Judge Says Student's 'Gun T-Shirts' OK At School

WISCONSIN — A Wisconsin High School freshman who sued his high school in federal court, claiming his First Amendment rights were violated when he was banned - and later punished - for wearing T-shirts depicting a variety of guns to class, cleared a major hurdle Friday when a federal judge said that the student's shirts were a form of protected political speech.

Earlier in 2018, Markesan high school student Matthew Schoenecker said principal John Koopman ordered him to either change or cover the graphics on his T-shirts - or face a day in a windowless isolation room with no interaction or instruction from teachers. One shirt had a variety of weapons and the words 'Celebrate Diversity' and another that spells out "LOVE" with a handgun, a grenade, two knives and an assault rifle.

Gun advocacy group Wisconsin Carry funded Schoenecker's legal challenge in the U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Wisconsin, claiming that the principal violated Schoenecker's freedom of expression by banning him from wearing clothing that showed firearms in a "non-violent, non-threatening manner."Koopman tried to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman issued a preliminary injunction while denying the principal's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

"With respect to the "If Guns Kill People ..." shirt, the answer is easy: wearing the shirt is protected expression because it states an opinion about gun ownership," Adelman wrote. "Using an analogy, the shirt makes the obvious point that a gun is an inanimate object and therefore can't kill a person unless someone uses it. This is a common argument made by those who oppose gun control and any person who saw the shirt would readily understand it to mean that the plaintiff opposed laws restricting private ownership of firearms. Thus, when he wears the shirt, the plaintiff expresses his personal belief on a matter of public concern. Expressing that belief is protected by the First Amendment."

Adelman continued, stating that the shirts by themselves were not the reason for the subsequent media attention and disruptions that took place at the school.

"The media would not have taken an interest in the plaintiff's conduct had the defendant simply allowed the plaintiff to continue wearing the shirts," Adelman wrote. "So even if the media presence qualifies as a substantial disruption, the disruption cannot be attributed to the shirts themselves."

Image Via Youtube Screenshot