The relevant legal texts are… complicated. Tinker holds that public high schools are subject to the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech, protecting obvious and symbolic speech that is not ‘disruptive’. If kids were actually treated as adults for First Amendment rights law, this shirt would only need to demonstrate that it wasn’t disruptive or obscene, that it was inherently expressive, and that a ban against it was not content-neutral

However, that protection is considered to be weaker than the protection offered to adults, in no small part due to the doctrine of ‘in loco parentis’, which gives schools the ability to act in the place of a legal guardian for some events (read: Nanny State!). Fraser made clear that non-obscene speech could be limited, in this case if it were lewd and indecent — this has been taken to the length of the Broussard decision, where a shirt saying that “Drugs suck” was worth a day suspension, because “suck” has sexual connotations, although this only provides precedent over Fourth District. The recent Morse case demonstrated that schools have the ability to limit speech at all school-sponsored events, on and off school grounds, if that speech runs contrary to the educational mission of the school and/or provides a “serious and palpable” (Robert’s words, not mine) fear of illegal action. In addition, the general viewpoint of what is or is not ‘disruptive’ conduct is also seen as a might bit weaker in schools than out of them.

The end result is that, as in so many other cases, it’s as much about whether your speech is popular as it is about any well-applied standards. I’m sorry to say that, given the legal precedents and popular opinion, this kid’s stuck on the ‘wrong’ side of that.

And if you ask the Brady Bunch the image of a firearm would fit that description perfectly.