Public schools

Censorship: High School Makes 18-Year-Old Girl Remove 'Hillary for Prison' T-Shirt

Maybe schools should teach kids about the First Amendment-and follow it

|

Yeakle
Screenshot via Sun Sentinel

Boca Raton High School in Palm Beach County, Florida, trampled an 18-year-old girl's free speech rights: the school forced her to change out of a T-shirt that bore the political message "Hillary for Prison."

The provocative T-shirt drew the ire of student Maxine Yeakle's classmates, who said they considered all supporters of Donald Trump to be racist, according to The Sun Sentinel. Their criticisms became disruptive, and as a result, Yeakle was sent to the principal's office. The disrupters were not punished: only the girl whose political advocacy inspired the others to misbehave was punished.

Yeakle was told she had to change into a different shirt or be suspended. Her father chose to pull her out of school:

"My consequence was I either had to wear a shirt that's kind of, you know, humiliating because I have never gotten a dress code violation before," or possibly face in-school suspension if she didn't comply, she said.

District policy prohibits attire that "substantially or potentially disrupts the educational environment." Courts, unfortunately, have given schools broad latitude to punish political expression when it's perceived as a nuisance. What happened here is akin to the heckler's veto: kids had a problem with Yeakle's opinion, they caused a problem, and Yeakle was censored because of the problem that they caused.

"Hillary for Prison" may not be a politically-correct slogan, but public schools shouldn't be so eager to punish students for expressing views that make other people a little uncomfortable. They're teaching young people that they don't have First Amendment rights, and that's a problem. Today's censorship-loving college students learned it somewhere.

NEXT: The Return of the Rogue Electors

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Would.

    Also wear that t-shirt. What were you people thinking?

    1. She is 18.

      1. Don’t confuse ‘thick’ for ‘thicc’.

      2. You’re right. over the hill.

  2. What is politically incorrect about advocating for the rule of law?

  3. They’re teaching young people that they don’t have First Amendment rights

    No Robby, they aren’t. They are teaching them to be snowflakes. The First Amendment violation because of the fact that this is a public school is only secondary. The core teaching here is that coddling, safe spaces, and the inability to accept conflicting opinions is both justifiable and encouraged.

  4. What happened here is akin to the heckler’s veto: kids had a problem with Yeakle’s opinion, they caused a problem, and Yeakle was censored because of the problem that they caused.

    I’m not sure that the school didn’t exaggerate the reports of the kids’ “disruption” in order to justify their actions under the Tinker test.

    1. I’d like to believe you but many kids have learned they can use the system to punish those they disagree with, and some such little Maoists may indeed have raised the issue.

      Now, adults are supposed to be mature and teach kids about sticks and stones and whatnot, but I’m sure that’s racist, sexist, and transphobic, so why not just give in to their every demand instead.

  5. The “educators” justify this reaction by saying that the problem is the offending attire not that other students are being disruptive.

    Its a feature of public schools to squash dissention at the youngest levels.

  6. That shirt is offensive. Hillary deserves due process. It is specifically written in the constitution. Her name is right there. The rest of us of course deserve only whatever her highness or her vicars deem appropriate.

    1. “Hillary for Whatever Her Highness Deems Appropriate” t-shirt

  7. Interesting because a few months ago there was a case where some kids in California wore “Dump Trump” shirts which were officially against the public schools’ dress code and they determined that it should be ok.

    1. T.F.G.–you are nearly famous. Eugene Volokh gives the commentariat, and apparently you, a hat tip at the end of his WashPost_Blog entry on the Florida case. http://tinyurl.com/Volokh-Boca-Case :

      See also this post by Robby Soave (Hit & Run); thanks to Robert Dittmer for the pointer. For a story from May (which I only learned about just now, when reading the Hit & Run post comments) involving a California school’s attempt ? quickly rescinded ? to restrict the wearing of “Dump Trump” shirts, see this Los Angeles Times article.

  8. First you said remove, then you said change. I feel gipped.

    1. goddamn gypsies will get you every time!

  9. classmates, who said they considered all supporters of Donald Trump to be racist

    Incidentally, I consider anyone who supports affirmative action or votes for politicians who support affirmative action to be racist. That necessarily includes each and every Democratic voter. I am surrounded by racists, some of them are not even bad people but they are racists nonetheless.

