New at Reason
Should you have the right to wear any T-Shirt you want? In his regular column, Greg Beato argues in the affirmative—and yes, it's a real issue.
Comments to "New at Reason":
A friend of mine saw a guy wearing a kilt and walking around this snobby downtown area wearing a shirt that said "Jesus was a cunt." The entertaining part must have been waiting to see who would end up beating him up.
What if the T-shirts don't sat anything, but are strategically moistened?
Can you sell a t-shirt with a message that, if written in a book or newspaper, would be libelous?
Pro Libertate | March 27, 2008, 4:15pm | #
Libel is libel, wherever you publish it. Except in the Congressional Record.creech | March 27, 2008, 4:18pm | #
Walk next to him with a shirt that reads"I'm not with this f**king moron."
Brandybuck | March 27, 2008, 4:19pm | #
You do have the right to offend people, but you do NOT have the right for other people not get offended!Art-P.O.G. | March 27, 2008, 4:25pm | #
it should always end with: "...and all I got was this lousy shirt."kinnath | March 27, 2008, 4:30pm | #
An emblazzoned T-shirt is no different from a printed sign. Anything with a remotely political message should be fair game.Lawrence | March 27, 2008, 4:32pm | #
Of course, if it weren't pro-life, Reason would be mocking the issue.Usually t-shirt stuff about kids being taken "to the woodshed" usually only rates a snicker on these pages, like bongs for jesus stuff, but it becomes serious news when it's pro-life.
Hmmmm.....?
I'm sure there is a perfectly good reason that this isn't a case of "conservatarian" politics.
I just can't think of it right now.
(PS, pro-life, or bongs for jebus, I support kids in agitating the adults in their lives)
Matt J | March 27, 2008, 4:38pm | #
Favorite T-Shirt line:Jesus Hates Me.
The fact that it was on a fat, drunk guy puking in on the street was just icing on the cake.
Matt J | March 27, 2008, 4:40pm | #
My new T-Shirt message:What the fuck are you talking about Lawrence?
Kolohe | March 27, 2008, 4:41pm | #
I gotta say, regarless of my views on the issue, the "Growing. Growing. Gone.” T-shirt as described is some damn good snark.Tom Selleck | March 27, 2008, 4:43pm | #
Mustache rides aren't as low cost as they used to be. The scarcity of mustaches coupled with rising inflation has allowed providers of mustache rides to set prices as high as an entire case of MGD.The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 4:46pm | #
I'm not taking sides, but the Tee Shirt issue is more complicated because it is about wearing the tee shirt to public school.I'm pretty sure the school would frown on Big Johnson Trucking tee shirts, Big Beer, Big Wood tee shirts from Arrogant Bastard Brewery, tee shirts that claimed Gun Control Means Hitting Your Target, and probably would take issue with the girls that Tall Dave linked to, if they showed up at the local Junior High wearing them.
The real issue is dress codes and how much authority (arbitrary or otherwise) our public schools are entitled to when it comes to our kids.
I'm not clear about that even in my own mind. It is obvious that schools go overboard continuously, but where is the logical line to be drawn?
Said it before, but my kid got hassled big time for bringing a toy rifle to school for use as a prop in a school play about Daniel Boone and the movement west.
Danny | March 27, 2008, 4:47pm | #
My favorite breast cancer shirt, which I was coincidentally telling my girlfriend about this morning:Save the boobies!
The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 4:49pm | #
If people don’t want to listen to you, what makes you think they want to hear from your sweaterGotta love Frannie...........
Daniel Boone and the movement west without guns? And they call themselves educators.
kinnath | March 27, 2008, 4:53pm | #
I'm not taking sides, but the Tee Shirt issue is more complicated because it is about wearing the tee shirt to public school.Given previous court rulings anything with a remotely political message should be fair game. The Big Johnson trucking company "T" wouldn't pass muster.
The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 4:58pm | #
One of my favorite shirts. NSFW or little kids
The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 4:59pm | #
The Big Johnson trucking company "T" wouldn't pass muster.How about the Gun Control T? That's directly controversial and political.
