Supremes OK Student's Anti-Bush T-Shirt
Political Speech Rights Upheld For 7th Grader Whose School Sought To Censor His Anti-Bush Wear
-
Photo
Zachary Guiles wears the T-shirt that was banned from his school in Williamstown, Vt., in this photo from May 14, 2004. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Williamstown Middle School's appeal of a ruling that said the school violated the student's rights by censoring his anti-Bush shirt. (AP / David Delcore, Times Argus)
-
Interactive
The Supreme Court
History, traditions and key cases, plus what it takes to get on the bench.
-
Blog
Court Watch
CBSNews.com Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen's new blog on the big issues and analyzes important cases of the day.
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.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



Um, BoatQUACK, you are a bit of a hypocrite, there, buddy? Of course, here in America we have a right to insult anyone, if we wish to do so. Perhaps you are an immigrant from the Soviet side of the world.
Posted by boatquack at 02:45 PM : Jun 30, 2007"
Has it ever occurred to you, Quack, that the present occupant represents 'insult' and dis-'respect' to the office of the president?
And that your kind are responsible electing and re-electing 'insult' and dis-'respect' to the office of the president?
And imagine commanding when one should and "should not be commenting"? Commanding when one should exercise 'free speech'?
As a reminder to you, royalist, he's president george; not king george.
He serves at the pleasure of the people; the vast majority of whom, unlike you, are very very displeased him sullying the office; and have returned an embarrassingly low approval rating. LOL
Also, that kid no doubt witnesses the very sub-standard performance coming from the office of the president, and which can result from one using drugs.
And the young fellow is wisely helping to alert his fellow students about the dangers of drugs on the human Nervous System; since the adults, who would elect and re-elect a drug-head to be their president, can't be trusted to do enough to save the children from drugs?
THAT is the question.
Bravo Zach!!!
As has been stated, our present president is the insult to the office, the worst present in the history of these United States, surpassing even Warren G. Harding, who would possibly have been worse had he lived long enough. The big question is whether our beloved (less and less as time goes on, to be sure) president finish office in the double digits?
Wrong! I guess we can't say anything bad about Hitler or Stalin, according to your lights. They were after all the leaders of their countries, just like Bushit is the leader of this country, for now.
Bushit is a liar, a thief, and a coward.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Bushit is President.
EVERY AMERICAN MUST WEAR ONE.
nikosk1, place your hands in your pocket, Get up from your chair, Let the entire u.s. population shove their foot into your large ***.
Better yet, just get up and leave America, we do not need people like you.
He 'is' an insult to the presidency. There!! that comment is sure to insult someone. Now!! tell me how to say that without insulting someone and taking 10,000 words to do it.
With the right paper you can print one on your own inkjet printer and iron it on and I won't make you leave if you wear it. (grin)
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.
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'.
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?
-
by agnim
July 1, 2007 5:52 PM PDT
- "However, "message" shirts are inappropriate at public schools...
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 30 CommentsPosted 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?