    1. Get with the times grizzly. Non-racism is racist now. Eric Holder told me so.

      1. It’s racism all the way down!

    2. +1 all lives matter racists

  10. The disrupters were not punished: only the girl whose political advocacy inspired the others to misbehave was punished.

    Holding schoolchildren individually responsible for their own education? I bet admins are leaping all over themselves to tug that thread.

  11. Young people, as juveniles, don’t have First Amendment rights.

    1. That’s why Socrates were executed for corrupting you.

      1. The Trial of Socrates and Plato’s Apology notwithstanding, juveniles do not have First Amendment rights.

        1. Funny, I don’t see any qualifications in the Constitution regarding the age at which rights are conferred, outside of voting rights.

          1. Good for you.

            But my statement is legally correct.

            1. It’s quite possible that the US Supreme Court was wrong in the Tinker case, if that’s what you mean.

              But you’d have to give an argument, not an assertion.

              1. My statement reflects the legal position re First Amendment jurisprudence.

                  1. Read the wiki on the First Amendment.

                    As parents, we exert control over what our kids read and watch all the time.

                    1. OK, but what you initially said was that juveniles have no First Amendment rights.

                      Who is claiming that the First Amendment applies to parents?

                    2. They dont.

                      If we as parents decide to censor what our kids read and watch, and we do, they have no legal recourse.

                    3. Just replace the goalposts where you found them.

                    4. Whatever you say.

                    5. Your straw-manning is more than ordinarily stupid.

                      Who on earth claimed that the First Amendment limits the power of parents to discipline their children?

                      If you wanted to make a good-faith argument, you’d say that the public schools act in loco parentis and the US Supreme Court was wrong, etc., but apparently that would be too much effort for you.

                    6. Whatever you say, oh wise one.

                    7. I see why you moved to Sparta, the intellectual atmosphere there is more suited to your capacities.

                    8. I had a great time there, what with her hubby being away an all, but eventually moved on…

                    9. All right, guys. Put it away.

                      Alcibiades is stating what appears to be legal fact. He isn’t proposing, enthusiastically endorsing, and having skimmed the thread he doesn’t even look to be excusing it. He is merely stating it. It seems there has been some confusion.

                      Chillax, por favor. Tomorrow will be plenty bad ju-ju without looking for extra.

                    10. As a matter of fact, I’m skeptical of the *Tinker* decision, but I don’t like how Alcibiades simply assumed the decision was wrong and used straw-manning and goalpost-shifting rather than defend his position.

                    11. I assumed nothing.

                      You assumed too much.

                      Every statement I made was 100% legally accurate.

                    12. Also, contrary to what you claim, the Fourth Amendment does NOT allow kids to stay up past their bedtime.

                    13. 100% legally accurate

                      This is like the disclaimer on Human Centipede. It’s utterly meaningless but hey, it’s got numbers and certainty and shit.

                    14. Just 100% accurate is all.

                    15. Even Robert Mugabe had the humility to accept 98%.

                    16. Humility has really nothing to do with anything here, but I suspect you already knew that.

                    17. It’s a meaningless number, your repetition of it notwithstanding. You’ve ridden this horse good and well, perhaps it’s time to find another.

                    18. Accuracy is meaningless?

                      Who’d have thought…

                    19. Fine. Formally define the measure ? from the ?-algebra of all logical statements to the closed interval [0,1] which assigns to your statement a value of 1. Then you can begin to make the case (or not) that your statement has “100% legal accuracy”.

                      Until then, it’s just noise with added pretense.

                    20. Oh wow, been blinded by science, my head is spinnin’ with all those fancy learnin’ terms you got yourself there.

                      Better watch out for all those electrons buzzin’ round that noggin of yours!

                    21. So you see the folly of your actions reflected upon you, but do not admit it.

                    22. No, I’m seeing you more as a pretentious little pedant.

                    23. Thank you.

                    24. Alcibiades is stating what appears to be legal fact.

                      Except, it’s not. Congress can’t ban political speech by juveniles even if schools can discipline kids for “disruptive” speech. A 17-year-old can pen a political treatise without interference from the government, schools acting in loco parentis notwithstanding, regardless of someone aspy nut on the Internet repeating an untrue statement like a mantra.