If we're going to ban t-shirts, can I please ban those stupid fucking "Here, fishy, fishy" shirts?
kinnath | March 27, 2008, 5:01pm | #
How about the Gun Control T? That's directly controversial and political.In today's climate, this would cause problems, but it should be allowed because students must be allowed to make politcal speech.
TrickyVic | March 27, 2008, 5:01pm | #
"""In Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark 1969 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that high school students have a First Amendment right to express political and social opinions in school settings, """I guess the current SCOTUS doesn't believe that drugs and religion are "social opinions" since the Bong Hits for Jesus T-shirt was shot down.
rana | March 27, 2008, 5:03pm | #
"The real issue is dress codes and how much authority (arbitrary or otherwise) our public schools are entitled to when it comes to our kids."I agree TWC. I'm not sure, but I may be the only poster here who is in favor of public school uniforms. No dress code "shades of gray".
The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 5:04pm | #
Every guy dreams of running into a girl wearing this shirt
kinnath | March 27, 2008, 5:05pm | #
In Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark 1969 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that high school students have a First Amendment right to express political and social opinions in school settings, . . .I imagine that any new lawsuit that made it to the SCOTUS could result in reversal of this prior opinion (in the disguise of a refinement). So, it would require a pretty dedicated student to risk expulsion for wearing a controversial T-shirt then have to wait years for a vindication which might not happen in the current political climate.
kinnath | March 27, 2008, 5:07pm | #
I guess the current SCOTUS doesn't believe that drugs and religion are "social opinions" since the Bong Hits for Jesus T-shirt was shot down.The student involved basically said he had no political message, he was just trying to get on TV. If he had been vocal and adamant from the beginning that he was trying to make a politcal statement, he may not have lost.
The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 5:10pm | #
Rana, your probably right about being the only school uniform booster at H&R :-)Tricky, that is correctomundo. As Nat Hentoff, formerly of the Village Voice once remarked....
Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee
I think the worst thing we could teach our kids is that everyone should bow down to those who complain.
Nephilium | March 27, 2008, 5:17pm | #
The Wine Commonsewer:Just a side note, the Arrogant Bastard shirts are from Stone Brewing. And damn is Arrogant Bastard a tasty brew (along with Double Bastard "Double the Bastard, Bastard the Double", and Oaked Arrogant Bastard "This Bastard's got Wood!").
And for all the offensive shirts you could ever want, just hit this link, NSFW.
And I was always fond of wearing my Lunch Money Humiliation shirt (Jesus hates you, and so do I).
Nephilium
TrickyVic | March 27, 2008, 5:19pm | #
"""The student involved basically said he had no political message, he was just trying to get on TV. If he had been vocal and adamant from the beginning that he was trying to make a politcal statement, he may not have lost."""It does have to be political. In Tinker v. Des Moines, social opinion was considered protected speech. In the Bong hits for Jesus case, SCOTUS failed to recognize drugs and religion, or the combination thereof, as a social commentary.
Everything that's ever gone wrong in my life can be traced back to that tragic day when I was six years old and my virgin eyes were assaulted by the sight of a big fat guy in a T-shirt reading "Instant Asshole: Just Add Booze."
Having said that, you are probably right. If the kid's shirt said, Bush votes bong hits for Jesus, he probably would have won.
rana | March 27, 2008, 5:22pm | #
TWC,Then it is settled.
Still, I dont know why Americans are against the idea of public school uniforms? can someone explain?
Even for practical reasons: kids dont have to worry about what to wear everyday and how to impress their friends; parents dont have to spend ridiculous amounts of money so that junior stays in fashion; and kids may actually learn to make a statement or express their individuality through means other than wearing a stupid t-shirt.
Correction: It does have to be political. Should have said, it doesn't have to be political.
The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 5:26pm | #
the Arrogant Bastard shirts are from Stone BrewingUhhh, I knew that.....
I blame the fact that I momentarily stepped outside of my specialty
TrickyVic | March 27, 2008, 5:28pm | #
"""Still, I dont know why Americans are against the idea of public school uniforms? can someone explain?"""If you can't understand the freedom aspect of the debate, I'm not sure if anyone here can help.
