Court Allows Boys’ Protest via Buttons

Lawyer Blogs

[##_1L|1409304334.jpg|width="180" height="128" alt=""|_##]A federal district judge ruled on Thursday that two grade-school students here can wear buttons depicting Hitler Youth to protest having to wear school uniforms. The judge, Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. of Federal District Court in Newark, wrote in a 28-page decision that the button did not "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school."

The judge based his decision in part on a 1969 ruling by the United States Supreme Court that allowed students in Des Moines to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. He wrote that had the button depicted swastikas, a Confederate flag, or a burning cross, it would have been "plainly offensive" and he would have ruled differently.

The schools superintendent, Patricia L. McGeehan, said the district was disappointed in the ruling, and planned to review its options.

Ms. McGeehan said in a statement that the district was "very concerned with the precedent this may set not only for Bayonne but for every public school district in New Jersey that tries to create and maintain a school environment conducive to learning and that is not offensive to students or staff."

The statement added, "Images of racial and ethnic intolerance do not belong in an elementary school classroom."

The dispute over the button began last fall, when Michael DePinto, 11, who was a fifth grader at Public School 14 at the time, objected to the policy.

To protest, he and his mother, Laura, 47, made a button that included a photograph of a group of grim, identically dressed members of Hitler Youth with the words "No School Uniforms" imposed over them.

After Michael wore the button for several weeks, the district sent a letter to his home in November, demanding that he stop or face suspension. Another fifth-grade student, Anthony LaRocco, then began wearing one as well.

After the suspension threat, the boys' parents sued, claiming their First Amendment rights were being denied.

Michael said on Thursday that he had never intended to offend anyone but merely make a point about conformity.

"It's like forcing a swastika on someone," he said. "It's what Hitler did to his youth."



Related listings

  • David Hicks to obey US gag order, says lawyer

    David Hicks to obey US gag order, says lawyer

    Lawyer Blogs 09/20/2007

    [##_1L|1349971076.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]David Hicks has told his lawyer he will abide by the US-ordered ban on speaking to the media when he is released from jail in December. This is despite an acknowledgement by federal Attorney-Ge...

  • Senate rejects bid to let detainees protest in court

    Senate rejects bid to let detainees protest in court

    Lawyer Blogs 09/20/2007

    The Senate rejected legislation Wednesday that would have allowed military detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to protest their detention in federal court.The 56-43 vote fell four shy of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate on the bill...

  • Court Upholds Md. Gay Marriage Ban

    Court Upholds Md. Gay Marriage Ban

    Lawyer Blogs 09/19/2007

    [##_1L|1394621724.jpg|width="120" height="80" alt=""|_##]Plaintiffs vowed to take the fight over gay marriage in Maryland to the Legislature after the state's highest court threw out a suit challenging a law that defines marriage as a union between a...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read