                    25. A juvenile has no constitutional right to free speech. He can pen his political manifesto and I, as his parent can confiscate it, destroy it, amend it and there is no legal recourse available to him.

                    26. That’s right, rebuke those voices in your head who say the First Amendment limits the power of parents to discipline their children!

                    27. If your definition of a Natural Right is one that can simply be abrogated on parental whim, it’s not much of a right is it?

                    28. Like I said above, the Fourth Amendment does NOT allow kids to stay up past their bedtime.

                      Why do you defend kids staying up past their bedtime?

                    29. Why do you make further pathetic attempts at deflection?

                    30. I thought that if you’re going to be using straw man arguments, I can use them too.

                      Buddy.

                    31. Oh, I just strive to be fully accurate.

                      Your mileage may vary of course.

                    32. If your definition of a Natural Right is one that can simply be abrogated on parental whim, it’s not much of a right is it?

                      Nikki, is that you?? Rights describe relationships between individuals and government. Just because I sign a non-disclosure agreement (or because my parents have guardianship over me) doesn’t mean that I have given up my First Amendment rights.

                    33. You can. Congress can’t.

                      That’s what the First Amendment is about.

                      “Congress shall make no law…”

                    34. Congress can’t ban political speech by juveniles..

                      Why? Because we have all of this LAW around to stop them?

                      I tried. If everyone wants to argue and miss each other’s point, who’m I to say different. May your arguments be free from fallacies, your loins fruitful and may the odds be ever in your favor.

                    35. Insofar as I can even identify a premise behind the statement, I’m attacking it. I understand your point. Alcibiades doesn’t seem to understand his, although apparently he thinks making nonsensical declarations of accuracy conveys some kind of meaning or legitimacy.

                      And if the law has no force, then it’s pointless to argue about what it means.

                    36. If any of my statements appear “nonsensical to you”, truly dont know what to say.

                      Remedial reading perhaps?

                    37. I have already argued against your overly repeated claim about the First Amendment. You have not responded to that line of argument.

                      What I am calling nonsensical is your statement of “100% legal accuracy”. Although if you wish to give it meaning, I’ve offered a path to do so above.

                      Do not presume yourself to be possessed of intellect if you cannot demonstrate it.

                    38. If this statement appears to be ambiguous to you, well ok, I guess.

                      I’ve not the slightest desire to prove anything to you or care what you presume to be the case on anything.

                    39. Right, you’re just fluffing your ego. Got it.

                    40. I’m so glad to hear you have at last, and in such clear unambiguous language to boot!

                    41. … if the law has no force, then it’s pointless to argue about what it means.

                      Exactly.

          2. They start them young with the metal detectors and surprise locker searches.

        2. So do they get 1st Amendment rights at age 18 (which this person is), or at age 21, the beer-drinkin’ age?

          1. I’m sure there’s no fuckery to be had about this issue with regard to penaltax dependents(ence) either.

          2. The courts give K-12 public schools wide latitude with respect to what is permitted as expressive acts within public schools.

            1. Bo, the girl is 18, you douchebag.

              1. And attending a public school. I’ll refrain from using an ad hominem in response.

                1. Calling you a douchebag is not an ad hominem.

                  1. Back at ya…

              2. Moreover, the courts giving the schools latitude doesn’t mean the courts weren’t wrong in their decision re: free political speech *and* that the school(s) aren’t wrong prioritizing one set of “expressive acts” over another. As below, if I wear a plain orange jumpsuit to class and it causes you to start flinging your own feces at other students, your feces flinging is much more of a problem than my jumpsuit.

                1. I accurately described the current legal situation in K-12 public schools re the First Amendment. You may not agree with this state of affairs, but nevertheless, it’s accurate.

            2. Sure, but what you said at first was “juveniles do not have First Amendment rights.”

              (And courts don’t really “give” powers to anyone – or if they do they’re abusing their authority)

              1. They dont.

                1. Well, you certainly convinced me.

                  And put those goalposts back where you found them.