The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 5:30pm | #
Still, I dont know why Americans are against the idea of public school uniforms? can someone explain?My dad used to say it was the school's job to teach and his job to clothe me and to decide when I needed a haircut. [shrugs]
I'm not against uniforms per se, but I don't really see the utility. Not that I care very much.
Pro Libertate | March 27, 2008, 5:32pm | #
Well, this t-shirt offends women.rana | March 27, 2008, 5:43pm | #
"If you can't understand the freedom aspect of the debate"TrikyVic. Freedom? Are you refering to the "freedom aspect" of someone expressing an opinion on a t-shirt or the "freedom aspect" of being required to wear a uniform to public schools? Because if it is the latter, I dont see a big infringement on anyone's freedom. Since when does the Constituion protect a person's right to wear? And if you want to argue this point, then why stop at uniforms or dress codes? Shouldn't students be allowed to wear ANYTHING they pleased to school? including just a bikini? or simply underwear?
The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 5:46pm | #
Tinker v. Des Moines, social opinion was considered protected speech.That's an example of my whole bitch with the entire legal system, it's all about technicalities and not about getting to the truth. This whole ruling is like being kind of pregnant. You either have free speech or you don't.
Course, if I were king, public schools would be abolished tomorrow and all this stuff would be moot. Rana could send her kid to a school in uniform, and the Pro Lifers could wear their tee shirts to school, and guys like me would pick a school where the rules were somewhere between sensible and tolerable.
I Heart Snorg! | March 27, 2008, 5:47pm | #
Snorg-Tees Girls Rule!The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 5:47pm | #
including just a bikini? or simply underwear?Like the late 1970's? Hot pants sans undies. Those were good days. :-)
Matt J | March 27, 2008, 6:11pm | #
If I thought public school administrators were actually smart I'd say school dress codes are really a clever way to channel teen rebellion.BTW, the whole egalitarian argument for public school uniforms has a big hole. Unless the uniforms are in fact uniform - all issued from the same supplier - you can still separate the rich kids from the poor kids. Designer shoes vs Payless. Ralph Lauren Polo vs WalMart polo.
M | March 27, 2008, 6:20pm | #
Topically.Bingo | March 27, 2008, 6:39pm | #
What if I want to wear a snorg tee's girl tshirt while she's still wearing it too?TallDave | March 27, 2008, 7:10pm | #
Hey! I finally found a Presidential ticket I can totally support!Fletch | March 27, 2008, 7:28pm | #
rana-Even for practical reasons: kids dont have to worry about what to wear everyday and how to impress their friends
Which merely changes the focus from 'their clothes' to their: jewelry, shoes, accessories ("Oakley sunglasses", etc.), tech gadgets, and/or if mom and dad will pay for your first 'boob job'- among other equally trivial nonsense.
(See also "MattJ" above...)
Fletch | March 27, 2008, 7:39pm | #
TallDave-Hey! I finally found a Presidential ticket I can totally support!
You "blew" the link- now you should probably just tell us about the weed!
MattXIV | March 27, 2008, 7:44pm | #
I'm fond of my copy of this Buzzcocks one. Not sure if it's work-safe too look at (depends on how your employer feels about strategically placed smiles), but I'm pretty sure it's not work-safe to wear.Is this article even about t-shirts? Isn't it just the issue of public schools making laws that are at odds with the constitution? It's framed as if wearing a controversial t-shirt anywhere will get you in trouble when that does not seem to be the case, except in that bizarre Louisana example you gave but unless I missed something did not elaborate on.
Paul | March 27, 2008, 8:08pm | #
The entertaining part must have been waiting to see who would end up beating him up....peaceloving Christians?
TrickyVic | March 27, 2008, 8:10pm | #
"""TrikyVic. Freedom? Are you refering to the "freedom aspect" of someone expressing an opinion on a t-shirt or the "freedom aspect" of being required to wear a uniform to public schools?"""The right to choose is the essence of freedom. If you don't believe that people should have a right to choose, then no one can convince you that the schools are wrong.
