Free Speech Wins Again!

[nhboy]

Appeals Court: Naperville Teen Can Wear Anti-Gay Shirt To School

"In 2006, Naperville's Neuqua Valley High School allowed students to participate in a nationwide "Day of Silence," which promotes tolerance of the gay community. While some students decided to wear shirts that expressed that tolerance, one student showed up in a shirt that read: "Be Happy, Not Gay."

School administrators demanded the student, 17-year-old Heidi Zamecnik, either remove the shirt or be sent home for the day, according to the Naperville Sun. The school ultimately settled on blacking out the "Not Gay" portion of the shirt, leaving it to read "Be Happy."

Zamecnik, however, was not pleased with the change. After the incident, she filed a lawsuit against the school district claiming they violated her civil rights by not allowing her to express her opposition to homosexuality.

"Pursuant of her earnest religious convictions, Heidi sought a way to communicate her belief that homosexual conduct doesn't lead to happiness," Zamecnik's lawyer Nate Kellum told MTV when the suit was filed in 2007. "She wanted to wear a T-shirt communicating that idea."

On Tuesday, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Kellum."

 

[vraiblonde]

All speech is free, not just speech that you personally agree with.

:cough: Westboro Baptist :cough:

 

[Lenny]

Zamecnik was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group. The American Civil Liberties Union filed an opposing brief, according to the Chicago Tribune.

 

[Tilted]

Zamecnik was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group. The American Civil Liberties Union filed an opposing brief, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Either the piece linked in the OP is wrong (about what the Chicago Tribune reported) or the Chicago Tribune is wrong. I suspect the former, as I can't find any such reporting from the Chicago Tribune.

It is true that the ACLU filed a brief with the 7th Circuit in an earlier phase of the case, but that brief concluded that the school district's policy should be struck down and, relying heavily on Tinker (which I referred to here), it agreed with the plaintiff's assertion that the district's policies violate the First Amendment.

The ACLU of Illinois took the position that the school "should have allowed two students on one day to wear the 'be happy, not gay' t-shirts." Imagine that.

 

[Go G-Men]

All speech is free, not just speech that you personally agree with.

:cough: Westboro Baptist :cough:

Speaking of Westboro Baptist Church: In accordance with the original Appeals Court ruling the Supreme Court also upheld that the Family that sued the church must pay all court cost. This is not only terrible but is what is wrong with our court system.

My hat is off to Bill O'Reilly of the Factor who offered to the Snyder family tonight to pay the court cost for the family. Nobody from MSNBC made that offer!

 

[Tilted]

Speaking of Westboro Baptist Church: In accordance with the original Appeals Court ruling the Supreme Court also upheld that the Family that sued the church must pay all court cost. This is not only terrible but is what is wrong with our court system.

My hat is off to Bill O'Reilly of the Factor who offered to the Snyder family tonight to pay the court cost for the family. Nobody from MSNBC made that offer!

It did not. The Court's opinion doesn't say one word about that issue, nor was there any likelihood whatsoever that it was going to.

That issue wasn't before it. I suppose, if Mr. Snyder wanted to, he could try to appeal that matter to the high Court. But, it seems very unlikely to me that he would, and even more unlikely that the Court would agree to hear the matter if he did.

 

[Merlin99]

It did not. The Court's opinion doesn't say one word about that issue, nor was there any likelihood whatsoever that it was going to.

That issue wasn't before it. I suppose, if Mr. Snyder wanted to, he could try to appeal that matter to the high Court. But, it seems very unlikely to me that he would, and even more unlikely that the Court would agree to hear the matter if he did.

I hate to disagree with you (mostly because I hate to be shown I'm wrong), but from the original case he had to pay the court cost ( Marine Dad Must Pay Westboro Court Fees ). Why would losing the case at the SC level make that part of the judgement go away?

 

[Baja28]

If free speech is winning, why can't kids wear American flags on their shirts???

You Cannot Wear A Shirt With An American Flag On It In America… Wait… What? « Letters to a Dying Dream

» School Forces Student to Remove American Flag Shirt Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Students sent home for wearing American flag shirts | wfaa.com | News

 

[Tilted]

I hate to disagree with you (mostly because I hate to be shown I'm wrong), but from the original case he had to pay the court cost ( Marine Dad Must Pay Westboro Court Fees ). Why would losing the case at the SC level make that part of the judgement go away?

No one should hate being shown they're wrong. Personally, I find it to be among the more titillating classes of experiences. It creates perhaps the most palpable sense of immediate improvement - of having increased one's knowledge or expanded one's understanding - that can be appreciated. In general, I consider someone showing me that I was wrong to be among the best gifts that they could give me. I hope my goal is never to have been right, but rather that it is just to now be right.

But, I digress...

This Supreme Court ruling would not make such an order to pay costs go away, hence my suggestion that Mr. Snyder might, in theory, be able to appeal such order to the Supreme Court. My statement was to the effect that the Supreme Court did not uphold such an order. It did not address it at all, nor should there have been any expectation that it would.

I'm curious though, now that I'm reminded of this issue, because I never investigated (to any meaningful degree) the prior reports about the order in question. Was Mr. Snyder just ordered to pay actual court costs, or was he ordered to pay the Westboro Baptists' attorney fees? If the former, then I question the general perturbation (which I myself previously felt, and may still depending, in part, on which it is) He was the plaintiff. He brought the suit and lost (at the Circuit Court level). It would seem normal that he had to pay the court costs and, frankly, wrong if the situation were otherwise.