                  1. My kids should hire an attorney then, they’d make out like bandits.

                    1. Like I said already, I don’t see anyone here claiming the First Amendment applies to parental discipline.

                      And the linked article says: “Her dad told the Sun Sentinel on Thursday that he supported his daughter’s actions, but declined to comment further.”

                    2. Seriously, you’ll throw your back out, lugging those goalposts everywhere.

                    3. I’ll give you an A plus for “rhetorical deflection”.

                    4. Projection.

                      You claimed juveniles don’t have First Amendment rights, then when challenged you then changed ground and wouldn’t defend your original assertion.

                    5. They dont.

                    6. I dont how to make this more clear, but juveniles do not enjoy the full spectrum of Constitutional rights that adults do.

                    7. That’s not what you started off saying.

                      You started off by saying “Young people, as juveniles, don’t have First Amendment rights.”

                    8. They dont.

                    9. Maybe they do and maybe they don’t, but you haven’t backed up your assertion or explained why the Supreme Court was wrong in the Tinker case, you simply moved the goalposts.

                    10. Look buddy, whether you’re convinced or not by my statements is of little moment to me. Clearly you find them lacking. But that’s okay, I can live with that, somehow I’ll soldier on.

                      But once again juveniles do have First Amendment rights.

                    11. “not”

                    12. First the don’t, now they do, make up your mind.

                    13. I’m not your buddy, pal.

                      I wanted to know your basis for disagreeing with the Supreme Court. I happen to think the Supreme Court is often wrong, I even think they may be wrong re school discipline.

                      I even offered an argument you could have used – the in loco parentis argument.

                      But your strawmanning, goalpost-shifting and general bluster aren’t going to cut it.

                    14. I’ll take pity on you and give you some help.

                      Here are some arguments you could use to back up your position.

                    15. Look buddy, I never, even for a second, thought I was under any obligation to convince you of anything.

                      Everything I said was 100% legally accurate.

                      Juveniles do have First Amendment rights.

                    16. “not”

                    17. Already was well aware of them.

                      Hence my statement:

                      Juveniles do not have First Amendment rights.

                    18. Juveniles do not have First Amendment rights.

                      Considering that the First Amendment limits the government, and does not grant anyone any rights, you are technically correct.

                      Congress has no power to constrain the speech of juveniles.

                    19. “Juveniles do not have First Amendment rights.”

                      Nobody has to agree with the Supreme Court, but it’s dishonest to ignore the very existence of the *Tinker* decision and expect to get away with it.

                    20. Exactly

            3. The courts give K-12 public schools wide latitude with respect to what is permitted as expressive acts within public schools.

              If true, it would seem painfully easy to keep trannies in whatever restroom you want them in.

              1. Is the new guy seriously arguing that juveniles don’t have First Amendment rights because their parents can discipline them??? What a fucking joke!

                1. Is the new guy seriously arguing that juveniles don’t have First Amendment rights because their parents can discipline them???

                  So it would seem. Parents, government, what’s the difference?

    2. 2.3 seconds in google: The age of majority in Florida is 18. This means that when you turn 18, you gain almost all of the legal rights that adults have. Some of those include the right to vote, and getting a driver’s license without parental permission.

    3. Of course, as an 18 year old she’s not a fucking juvenile, but then you already knew that Tulpa.

      1. But her parents can control what she watches and reads!!

        1. What a sick *burn* against all those people who claimed the First Amendment empowers children to disobey their parents!

  12. Instead of the “mandatory disclaimer” about how the government shouldn’t run schools, I’ll simply say that the government shouldn’t run schools, and conclude with that.

    1. I was just going through my sample ballot for tomorrow and was happy to find someone running for the state board of education who not only has experience teaching but who also is a charter school advocate.

  13. “My consequence was I either had to wear a shirt that’s kind of, you know, humiliating because I have never gotten a dress code violation before,” or possibly face in-school suspension if she didn’t comply, she said.

    Look, 2 min. worth of thought tells you to bring a bright orange jumpsuit in your backpack in case they make you cover up or change your t-shirt. If you’re gonna troll, do it right.