I believe that the ability of others to restrict your ability to choose is a serious matter. Freedom oriented people place a very high bar as to when a restriction is ok, some may never agree. So the question to examine is why the schools want to do it. Then we can determine if those reasons rise above the bar. I have heard no reason why the schools should require uniforms that reach the bar.
Conformity is not a reason to give up choice is it? Nor is saving the parents money on clothes. For better security? Well we know what Ben Franklin had to say. But to entertain the security argument, we would have to rationally assess how bad the security problem is. A couple of kids mugged for their $200 sneakers should be a lesson of don't bring your $200 sneakers to school, and that it. A school rioting over $200 sneakers may warrant a restriction of choice. But only where the problem exists.
Disruption of the class is a valid reason to remove a student from the class. But I question if any of these clothes have ever actually caused a real distruption, or just complaints. Certainly people complaining or disagreeing, are not reasons to supress choice.
TrickyVic | March 27, 2008, 8:26pm | #
"""Since when does the Constituion protect a person's right to wear? And if you want to argue this point, then why stop at uniforms or dress codes? Shouldn't students be allowed to wear ANYTHING they pleased to school? including just a bikini? or simply underwear?"""If it's allowable to wear in public and does not cause a real disturbance, it's fair game. If someone has a complaint, tough shit, get over it. Having said that, bikinis in an all girls school might not be a big deal. It would have certainly caused real disruptions where I went to school, but then again, nerds were a disrtuption, or the jocks beating them up depending on how you want to look at it. I'm not sure which group needs to be banned, since that would cross the disruption bar too.
The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 9:59pm | #
But I question if any of these clothes have ever actually caused a real distruption, or just complaintsI'll tell you what clothes caused real disruption in class. Patti Connelly's micro mini skirts in 10th grade geometry. No complaints, but I could not get geometry.
Thank God that the school required all girls to wear skirts and dresses. Loved that dress code.
The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2008, 10:54pm | #
Are you against sodomy or breast cancer?'Do you walk to work or carry your lunch?
An adam | March 28, 2008, 8:34am | #
To be fair, all high schools should enforce a zero-tolerance policy against people who wear Insane Clown Posse t-shirts.Tonio | March 28, 2008, 9:54am | #
Lawrence, you used tampon:First, your premise that Reason is anti-abortion is totally wrong.
...the teens will bond via a shared passion for fetuses...the perky fetus hugger...
You ever hear the anti-abortion crowd use the word "fetus" like that? In their vocabulary it's always a "child" or a "baby."
Challenge you to provide examples of Reason being anti-abortion.
Of course, if it weren't pro-life, Reason would be mocking the issue.
Wrong, again. Reason consistently defends first amendment rights of everyone, even if they later mock the sentiments being expressed.
Usually t-shirt stuff about kids being taken "to the woodshed" usually only rates a snicker on these pages, like bongs for jesus stuff, but it becomes serious news when it's pro-life.
Wrong, yet again. Reason consistently defends the free expression rights of students in public schools.
And all you Urkobolds(tm) are on report. Two major trolls unchallenged, Reinmoose misses a totally obvious "Blade Runner" ref. Slackers!
rana | March 28, 2008, 11:33am | #
Fletch,I went to school in Purto Rico and both private and public schools wore uniforms. In fact, the ONLY school on the whole island that did not use uniforms was an American school for children of mostly Americans living in PR who did not want their kids mixing with the Ricans or speaking Spanish (this is my biased assumption). Anyway, you are correct that kids would find other ways to show if they had money or not (watches, shoes, backpaks, etc). I also went my last year of highschool to a public school in the U.S., and I can tell you that, by comparison, the difference in social status was felt greater in the U.S.- and clothing, fashion, did play a BIG role in that (of course, I dont deny that other factors influenced- the type of car you had, where you live, etc).
I'm not trying to debate the "freedom" aspect that trickyVic so greatly cherishes- good for him. From my personal experience, wearing a school uniform was positive and practical, many "dress codes dilemas" were avioded, and students found other, I would say more creative, ways to express their individuality and opinion. Yes, being required to wear a uniform might restrict your choice, but I believe the benefits outweigh the costs.
