ILNews

Student sues over 'I (heart) BOOBIES' bracelet

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a northern Indiana middle school student who believed he would be expelled if he didn’t cover up his bracelet that said “I (heart) BOOBIES.”

L.G. goes to Roosevelt Middle school in Monticello, Ind. In early January, school officials told him to turn inside-out the silicone bracelet with the message on it, as well as the ribbon symbol for breast cancer awareness. Proceeds from the sale of the bracelets go to breast cancer research.

Other students have worn the bracelets without being told by school officials to remove them. L.G. was told by school personnel he would be punished – possibly expelled – if he wore the bracelet again. The student wore the bracelet as a way to instigate conversations about breast cancer.

“The bracelet did not disrupt the educational environment, and the speech here, designed to assist in the fight against breast cancer, is not profane, indecent, lewd, vulgar, or offensive to school purposes, and is therefore protected speech under the First Amendment,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana.

The case, L.G., a minor child, by his father and next friend, Jeremy Glander, v. Twin Lakes School Corporation; Superintendent, Twin Lakes School Corporation, No. 4:12-CV-4, was filed Monday in the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • disruptive conduct and no real harm
    Wow. With all the invasions of civil liberties happening about this over the GWOT and TSA and patriot act, for starters, not to mention the usual assortment of legitimate cases, the ACLU sure does have its hands full making sure kids can disrupt class with boobie bracelets.

    Amazingly poor choice of cases by the ACLU. Is this intended to help flog for donations somehow?

    PS exactly how was the kid harmed? I remember getting told to be quiet in school a thousand times. Can kids now talk whenever they feel like it?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT