codker92 said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Yes, I am aware. We covered that previously in the thread. Schools are allowed to place limits on what clothing children wear to school (Canaday v Bossier Parish School Board).

This would be a clear cut case of discrimination IF they only single out people wearing Christian messages. So far, that does not appear to be the case.

---

It doesn't have to be singling out. That is an equal protection claim. This is first amendment. School can't ban personal messages on masks that don't cause disruptions. Period.

---

Incorrect, again. This case falls under a schools clothing wear policy (as highlighted in the article that Darg posted).

Here is what the family is actually asking for. Note, it is not solely about religion:

Quote:

---

The couple is asking a federal judge to declare that the district's policy banning "political, religious, sexual or inappropriate statements" on masks is unconstitutional.

---

From the 5th Circuit ruling in Canady v Parish:

Quote:

---

The Court arrived at its decision by applying a test determining a government regulation to be constitutional if it is:

• within the power of the government to enact;
• it furthers an important or substantial government interest;
• its interest is unrelated to the suppression of speech; and
• it prohibits no more speech than needed to further the interest.

---

Since the district has a mask requirement, they can dictate what type of messages students put on those masks. A mask that does not follow the specific guidelines laid out by the district can be deemed sufficiently disruptive. In this case, since the District policy covers multiple types of speech, it should be very easy for them to highlight that allowing one type of prohibited text can be disruptive because other students will then wear other types of prohibited text on their masks.


Here is the the Substantial Disruption Test the courts use:

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1584/substantial-disruption-test

Quote:

---

For example, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a few years after Tinker used the substantial disruption test in Melton v. Young (1972) to rule that public school officials in Chattanooga, Tennessee, did not violate the free-speech rights of a student when they prohibited him from wearing a Confederate flag jacket to his school.

---

Further, from the article you posted:

Quote:

---

the Tinker standardschool officials cannot censor student expression unless they can reasonably predict that the expression will create a substantial disruption or material interference in school activities or invade the rights of others.

---

This is a fairly easy standard to clear, especially if any students/faculty felt their rights were being violated, or, if any students or faculty felt that this mask would create a disruption in the learning environment.

Also, from your article:

Quote:

---

Fortas also noted that school officials had selectively chosen only one symbol to ban. He reasoned that this indicated that school officials sought to single out "the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion."

---

As I stated previously, the school is not selectively banning only one symbol. It has targeted a broad range of political, religious, sexual, and inappropriate statements on masks.


Finally, in this case, the student was not punished, she was only asked to change her mask.

PacifistAg said:

---

codker92 said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I don't feel we are communicating well here. I don't understand how anything you typed is relevant to what I said.

---

Read Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). A public school cannot limit personal student speech unless it causes a disruption.

What matters is that I am going to settle kids at your school and they are going to wear masks about Muhammed.

---

"Disruption" is a very broad, subjective word. We've seen schools restrict all sorts of speech. I don't like it, but it happens and all they have to do is claim it was disruptive. This girl should be allowed to wear that mask, just as a Muslim student should be free to wear one about Muhammed. What's really going to matter to the courts is whether or not this standard is applied consistently.

And why do you act as though Muslim kids going to school with our kids is some sort of threat?

---

Disruption is not ambiguous. If the message does not interfere with the schools ability to teach it's not disruptive. It doesn't matter if rules are applied consistent. A rule that bans a non disruptive message on mask violates first amendment period.

---

It absolutely is ambiguous. What constitutes "interfering"? What constitutes "disruption"? These are subjective terms that will vary from person to person. What is an interference or disruption to one person, may not be to another. It's entirely subjective. And yes, it does matter if rules are applied consistently. We deal with this all the time in HR. I tell our managers all the time that if you are not enforcing the policy consistently, then you can't enforce the policy. You open the organization up to allegations of discrimination when it's not consistent in its application.

I don't agree with these bans, but these rulings and laws are purposely ambiguous. A great example is how the Justice Stewart saying about porn..."I know it when I see it".

---

It does not interfere with learning at all or any of the curriculum. Appeal it to the supreme court boomer. You are conflating the porn case with the freedom of speech in school.

Gaius Rufus said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Yes, I am aware. We covered that previously in the thread. Schools are allowed to place limits on what clothing children wear to school (Canaday v Bossier Parish School Board).

This would be a clear cut case of discrimination IF they only single out people wearing Christian messages. So far, that does not appear to be the case.

---

It doesn't have to be singling out. That is an equal protection claim. This is first amendment. School can't ban personal messages on masks that don't cause disruptions. Period.

