantee financial security.
2. Of course you don't hear people use current slang in formal speech. The definition of slang is informal speech.
3. Almost all formal speech was slang first. Language evolves. What was slang before now is not. Here are some examples: auto, web site, mod, hip-hop, skate, jet-set, hypo.
4. Neither the boy in question nor the providers of the bracelets are engaging in formal speech.
5. Your willful ignorance is wearing on me.
HATR_HURTER: The bracelet is not a part of a sex ed conversation in class. Your teachers did not likely intend that you avoid slang in all situations. A class discussion is a formal speech occasion if the teacher makes it so. Stop confusing your experiences of formal speech with an informal bracelet. I "cut it off" at the point where it is not a class discussion moderated by that teacher. They are not linked.
Auto - not slang, short for Automobile.
Web Site - Noun - a connected group of pages on the World Wide Web regarded as a single entity, usually maintained by one person or organization and devoted to a single topic or several closely related topics. (again, not slang)
Mod - Informal noun - AGAIN, not slang - short for modification.
Hip-Hop - Can be used as a noun or adjective - the popular subculture of big-city teenagers, which includes rap music, break dancing, and graffiti art. (AGAIN, and man this is tiring....not slang)
Skate - As you can use this as a noun and a verb, there is also a slang term for this. Wow...you got 1.
Jet-Set - can be used as anoun or a slang, this counts for 1/2.
Hypo - Noun - sodium thiosulfate. Medical dictionary - A hypodermic syringe. A hypodermic injection.
You score? 1.5 out of 7. EPIC FAIL.
Willful ignorance............
positrondave: Those were all slang terms before they became formally accepted terms, which was my point. You apparently missed that.
Chris,
So, you're the one who gets to decide what is appropriate to say and what is not.
Honestly, I don't have a big problem with the bracelet. I do have a problem with the lawsuit. Schools are supposed to both educate children and prepare them for society. In future jobs, an employer may say don't wear an I love boobies bracelet. It's perfectly acceptable for the employer to do that. Therefore, this should just be a lesson in learning to live within dress codes.
My daughter already wears one even though it doesn't say "cock" on it, it says "strong" it's the Lance Armstrong awareness bracelet.
And in your big judgment, Mary52, why is the father an idiot? For defending his son's right to wear something that is neither offensive nor it is prohibited by the school rules?
Freedom of speech means having the right to offend people.
If you want a SPECIFIC dress code that bans jewelry, fine, but then no crosses or other icons of superstition.
Either we have FOS or we don't. I guess it will be up to us.
Get a little perspective. This isn't about freedom of speech. We're talking about a middle school.
The school has a right to ban items they deem distracting or inappropriate. While I am not personally offended, I recognize that this bracelet is both. The school makes the rules, and the kids don't get to vote.
Well, technically they didn't tell him he couldn't wear it at all. He just had to turn it inside out.
Ed,
There you go with the commonsensical "crazy talk". Enough of that. No soup...two weeks!
Ed - so you think that anytime a child is told they can't do something by someone who is offended, that they should just lay down and accept it? Where does it stop?
The principle was wrong in this case - the fact that older siblings, plus other children at the same school all were allowed to wear it without problem indicates that this specific individual (the principal) has an issue - and one individual's personal problem cannot be allowed to violate the First Amendment rights of anyone.
how in anyway is a bracelet inappropriate or distracting? now for middle schoolers i can see it in the slight, being still immature and all, but this student is an eighth grader...about to go into highschool. i personally dont see how they could ban this bracelet from schools, its not like kids are in the middle of class constantly talking about their "boobies bracelet" yes it says boobies, have kids ever got in trouble in school for saying boobies? no! so why take away their right to wear this bracelet? i cant think of a single one, not distracting, not inappropriate, all its doing is supporting breast cancer awareness, whether or not thats why this kid wears his bracelet is solely up to him, it is his right
digitalnoise,
Get over it. All the time we tell kids what they may and mayn't do. It's called parenting, your buffonery notwithstanding. I'm going to Zazzle forthwith to create an I (heart) Cock tee shirt, the proceeds of which will benefit testicular cancer.
Well, wait, I guess I (heart) Balls after all. No, wait, I (heart) Glands. That should work.
Lune
@Ed
The school Does not have that right, this reminds me of the days that I went to school the principal tried making all the boys have their shirts tucked in.. BS then as it is now, It's none disruptive, it's OK. The facts are simple the school needs to teach us right from wrong.
How do you know it is not disruptive? What data do you have to back that up? Tucking in shirts should not distract others, a kid holding up a piece of paper saying "I like your..." next to his bracelet that says "Boobies" is a distraction, and is exactly what happened at my school this year.
so if i was to create a bracelet for endangered turtles that said "i love cooter" that would not be concidered vulgar just because it is offiliated with a charity???
