Tuesday, August 11, 2015

To Wear That Controversial T-shirt Or Not, That Is The Question...

On Friday April 20, 2012 a junior named Seth Groody, wore a t-shirt that depicted a rainbow with a slash through it. The other side showed a male stick figure and a female stick figure holding hands above the legend, "Excessive Speech Day."This same day was designated a Day of Silence at Wolcott High School as part of a national movement to raise awareness of bullying and harassment of gay, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-gendered people. According to Seth, he was ordered to remove the t-shirt and did so under protest. Seth intended the shirt to express his dislike for gay marriage and his opposition to the school's perceived message during the Day of Silence. The Groody family did not proceed to file a lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut sent a letter to the principal of Wolcott High School on behalf of Seth Groody. In the letter, legal director Sandra Staub, points out that to Seth's knowledge, there's no rule or policy that prohibits the wearing of expressive attire. By him wearing the shirt, he did not "materially or substantially interfere with...the operation of the school," or cause "invasion of rights of others," as these terms have been defined in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District; 393 U.S. 503 (1969). The school's action in requiring Seth to remove his shirt, absent of evidence of material or substantially interference, or invasion of the rights of others, violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article First, Section 4 and 5, of the Constitution of Connecticut.
In my opinion, I think to a degree, both parties are correct for what they did. Seth has a right to wear what he wants to wear, as long as he is not harming anyone, according to the First Amendment. However, the school did the right thing also by asking that Seth to change his shirt and no further punishment. The school has to worry about the environment that they create, so restricting outside influences and what they are trying to promote whether they personally agree or not, is a good thing. 
The Patriot Act was passed six weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Patriot Act allows security agencies of the government to track potential terrorist threats by gaining access to the financial, telecommunications, business, library, and other records of American citizens who may be plotting or be in contact with other plotting attacks. Section 215 of the Patriot Act records searches, it allows the FBI to force anyone at all to turn over records on their clients or customers. I think The Patriot Act policy counters the efforts of the Supreme Court when it comes to civil liberties. Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways, for example, it violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. There are two violations for the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy. The other being by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech. Lastly, it violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide notice-even after the fact- to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. 
After reading both civil liberties and the Patriot Act, I do not believe there is a simple solution. I think if we modified either one it it would make it less effective. We would have to do away with one entirely and i'm not so sure that is the right decision. We have had success in both cases that it would be hard to decide which one was better for our society. I, personally, have nothing to hide so i do not mind them both. I do understand there is a feeling on violation, but if we do not have a watchdog kind of system then we would be in a lot worse situation than we are now. 

3 comments:

  1. I believe the school was unfair. They respected the rights of the L.G.B.T.Q. community but not that of Seth Groody. The school administrators chose a side even though they were supposed to remain neutral. I do not like this current environment of forced sensitivity that is being pushed down children's throat today. Children, just like, adults have a right to disagree with something that do not believe in. I do not think that Groody should have had to change his shirt. His rights were violated and no one seemed to care. What kind of lesson is that to teach our kids? Not a good one in my opinion. I believe that actions like the ones taken against Groody keep people like him in the same mind state instead of opening them up to new ideas and will only cause them to push back more against system that they feel is already against them. Disenfranchisement is one of the worst things that schools do to the mindstate of our kids, yet it is done without even a second thought to passive those who disagree with it. When do we have the right to disagree peacefully when no one will let us?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. James, freedom of expression is great, although ironically his shirt seems to imply that homosexuals should not have these same freedoms. However, as ruled in the past when a student brought in a shirt, or a poster or something saying, "Bong Hits for Jesus". The court ruled that he did not retain any freedom of speech in school in this case because his speech was disrupting the educational environment for other students, thus harming them in the sense that they were harming their education, which a lot of us take pretty seriously, as I'm sure you do too. It is also psychologically harmful to the homosexual, but that's besides the legalities of this case.

    Alicia, great post, I enjoyed it. What's this about the Patriot Act at the bottom though? Are these two separate posts? I'm not entirely certain how the two really mingle, but you do know that the Patriot Act expired earlier this year, and was replaced by the hopefully less-liberty-infringing Freedom Act.

    ReplyDelete