---

Incorrect, again. This case falls under a schools clothing wear policy (as highlighted in the article that Darg posted).

Here is what the family is actually asking for. Note, it is not solely about religion:

Quote:

---

The couple is asking a federal judge to declare that the district's policy banning "political, religious, sexual or inappropriate statements" on masks is unconstitutional.

---

From the 5th Circuit ruling in Canady v Parish:

Quote:

---

The Court arrived at its decision by applying a test determining a government regulation to be constitutional if it is:

• within the power of the government to enact;
• it furthers an important or substantial government interest;
• its interest is unrelated to the suppression of speech; and
• it prohibits no more speech than needed to further the interest.

---

Since the district has a mask requirement, they can dictate what type of messages students put on those masks. A mask that does not follow the specific guidelines laid out by the district can be deemed sufficiently disruptive. In this case, since the District policy covers multiple types of speech, it should be very easy for them to highlight that allowing one type of prohibited text can be disruptive because other students will then wear other types of prohibited text on their masks.


Here is the the Substantial Disruption Test the courts use:

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1584/substantial-disruption-test

Quote:

---

For example, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a few years after Tinker used the substantial disruption test in Melton v. Young (1972) to rule that public school officials in Chattanooga, Tennessee, did not violate the free-speech rights of a student when they prohibited him from wearing a Confederate flag jacket to his school.

---

Further, from the article you posted:

Quote:

---

the Tinker standardschool officials cannot censor student expression unless they can reasonably predict that the expression will create a substantial disruption or material interference in school activities or invade the rights of others.

---

This is a fairly easy standard to clear, especially if any students/faculty felt their rights were being violated, or, if any students or faculty felt that this mask would create a disruption in the learning environment.

Also, from your article:

Quote:

---

Fortas also noted that school officials had selectively chosen only one symbol to ban. He reasoned that this indicated that school officials sought to single out "the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion."

---

As I stated previously, the school is not selectively banning only one symbol. It has targeted a broad range of political, religious, sexual, and inappropriate statements on masks.


Finally, in this case, the student was not punished, she was only asked to change her mask.

---

Stopping personal speech is a violation of the First Amendment. The confederate flag is disruptive because it is associated with hatred and thus carries a likelihood that it will intimidate students or discourage them from attending school from fear.

That was your only take away from everything I posted? I feel like you aren't having this conversation in good faith. Also, your entire post is contradictory. This isn't about your personal opinion.

Unless this school specifically singled out this young lady because of her religion, and their attorneys can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, there is nothing in this case that violates her freedom of speech (or freedom of religion). The school claims that they do not allow masks with specific types of messages on them, which they are allowed to do (see the court case I linked).

Schools have the ability, as shown multiple times in this thread, to limit what students wear to school. In this case, the school claims it made specific regulations in regards to masks. It is no different than schools requiring uniforms be worn and disallowing religious messages on those uniforms.

Gaius Rufus said:

---

That was your only take away from everything I posted? I feel like you aren't having this conversation in good faith. Also, your entire post is contradictory. This isn't about your personal opinion.

Unless this school specifically singled out this young lady because of her religion, and their attorneys can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, there is nothing in this case that violates her freedom of speech (or freedom of religion). The school claims that they do not allow masks with specific types of messages on them, which they are allowed to do (see the court case I linked).

Schools have the ability, as shown multiple times in this thread, to limit what students wear to school. In this case, the school claims it made specific regulations in regards to masks. It is no different than schools requiring uniforms be worn and disallowing religious messages on those uniforms.

---

Everything you said is false. Schools can't stop personal speech of students that isn't disruptive.

codker92 said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

That was your only take away from everything I posted? I feel like you aren't having this conversation in good faith. Also, your entire post is contradictory. This isn't about your personal opinion.

Unless this school specifically singled out this young lady because of her religion, and their attorneys can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, there is nothing in this case that violates her freedom of speech (or freedom of religion). The school claims that they do not allow masks with specific types of messages on them, which they are allowed to do (see the court case I linked).

Schools have the ability, as shown multiple times in this thread, to limit what students wear to school. In this case, the school claims it made specific regulations in regards to masks. It is no different than schools requiring uniforms be worn and disallowing religious messages on those uniforms.

---

Everything you said is false. Schools can't stop personal speech of students that isn't disruptive. They can decide what students wear because revealing clothing can be disruptive, but they can't decide what is on the mask. They cannot tell students that they cannot wear a what would Jesus do t shirt.

---

Quote:

---

I feel like you aren't having this conversation in good faith.

---

He's not.