Current Conditions
26°F - P/SUNNY
Student's gun shirt: too violent
Despite parents' free-speech argument, U.S. judge cites rise in school violence and rules Penn Manor has right to ban student's T-shirt.
Lancaster New Era
Published: Oct 03, 2008
11:32 EST
Lancaster
By CINDY STAUFFER, Staff Writer

This is the back of the shirt worn by Donald Miller III. A federal court said Penn Manor could prohibi...(more)
 
1 of 1
Pointing to Nickel Mines, Columbine and Virginia Tech, a federal judge said Penn Manor School District acted properly when it prohibited a student from wearing a T-shirt with the image of guns on it.

"The impact of violence is so great that it now has equal importance as the issue of illegal drug use in schools," U.S. District Judge James Knoll Gardner wrote in an opinion handed down this week.

"There is nowhere that is truly safe or immune from the problem of school violence, from the one-room schoolhouse to America's largest universities," Gardner said.

"Students," he said, "have no constitutional right to promote violence in our public schools."

The parents of Donald Miller III had sued Penn Manor in federal court, alleging the school district violated their son's free speech rights by telling him last year that he could not wear the shirt, a gift from his uncle who is serving in Iraq.

Penn Manor Superintendent Donald Stewart said today that the judge's ruling "affirms that the playing field for schools has altered. Schools need to be supported in their efforts to curb violence."

Neither the Millers, nor their attorney, Leonard G. Brown III, could be reached for comment early today.

At issue in the case was Donald Miller III's black T-shirt, which has two guns printed on it. One is on a front pocket printed with the words: "Volunteer, Homeland Security."

The other gun is on the back, superimposed with these words: "Special Issue — Resident — Lifetime License — United States Terrorist Hunting Permit — Permit 91101 Gun Owner — No Bag Limit."
Related Topics


Miller's parents, Tina and Donald Miller Jr. of Holtwood, said the shirt showed their family's support for the troops in Iraq.

In a meeting with Assistant Principal Christopher Moritzen, Miller's father slammed the address of a soldier serving in Iraq on Moritzen's desk, according to the judge's recitation of the facts in the case.

Miller's father suggested Moritzen could write to the soldier and explain how Moritzen "was not being supportive of the troops in Iraq by not allowing Donald to wear his T-shirt to school," the judge wrote.

However, Gardner said the message on the T-shirt is violent, not patriotic.

"The language on Donald's T-shirt advocates the use of force, violence and violation of law in the form of illegal vigilante behavior and the hunting and killing of human beings," Gardner wrote.

While acknowledging that Miller's shirt means a great deal to him because it came from his uncle, there is no patriotic sentiment on the shirt, the judge said.

In most settings, the First Amendment would protect speech, even speech that presents a threat of violence, the judge noted.

But a school is a special place, he said.

Citing another court decision, he wrote: "School officials must have greater authority to intervene before speech leads to violence."

The judge also ruled on two other district matters: one a Penn Manor policy, the other a statement of expectations in the student handbook. The judge banned the district from enforcing either, saying both were vague and overreaching.

The policy prohibited expressions that "seek to establish the supremacy of a particular religious denomination, sect or point of view." Penn Manor removed that from its policy earlier this year.

The statement, in the principal's message section of the student handbook, banned dress or expression that "is a distraction to the educational environment." That section of the handbook has been removed.

According to the opinion, Miller, now 15 and a sophomore, wore the gun T-shirt three times to school when he was a freshman.

The first time, he was told it was inappropriate. The second time, he was warned he would be sent to the principal's office if he wore it again. The third time, he was sent to the principal's office.

Miller told Moritzen his parents would "freak out" if he was not allowed to wear the shirt to school. When Moritzen told him to go to the restroom and turn the shirt inside out, Miller stood up and walked out the door, using an obscenity to describe his feelings about the situation.

Moritzen gave Miller a two-hour detention for the foul language and for not following direction.


Staff writer Cindy Stauffer can be reached at cstauffer@LNPnews.com or 481-6024.


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 78 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
QUOTE (elco mom @ Oct 3 2008, 11:57 AM)
I don't see anything remotely patriotic about that shirt. This young man's 'rights' (privilege) to free speech end when it goes against established guidelines. If he likes the shirt so much, wear it at home and come to school in something more appropriate.

Guess you haven't considered the "established guidelines" to be constitutional or not!
grieker
QUOTE (A1 @ Oct 3 2008, 01:27 PM)
We beat this topic to death before. Good for the judge. Idiot parents.


You are absolutely right A-1, we did beat this topic to death once before and I still disagree with most of you posters out there.
I am however, in agreement with Whirlwind on this subject.
Listen; if this shirt would have said " National Anti-Terrorist Month, Terrorist Hunting Permit, Shoot A Terrorist, No Bag Limit", I would have found it somewhat offensive.
I believe the last time research was done on this thread, the rule read "no clothing bearing any images of guns or weaponry of a violent nature". So, is the T-shirt okay if the guns are not on it ? I see so many of you talking in circles on these threads.
The shirt is not telling anyone to go out and "ace" someone with a pistol or any other type of weapon.

The issue here is more about our constitutional rights and this young man's parents poor attitude about how they should approach retalliation for the loss of those rights. The child's rights were violated. He, however should have complied with the rules and removed or turned the shirt inside out until such time that the shirt was declared non- offensive and then could wear it with even more pride than before.

Wearing images of weapons on our clothing or tattooed on our skin is not a State, local or Federal offense. If it were, there would be inmates hanging out of prison windows from over-stuffed cells. Images of a suggestive violent nature should be but still, are not, thanks to our constitution. Walking through the city donning a firearm with that T-Shirt on might be considered a threat to those named on the garment and cause for concern, but if he has a permit to carry, he still is not breaking any laws.

My point is simple. In the United States of America, the laws and courts are set up so you can;
(a.) make your point, (b.) prove your point, and (c.) get the court to go along with your peril, and then you wear the image(s) with pride and flip off anybody who disagrees with you.
It's the approach that counts. Follow the rules and procedures written in the constitution and you'd be surprised at how many times you can "fluff" your superiors.

I hope my stance is clear on this issue. (By now)
frankomav47
QUOTE (old409 @ Oct 3 2008, 01:12 PM)
This isn't the type of shirt I would like to see worn in school, I find it offensive. But, I have searched the U.S. Constitution and the various State Constitutions and nowhere can I find the Right not to be offended.

So what is it that offends you about the shirt? The shadow of a pistol, or the words?
grieker
QUOTE (A1 @ Oct 3 2008, 04:41 PM)
There's a lot of that going around. Take a look in the mirror. What part of "dress code" don't you understand? Almost everyone I know has a dress code where they work. This little low-life is in for a rude awakening when he gets out from under his ignorant parents and into the real world.
Neither would I, and I'm Irish.


Eeeaauu, absolutely, it's mental irregular !!
frankomav47
We had a different type of offensive t-shirt banned when I was in school. Seems there was a small market in Marietta by the name of Youndts. Not sure if it's still open. They made t-shirts up that said Youndt's Meat Market on the front, the back showed two pigs in the dogie position going at it and underneath was the slogan "Making Bacon". The young ladies from Marietta were told this was inappropriate attire and to go home and change their shirt. Wasn't violent just inappropriate for school.
Makita
Top Ads