Watch It, Kiddo

_______

Ranger Question of the Day:
How could calling GWB a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and who is engaged in a world domination tour, be construed as political speech? Isn't it the truth?
________

In line with the previous post, several airlines passengers in recent weeks have been kept from boarding their flights due to their wearing incendiary, anti-Bush T-shirts which "upset" some fellow passengers. This behavior is the very thing that makes Section 1076 so necessary.

I will include the following Supreme Court ruling from late June '07, which no doubt gives further justification:

"The Court rejected a school district's appeal of a ruling that it violated a student's rights by censoring his anti-Bush T-shirt.

"A seventh-grader from Vermont was suspended for wearing a shirt that bore 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.'

"After his suspension, Zachary Guiles returned to school with duct tape covering the offending images.

"Williamstown Middle School Principal Kathleen Morris-Kortz said the images violated the school dress code, which prohibits clothing that promotes the use of drugs or alcohol. (?)

"An appeals court said the school had no right to censor any part of the shirt.

"On Monday, the court said schools could regulate student expression if it advocated illegal drug use. Justice Samuel Alito cautioned that schools could not censor political speech.

"The case is Marineau v. Guiles, 06-757" (Court Allows Student's Anti-Bush T-Shirt.)

This kid is coming dangerously close to being the cause of an invocation of a 1076. Can't you see -- his T-shirt would have promoted a glut of drinking and carousing, so enamored is GWB's student base of all things presidential. Thank god for duct tape; even the first HSS Czar Ridge sagely recognized its many uses for keeping the Homeland safe.

America is coming perilously close to slipping its gears when a Supreme Court decision is needed in order for citizens to express basic truths in a manner reflecting constitutionally protected rights.

The military is required under pain of legal bludgeoning not to say anything derogatory about the Commander in Chief. But is it derogatory if it is the truth?