Pubdate: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 Source: Rutland Herald (VT) Copyright: 2007 Rutland Herald Contact: http://www.rutlandherald.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/892 Author: Louis Porter, Vermont Press Bureau HIGH COURT UPHOLDS POLITICAL SPEECH AFTER IT SAYS NO TO DRUGS MONTPELIER -- Zachary Guiles can wear whatever T-shirt he wants to public school -- at least if its message is political. Friday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in the case of the Vermont teen who was suspended for wearing a shirt critical of President George Bush that included pictures of drugs and alcohol. That amounts to a victory for Guiles and the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sided with him, and is likely the end of the three-year-old matter. "It was a good thing to go through with, I am certainly glad it went in my favor," Guiles said. "I can certainly appreciate the fact that the school has to control the learning environment, but I think sometimes they abuse that authority." Guiles, now 16 and attending an arts academy in Michigan, wore the shirt while he was in seventh grade at Williamstown Middle-High School. He was suspended because images of a martini glass and cocaine on the T-shirt -- which called Bush the "chicken-hawk-in-chief" -- violated school policy against pictures of drugs and drinks. "They didn't ban the shirt, they just banned the symbols, which didn't take away from the message," said Anthony Lamb, an attorney for the school. "We prohibit them altogether, so you don't constantly have that conversation about whether this is a pro-or anti-drug or alcohol symbol," Lamb said. That prohibition can help create a place with the feeling that such misuse is not all right, he said. "I, of course, will now advocate for the ultimate solution, which is school uniforms," Lamb said. But Allen Gilbert of the Vermont ACLU said the decision by the high court to not hear the case -- therefore leaving intact a federal appeals court decision supporting Guiles -- reaffirms that although students may lose some free speech rights when they go to school, there are also some they retain. "It takes a long time and a lot of effort to protect student's free speech rights and it takes a kid willing to stand up and say 'this isn't fair,'" Gilbert said. "Students don't have absolute rights the way an adult would outside of school," Gilbert said. For instance students cannot be disruptive or vulgar. But neither are those rights left at the school gates, he said. That is important, Gilbert added. "The way that you teach the importance of free speech is to show a respect for everyone's free speech rights. The most important educational experience most of us will have is in the public school," he said. The decision was made to not hear the case -- and therefore side with the ACLU and Guiles -- because of another recent ruling. Earlier in the week the justices ruled on a similar issue, this time of an Alaskan student who unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as spectators and other pupils gathered to watch the passage of an Olympic torch relay. Although the high court decided school officials were within their rights to stop Joseph Frederick from showing that banner during a school event, the ruling set the stage for the victory by the Vermonter. That is because, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, if the Alaskan student's banner had been political -- rather than merely advocating drug use -- it would have been protected under free speech rights. The Alaskan case was clearly the basis for the decision not to hear the appeal of the Guiles ruling, Gilbert said. "They specifically said you cannot censor political speech by a kid this way," in that decision, Gilbert said. "It's got to be related to illegal drug use." Although the Alaska case set the stage for Guiles' victory, not all the justices agreed that political speech by students should be protected. In his opinion in the Alaska case, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Vietnam-era case on which the court's ruling was made mistakenly led to "a sea change in students' speech rights, extending them well beyond traditional bounds." "As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools," Thomas wrote. But the sort of divided decision by the justices -- allowing schools to censor pro-drug messages but not political speech -- is problematic, Lamb said. For instance is a T-shirt with the number 420 on it -- a code for the movement to legalize marijuana -- a political statement or a pro-drug message, he asked. But Guiles said it is possible to judge whether something is making a political statement or not. "It was clearly a political shirt," he said. "In this case it is so clearly pointing out the down sides of using drugs and that is a negative aspect of the president's history." As for Guiles, although he lost his original T-shirt to an evidence drawer during the case, he has since gotten a replacement in a larger size, he said. And he learned that the process may take time, but it can work, he added. "I certainly do count this as a victory," he said. "If there is something wrong it can be taken to the appropriate places. It is good to know that is possible to do." - --- MAP posted-by: Derek