    1. Or she could have worn a Boca Raton HS is run by Nazis T-Shirt underneath.

      1. Yeah, at this point I’m about 70/30 blaming statist school admins for stating vs. blaming a lazy millennial for under-committing.

      2. And underneath *that* a “why do you keep telling me to take off my T-shirt, pervert?” T-shirt.

        1. I larfed

  14. If nothing else, being denied basic 1st Amendment rights might allow those who would take them for granted to be a bit more appreciative.

  15. “Hillary for Prison” may not be a politically-correct slogan

    It’s, like, so offensive and mean and just, ugh, problematic.

  16. Their school, their rules. Don’t like it send little miss ‘look at me’ to a different school.

    1. Fuck you, Tulpa.

  17. This school is just being proactive. The 1st and 2nd amendments are history effective January 19

  18. Given the way she was dressed, she was obviously asking for it.

    1. Yeah, I was thinking about this in comparison to how progs are aghast at slut-shaming with regard to sexual assault, but somehow this is different. sigh…

  19. “Maybe schools should teach kids about the First Amendment?and follow it”

    Robby made a funny. The Constitution is racist and needs changing, so might as well start with the first amendment.

    1. We don’t need to change anything as long as we can maintain dissonant beliefs in our head simultaneously. Which is easy when one lacks principle or integrity.

  20. If “school officials” told my daughter to take off her t-shirt, the survivors would face a massive lawsuit.

  21. Never good. Of course you missed it when some students in Californua were told to ditch their “Dump Trump” shirts. And a few times that “Black Lives Matter” shirts were banned. Here is one

    http://www.azcentral.com/story…../89541244/

    1. Here is one girl sent home for supporting gay rights.

      http://www.towleroad.com/2016/05/gay-t-shirt/

      You know, those right wing school boards!

    2. Of course the Dump Trump tshirts were allowed, but totally the same story.

      Jesus, it’s like you’re not even trying anymore. Remember, don’t start drinking in victory until about 5pm tomorrow, and pace yourself.

      1. They were allowed because those students stood up for their rights. Maybe the victim in Robbys story should do the same, eh? Still, all you needed to do was say they shouldn’t have been banned in the first place. Just couldn’t do it…

        1. It’s self evident that they shouldn’t have been banned in the first place. Douche.

      2. Tell you what. I’ll give you another chance to show your outrage on banned shirts in school.

        http://www.tennessean.com/stor…../76268814/

        You just need to say it’s an outrage, like it was in Robbys article.

        1. Sure it is an outrage. Socons and progressives are cut from the same authoritarian cloth which is why they hate each other so much.

        2. I would say nice try, but that try wasn’t anything nice. That tu quoque whatabout tactic may work on some Republicans, but it won’t ever work on libertarians.

          1. Libertarians? Where?

            1. Up here joe. At six feet.

        3. Let me say this slowly so it really sinks in:

          It is a fucking outrage when schools ban kids from wearing clothes with political messages. Full stop.

          You know what’s even more outrageous? Punishing the kid wearing the shirt and not the kids actually disrupting class. (although, punishing a kid before there’s been any disruption as in your link is pretty damn outrageous too.)

  22. I’m totally sure if some punk walked in with a Kill Trump t-shirt no one would bat an eye. Totally.

  23. All the left has anymore is the heckler’s veto…..

    1. And the media, educational institutions, the supreme court, the presidency, and the regulatory agencies. I think the heckler’s veto was the only thing they didn’t have to complete their collection.

  24. I hate it when this shit happens…

    http://www.mtv.com/news/147039…..hot-water/

    Global anti-war protests have recently drawn hundreds of thousands into

    peaceful demonstrations in the streets. But, over the past three weeks, from

    Michigan to New York to Chicago, students have been warned and suspended, and

    one adult arrested, for expressing their anti-war and anti-Arab-discrimination sentiments on the most American of forums, the T-shirt.

    1. Hey! Come on! Robby can’t cover ALL the shirt bannings!

      1. There’s a war going on against aggrieved right-wingers. They’re poor and oppressed and the fact that you can sit here and laugh at them just reveals you are a heartless and fascist asshole.

        Why can’t you care?

        1. I wouldn’t worry your pretty little heads to much about it Jack, and AMSOC. Once your gal gets elected only the free speech of those you disagree with will be regulated.