Spice man: Please refer to post 5.2 (it also applies to you)... keep on posting and I will create a new charity...
Who the hell calls a turtle a "cooter?"
When my son was 5-6 years old, he came home from school and announced that "Sexy boobies is a bad word". We still laugh about it 25 years later.
Cooter is a type of turtle Ranman
When I was a child, 'boobies' was the word used by adults when they didn't want to say 'tits', 'breasts', etc. Now its a word to be whispered in secret? Yes, lets shove all the things that embarrass puritanical adults back under the bed with Mom's vibrator and Dad's Playboys.
@positrondave... I thought that meant she liked chicken....... :)
Kids need to start wearing croses at public schools again..........ACLU does not like that type jewelry/accesory.......but they like Boobs....and have many working for them.
I went to public school and we wore crosses, my children wore crosses and the children of our friends wore cross and no one ever objected. Where do you live that this was an issue?
The ACLU has also sued for students to wear religious clothing. Nice try though.
You mind citing that case EngEsq? Because I can't find it. The only cases I've seen are where they've defended students and their rights to religious attire, if they like.You can't have a school forcing children to wear religious symbols though. They would sue for that.
Nice try though.
TX, Ca, and NY have had cases where rosarys and crosses have been banned. Some even ban US flag shirts. One district labeled crosses as gang wear. San Fernando Ca is one of the most restrictive in the nation I believe..........same place where are the porn movies are made........nothing against porn .......they have a wide range of views in that area for sure.
EngEsq, do not confuse bigots with facts. It is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig!
There are no cases in California
more boobs.......they come in pairs
kevin......so kids can wear US flag shirts, rosary beads, crosses and such....... anytime in CA public schools
Nice try with the troll 1Hiram, but see, I have access to LexusNexis - and there are plenty of cases where the ACLU has defended the rights of the religious.
The Right likes to tell people that the ACLU hates religion - but that's not true. The ACLU fights for equality - if a school bans the Star of David for Jewish students, then the ACLU is going to fight to ban all religious symbols, or overturn the ban of the one. Sometimes they'll go on the far side precisely to demonstrate how absurd things have become.
The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all - but some feel they should be more equal than others, and the ACLU has a real problem with that, as do I.
CA on Cinco de Maya......US flag shirts banned from scholl that day......that LexusNexis. These instances never went to court.........
ACLU does as much bad as good............they cherry pick too much for my taste.
Freedom of speech is most important when the message isn't one that is universally shared. The ACLU is doing exactly what they should do, protecting this kid from those who find his message objectionable. This is the most basic freedom we have as Americans and if no one speaks out to ensure we have it, it will most definately go away.
Sorry no free speech in school. Already been heard, Morse v. Frederick.
That ruling only deals with drug use and the refrence to drug use, it says nothing about any other facet of free speach. "Bong hits for Jesus"
I seriously doubt that an 8th grade boy would wear that bracelet to raise awareness for a disease. He is wearing it because it says "I love boobies".
Exactly.
Mhm.
Exactly, I asked my 8th grade nephew, who was wearing one, if he knows about the cause that bracelet supports and he couldn't give a real answer. When asked why he wears it he said, "everyone has one, because they're cool", with a giggle. I'm sure some kids are serious about the cause, but I'll be most teens, boys in particular, are just taking advantage of approved naughtiness.
So? Are you against boys being boys? How do you positively determine who is really supporting the cause and who is just following a fad? Answer: you don't - it's all free speech.
....or his parents are using the kid to gain popularity...........the" Balloon Boy" syndrome.
These bracelets do nothing but stir up controversy. If the bracelets just said I support breast cancer awareness, nobody would wear them but women. Anyone that thinks that a teenage boy is wearing them only to support awareness is an idiot. They have no place in the schools as they are and should be banned.
Anyone who says they know what a teenage boy is really thinking is an idiot. You are probably right, but you don't know that you are, especially with no first hand knowledge of the people involved. The bracelet isn't hurting anyone and banning it leads to rights issues. Why bother?
Kids haven't changed. Ever.
And as always, some are trouble and some are earnest. The invariability of the group is not the same as the the homogeneity of the group. Your statement supports my contention, Ed. Thank you.
So you dont think that a boy whose mother passed away from breast cancer, would not wear a braclet in her memory or to raise awareness.... that's pretty shallow thinking in my opinion...
Its nice to see the ACLU in action for a good cause once in a while.
