Supremes OK Student's Anti-Bush T-Shirt

(AP)  The original T-Shirt is too small now, but Zachary Guiles has one just like it, a size larger. Highly critical of President Bush, it triggered a legal battle that lasted Guiles from seventh grade to the brink of his senior year.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected an appeal by the Williamstown school district of a ruling that it violated Guiles' rights by censoring his T-shirt.

"I'm extremely glad that they didn't decide to try to overturn the case. The appeals court decision was very well thought out and very well stated," Guiles said in an interview from Massachusetts, where the gifted young trombonist is studying this summer at Tanglewood, the summer home of the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

Guiles attended a peace rally with his father, Tim Guiles, where he bought a T-shirt bearing images of cocaine and a martini glass — but also had messages calling President Bush a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and the "chicken-hawk-in-chief" who was engaged in a "world domination tour."

He wore it to school about once a week for a couple of months without incident, before the school's cheerleading coach raised an alarm about it when she was chaperoning a trip to the Statehouse, Tim Guiles said.

The young Guiles was told to turn his shirt inside out, cover the offending images with duct tape or change clothes. He refused, and missed the trip to the Statehouse, he recalled.

Then-Assistant Principal Seth Marineau told Guiles the shirt violated the school's policy against images alcohol and other drugs.

On Friday, Marineau, who left the school district for educational consulting in 2005, said he had no problem with the court's decision.

"I think that the court knows what it's doing and it's enforcing its rules or its interpretation of the law," he said. "It went through the court system. Whatever they have decided is proper."

The Guileses, helped by the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the shirt's message was much less about promoting drug use than about politics — political views highly critical of Bush.

"They were entirely negative," Zachary Guiles said of the shirt's drug images. "They were an incredibly stupid thing that the president has done. It was pointing out the inadequacy of the president, certainly not promoting them (drugs) in any way, shape or form."

On Monday, the court ruled that schools could regulate student expression if it appeared to promote use of illegal drugs. That ruling involved a teenager in Alaska who unveiled a banner at a school-sanctioned event saying "Bong Hits For Jesus."

But in that decision, Justice Samuel Alito cautioned that schools could not censor political speech.

The case is Marineau v. Guiles, 06-757.

[agnim]

"However, "message" shirts are inappropriate at public schools...
Posted by burneb at 09:50 PM : Jun 30, 2007"

You do have a valid point: Children should not be used to make political statements for adults; and for sure not do so at school where they should be more focussed on learning.

However, students/parents can be asked (and not imposed on) in order to accomplish a worthwhile end; if such an end could be considered as disruptive to a school atmosphere, yes?

[cantshutup]

I wonder if these questions can be answered?
Isn't SCHOOL, assuming they are places of learning not indoctrination camps, the perfect place for a political discussion regarding American politics?
Is it wrong to question the decision making skills of someone who has a proven past alcohol and cocaine addition?
Are children mere pawns in adult games, or are they entitled to participate in their stake of their future?
Why do people like singinprick have no response or condemnation for the known alcohol and drug abuse of the person who criminally sits in the white house as president?
Do people in general not know the real and present danger they are in?

[toolmangler-2009]

Posted by veteran71 at 02:38 PM : Jul 01, 2007


If someone catches a bullet because a stranger shot his/her mouth off at the wrong (read a 'dangerous') nut, I would call that a wrongful exercise of 'rights'. There are times when being responsible 'mitigates' free exercise of 'rights'.

[toolmangler-2009]

An idea or comment that offends is ok. There is no need for vulgarity or character assassination in commentary. They are counter_productive and useless. (the focus is on the insult not the message). BTW, I am as guilty as anyone and I apologize. I want to make a point, not a name for myself.

[boatquack]

gkc99 if you had any idea about war it is not peace and freedom will never be slavery. Pointing out wrongs is the requirement for a free citizenry wasting space with single symble words might be easier for you but it cheapens your point.
antivenin insults are not speech, just allowed because people like you don't understand what free speech is and if you had a point to make it was lost calling me names, get a life.

[randalds]

Give him hell kid!

[likeitis5050]

first of all I find it hard to believe a child would choose to buy a shirt with such a strong political statement. Then I find it hard to believe the school didn't have some sort of dress code that stated message shirts of any kind were not allowed. Finally while I do not like Bush, I find it easy enough to make my point without being profane. What I'm not surprised about is that the ACLU jumped on board to help out. Wonder if they would have gotten any where without their big mouths to help.

[rhs648]

Flipping through the stations on my radio, I heard a reverend describe how we live in an age that offers both the best of everything and the worst of everything. This is not a religious statement. It does, however, make sense. Some people are shocked at the language used by some posters. There are posters who can make their points without profanity and name calling. There are other posters whose every other word is full of profanity and vileness. Not too many years ago, men would tip their hats to women, hold doors open for other people, and never swear in public. One of my sons is a performer. He worked in Japan for three months at a theme park. Every two weeks management paid the help by putting cash in envelopes and leaving the envelopes on tables in an empty unlocked room. All day, employees would enter the room and pick-up their pay. When he performed in Singapore, people would purchase sodas, find a bench, and drink their soda. He never saw anyone drinking their soda except at a bench. My question is why would a parent allow a child to wear something many consider distasteful and offensive? It may be perfectly legal and distasteful at the same time. As a parent, I would never allow a child to wear something others may find offensive. Again, we live in an age that offers both the best of everything and the worst of everything.

[nskduke]

I agree

[burneb]

As much as any American alive, I agree and believe that George Bush has been a blot on the Presidency and all that we should aspire to as a nation. However, "message" shirts are inappropriate at public schools, church services, funerals, or such where the place or event gives the messages imprimature or the messages distract from the serious function of the gathering. There are plenty of public places and venues to express opinions. Isn't it difficult enough for teachers to run orderly schools without t-shirt wars?