This album was released when I was in HS and a classmate was asked by a teacher to turn her t-shirt with the album cover inside-out. She asked why and the teacher said it could be CP. She turned the shirt inside-out. I felt the teacher had a reasonable POV.
The point of view is unreasonnable : a child naked is not Porn unless the intent is to make it porn. No one would think to describe a child naked at the beach "porn", why would it be different on an album cover?
So the POV paraphrased was: someone could consider it CP, I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't, but it will be disruptive and I'm here to teach and the class to learn so let's nip this in the bud and get on with my lesson.
I thought that was a very reasonable take on the situation which was getting disruptive first period history class. much more reasonable than a suspension or the like.
So are there no limits to what a high school student can have on a Tshirt--realizing any such limit will be controversial and probably political to some degree?
(Personally, I had to wear a jacket and tie though, so what do I know.)
There's in fact a U.S. Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines, about the limits.
The students were wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War; they prevailed:
> The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
> The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," that the conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."
I'm probably missing something but from me at two HSs and my three kids later in HS clothing connected to drugs, alcohol, smoking, profanity, nudity, and sex were prohibited.
Something happened first, but I don't know what. I was near the map at the far wall while she and the disruption which initially attracted the teacher were near the door. It could have been comments about the shirt or just any other teenager antics.
Only in the west can an image of a naked baby be intentionally misconstrued as "pornography". It doesn't meet any definitions of pornography, the only reason people think it's "reasonable" is group think.
Only in the "west"? I can think of quite of few countries that are not in the west where that would almost certainly be considered improper and a number where it would probably be outright illegal.
You think that would be considered acceptable in most Middle Eastern countries? And, indeed, many Asian countries are relatively conservative about public nudity.
JFC, what kind of mad, backwards world do we live in where people consider a photo of a naked baby to be CP? Every family out there has photos of their children naked as babies.