I respect what the ACLU does, I even agreed with the recent prayer banner decision, but give me a break! I doubt this 8th grader is really concerned about breast cancer. He's wearing the booby bracelet because it's cool or funny or the in thing to do. Schools need to have the flexibility to regulate the school environment as they see fit. If your that concerned about breast cancer, wear it outside of school or better yet, do something to raise awareness and money for research. I doubt any school district can afford to defend themselves from frivilous lawsuits right now and shame on the parents of this student for not teaching that freedom of speech comes with a responsibilty to know when to fight for that right and when to respect authority.
Always fight for your rights. And it's hard to respect such a laughable attempt at PC.
Testicular cancer is an issue, so would this ruling start the "I love balls" campaign?
Honestly? I agree with the ban. I don't buy for 2 seconds that the boy wants to wear it to support breast cancer. It's just like when I was in middle school and used my faith to try and get out of doing a research paper on evolution. I was standing strong on my "principles" but it was just an excuse to get out of writing a report I didn't want to do. But I gave the right attitude and defense to my parents to get them to back me up on why I shouldn't have to write the paper. They were proud of me for standing firm in my convictions and I simply weaseled my way out of writing a paper.
As the mother of a middle schooler, this bracelet is well known around here. The boys and girls are wearing them. My own middle schooler will tell you that they are wearing them because of the attention it generates. It's just naughty enough sounding to make them feel like they are getting away with something, but due to the "cause" they aren't getting in trouble for wearing it at school.
The only middle schooler that I would believe is wearing it to really support breast cancer awareness is the middle schooler who has personally known someone who has been diagnosed. Then I'd buy it.
Otherwise this is just an excuse made by the kid to justify wearing it, and the parents and ACLU bought it hook line and sinker.
We definitely have a future politician with this kid.
Diva - Honestly? It doesn't matter what you think. And, ultimately, it doesn't matter what the real reason is that the boy was wearing the bracelet.
The point - something that folks seem to keep ignoring, either intentionally or ignorantly - is that the school arbitrarily violated the students rights. Many don't believe that students should have rights - but the Constitution of the United States doesn't set an age at which the First Amendment becomes effective, now does it?
If the school were to ban all bracelets supporting a cause, then there would be no case. Instead, they choose one student (out of several wearing the same one - read the article), and focused their puritan ire upon him alone.
Actually, the Constitution (according to our "Supreme" Court) does state that just before you drew your first breath of oxygen, you had no rights. The 1st 9 months in the womb, you are alive and kicking, but that can be legally ended at any time, prior to you being born. So, that's kind of an error in your argument.
digitalnoise
Students in public school do not have the first amendment right to say anything they want without consequences any more than you do at work.
So digitalnoise, do these same students have the right to disrupt the learning environment of other students? Because that is indeed happening. In fact, the rights of individuals to do exactly as they want in schools no matter the repercussions for the rest of the group is rampant in public schools right now, and a leading reason why we are headed down the drain. This the message hard-working students get everyday: "Your fellow classmates have the right to do anything at all protected under the Constitution, even if it disrupts your learning experience. Disruptive students have a right to an education, you don't."
I <3 Boobies too. But I don't <3 pointless lawsuits that waste tax payer money. Don't waste my money ACLU.
Schools need to educate. There are more important issues that the ACLU should deal with... But, I guess they can handle the easy ones.
Stupid school, stupid parents, stupid fundraiser, stupid ACLU. Has no one any good taste or common sense anymore?
Don't forget "Stupid Post"!
homesick...
I've been watching this side show for over 70 years and I've come to two conclusions:
1.) A lot of people's sense of taste is all in their mouths.
2.) I think you'll find that what you refer to as "common sense" is the most uncommon thing on the planet.
They should start a campaign for birth control!
The girls could wear bracelets that say "I Love Pearl Necklaces"!
I wish the ACLU would prusue more of these and not harassing every WWJD braclet wearer or someone who prays at a football game.
Far, far too many current School Administrators are SS material to begin with - so no real surprise there.
By the way, a number of years ago, a kid in Ohio who had recently moved there from SC was tossed out of school for wearing a T-shirt supporting his dad's alma mater, University of South Carolina. The team there is the Gamecocks, and everyone walks around Columbia, SC with shirts and jackets with COCKS written on them. But the Ohio school didn't see it as proper attire!
What if my best friend is a Chinese exchange student, and I want to support him with a bracelet saying "I Love Wang", would that be a problem?
Sorry, but your love of Wang is a forbidden love.
Come to think of it, since he's Chinese, my bracelet should read "I Ruv Wang".
:)
I was ready to defend the student until I saw it was an 8th grade boy and then figured he probably doesn't give a darn about breast cancer research. Unless of course I'm wrong and he is wearing it in honor of his mother or close female relative.
Agreed, seems inappropriate for that age level, not to mention there are plenty of other ways to promote Breast Cancer awarness, that Im sure schools would have no issue with.