          1. Listen to you! Concerned about a candidate who wants to curtail free speech! Of course, you got the wrong one. I’ll let conservative National Review educate you with Trumps own words how he says he will curtail free speech, like closing the Internet.

            http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ch-pc-left

            Of course, he’s your candidate, right?

            1. you got the wrong one

              … there are in fact 4 candidates, at the least, who are not especially strong proponents of free speech, they being Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein

              “The wrong one” implies there is a right one. There is not.

            2. you got the wrong one

              :coughCUcough:

            3. Of course, this being a libertarian website, you should probably assume not a Trump supporter.

              Unlike your fellow DNC travelers who think that Citizen’s United should be overturned and it’s A-OK to threaten to shut down anyone who criticizes herself or the government.

        2. Why can’t you care?

          Interesting rhetorical question. What’s even more interesting is that all you government-fellating proto-communists still cling to the “moar gubmint!” mantra in the face of all this government abuse.

          Maybe you’re just waiting for the the correct TOP. MEN. to come along and save everyone with their benevolent guidance…

      2. Hey! Come on! Robby can’t cover ALL the shirt bannings!

        Especially the ones from 2003!

        1. Or 2015.

        2. By the way…a “dump trump” t shirt? Must have been prescient kids in 2003, eh?

  25. What a bunch of niggers.

  26. I’m going to wear my “DRAW AND QUARTER DONALD TRUMP” t-shirt tomorrow. Will I get fired? No. Free speech protects me from any and all negative consequences of said speech so I’ll be good.

    1. That’s fucken right commie.

    2. You work for the government, then? Or are you drawing some kind of imaginary connection between 1A and private business/individuals?

  27. High school students don’t have the same Constitutional rights as adult citizens. The Supreme Court has decided this.

    1. Yes, finally. They didn’t say juveniles have *no* rights, but that they have *fewer* rights.

        1. Id think the whole writing things against the school would be ok. Same with groups of students coming together to make a statement. All 1st ammendment stuff

      1. Yeah, if you drop out at 16 you can wear whatever shirt you want.

        Although didn’t Obama change the rule so you can’t drop out until you’re 18 now? FUCKING GUY!

    2. Except they do to an extent established in Tinker v. Des Moines

  28. Clearly she is at fault, she triggered that horde of Hillary supporters. If the school had sufficient Safe spaces available then perhaps this could have been avoided.

  29. “‘I’m with Xer”

  30. If that’s a nose ring in that screen shot, then he’s already the worst dad in the world.

  31. . . . who said they considered all supporters of Donald Trump . . .

    See, this is a ‘teachable moment’ where you explain that being *against* one candidate does not mean you are *for* another. With a hammer.

    1. The other teachable moment is that your rights are subject to reasonable restrictions. It is not reasonable, of course, to expect that you’re the one who gets to decide what’s reasonable.

      1. They get to decide what’s reasonable, and you get to decide to do what they tell you or face the consequences.

        This, we are told, is rule by the people.

  32. The factulty being 99% card-carrying commie progtards probably did not help this young lady.

  33. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  34. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    —————->>>> http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com

  35. “”Hillary for Prison” may not be a politically-correct slogan, but public schools shouldn’t be so eager to punish students for expressing views that make other people a little uncomfortable. They’re teaching young people that they don’t have First Amendment rights, and that’s a problem. Today’s censorship-loving college students learned it somewhere.”

    Such mushy language of disapproval, where is the visceral outrage?

    ‘public schools shouldn’t be so eager to punish’?
    More like, public schools should not be violating the first amendment of the Constitution; if they are legally authorized to do that, then that alone should be reason to take a child out of that institution.

    ‘they’re teaching young people that they don’t have 1st Am rights, and that’s a problem’?

    More like they are violating the rights of citizens to express their beliefs, and that is the basis of a civil rights lawsuit.

    Come on Reason, milquetoast criticisms just fall flat, have a little backbone and let loose some firebrand outrage.

  36. Unfortunately the Tinker Test has been beaten back by an expanding definition of what constitutes “disruptive speech. It would be an interesting case to re-test those limits. Maybe the ACLU would be interested in challenging it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.