Also, in Venezuela all elementary and highschools require uniforms and it hasn't caused a big infringement of their personal freedom of choice- Chavez has taken care of that. ;-)
Isaac Bartram | March 28, 2008, 2:56pm | #
BTW, the whole egalitarian argument for public school uniforms has a big hole. Unless the uniforms are in fact uniform - all issued from the same supplier - you can still separate the rich kids from the poor kids. Designer shoes vs Payless. Ralph Lauren Polo vs WalMart polo.The Australian schools I went to made a big to-do about that whole egalitarian thing. Uniforms there were a blazer and slacks with shirt and tie for boys and a blazer over a tunic and blouse for girls.
Trouble was that you could tell which kids had parents with money. If you saw one boy in a new custom made wool blazer and trim neatly creased wool slacks next to one in an obviously year (or more) old polyester blazer (probably handed down from an older brother*) and worn, sometimes patched, pants you'd know the difference, wouldn't you?
Sorry, that whole, poor American and French children have to suffer the indignity of being identified by their clothes was a load of cobblers.
And, to make it worse, the uniforms are expensive. When I was there for a visit in '94 the Hobart Mercury had a sob story about a welfare mom who was all upset because she didn't have the money to buy her kid a uniform to start high school with.
I have never been able to determine the class of kids at American or Canadian schools by their clothes alone. And I've never seen a story about a mother who couldn't afford to clothe her kid to go to school.
*or to make it even more embarassing from an older sister. And, yes, not only are Australian kids not more any egalitarian than American kids they're also not any less cruel.
TrickyVic | March 28, 2008, 3:56pm | #
"""I'm not trying to debate the "freedom" aspect that trickyVic so greatly cherishes- good for him."""Contempt of freedom is the essences of almost all our problems in America. My cherishing freedom is not just good for me, it's good for the well being of our nation. It's good for all nations that claim to be free. Your not free if you can't exerise freedom.
rana | March 28, 2008, 5:18pm | #
TrickyVic,I do not contempt freedom. In fact, I cherish it more than you can imagine given the present situation of the country in which I live (Venezuela). And while I see your point, and therefore, am not looking to debate it, I still believe that requiring uniforms is not a big a deal as denying freedom of speech. I mean, really get some perspective...
michael Douglass | March 29, 2008, 8:54pm | #
wingtip | April 1, 2008, 10:14pm | #
Senators Introduce Bill to Protect Pregnant Women(Washington, D.C.)4/1/08 – U.S. Sens. David Vitter, George Voinovich and Sam Brownback this week introduced the Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act, which would require physicians who perform abortions to hold admitting privileges at a hospital that the physician can travel to in one hour or less under average travel conditions.
“This legislation is so important because it provides common sense qualifications for abortion providers,” said Vitter, the primary author of the bill. “As with all medical procedures, abortions carry a risk, and doctors who provide them should, at the least, hold admitting privileges at a hospital in close vicinity to the abortion clinic.”
The bill also requires that physicians notify patients as to the location of a hospital where they can receive follow-up care from the physician in the event that complications arise. Further, the bill requires that any abortion clinic that receives federal funding be licensed and comply with current requirements relating to ambulatory surgery centers.
The bill also provides that any physician who does not hold clinical privileges may only perform or induce an abortion in order to avert the imminent death of the pregnant woman.
“Patients need to be aware of the possibility of complications arising from abortions,” Vitter said. “This bill requires abortion providers to make sure that a woman is aware of the location of the hospital at which she can receive treatment for any complications. It is time that we took the appropriate steps to provide for the safety of the women who undergo abortions.”
“We must do all that we can to restore our nation’s once cherished culture of life,” Voinovich said. “I have always said if I had a magic wand the first thing I would do is reconstitute the American family. We will never be able to do that until we respect life – especially the lives of the most vulnerable among us.”
Brownback said, “While we are working toward the day when every unborn child is welcomed and loved, we are unfortunately not there yet. The Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act will provide oversight of the abortion industry, which is badly in need of improved supervision. Too many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions, and too many women’s lives are at risk. As a compassionate society, we must work to ensure that women are adequately cared for.” ...........
http://www.kalb.com/index.php/news/article/senators-introduce-bill-to-protect-pregnant-women/5429/