janelane wrote:

And now my "I forgot" update. This one is already dead in the water. This is a question already decided by the Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines School District. Sorry Miss Hardwick, you're pretty much done.

From the case link:

Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.

In which case, she could wear confederate colors, right? She'd be a moron, certainly, but she'd be within her rights.

-janelane, engineer=/lawyer

Correct, but Fortas, writing the majority decision, also makes the statement that "It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to "pure speech."" In this case, the school will make the argument (and has) that her actions are disruptive. For people in South Carolina, many of whom would have had relatives who were slaves, the Confederate Flag is a slap in the face.

There are some symbols which by their history will be disruptive in and of themselves. The Confederate Flag will be one, the swastika another. The majority of them will be cultural. I don't know what the symbol for the TonTons Macoutes was, but I would guess in Haiti displaying that symbol would be likely to get you beaten, likely to death. The history is not as close, but the context is very similar.

RE: S.C. Girl Protests Confederate Apparel Ban - Yahoo! News