Year Book Photo Rejected

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » December 13, 2006, 1:55 pm

Link has the picture

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16175420/

Mom sues over rejection of yearbook photo
Senior’s picture with sword nixed because of school’s no-weapons policy

Updated: 6:38 p.m. CT Dec 12, 2006
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - The mother of a high school senior who posed in chain mail and held a medieval sword for his yearbook picture sued after the school rejected the photo because of its "zero-tolerance" policy against weapons.

Patrick Agin, 17, belongs to the Society for Creative Anachronism, an international organization that researches and recreates medieval history. He submitted the photo in September for the Portsmouth High School yearbook.

But the school's principal refused to allow the portrait as Agin's official yearbook photo because he said it violated a policy against weapons and violence in schools, according to a lawsuit filed Monday by the Rhode Island branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » December 13, 2006, 2:02 pm

Idiocy in action. Here's my favorite part of the article

The complaint says there is nothing in the weapons policy that would apply to the picture Agin submitted. It also says the weapons policy is arbitrarily enforced, noting theatrical plays at the school have included prop weapons and that the mascot — a patriot — is depicted on school grounds and publications as carrying a weapon.

P.S. All that aside, JFC wtf would you want to be remembered as the asshat dressed like knight?

laneela · Post by **laneela** » December 13, 2006, 2:07 pm

What I find most ridiculous is someone suing because their picure won't be in a yearbook. Seriously, who is that hurting? Is the kid going to be damaged for life because of it? The sue-happy mentality the americans has developed is absolutely hysterical.

Post by **Sylvus** » December 13, 2006, 2:27 pm

I mean, some people liked high school enough to want to be in the yearbook. I always liked that I was on practically every page. I can't tell you the last time I looked at my yearbook, but every time I have it's brought back good memories and put a smile on my face. If she's looking for money, I think that's pretty lame, but if they're just trying to get the principal to allow the kid's picture to be in the yearbook, that doesn't seem too crazy to me.

That said, I can't imagine someone who is a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism having that great of a time in High School that they'd want to preserve those memories. Sorry to those of you who are/were in that, I'd assume that some readers are, but that kind of person just caught a lot of shit at my school.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 13, 2006, 2:42 pm

The pommel of the hilt of that sword is bigger than his fucking head!

-Goodfellas

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » December 13, 2006, 3:57 pm

It seems odd that the school allows plays to have prop weapons and the mascot and such. What im wondering is what was the policy on the pictures? Did they allow students to have props of any kind? If the policy says no props then i think too fucking bad for the kid, it says no props. However since the article says no one from the school invoked any such policy, I doubt they had one. They should just let the kid do it anyway and get the suit dropped. Fuck the mom though, schools have little enough money as is.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » December 13, 2006, 4:03 pm

Sueing does not mean she is after money. ACLU wouldn't take a case like that...it isn't what they do. She is sueing to force the school to include the photograph.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 13, 2006, 10:18 pm

laneela wrote:What I find most ridiculous is someone suing because their picure won't be in a yearbook. Seriously, who is that hurting? Is the kid going to be damaged for life because of it? The sue-happy mentality the americans has developed is absolutely hysterical.

what other option do they have if their request has already been blocked and they think it is unfair? ask again really, really nicely?

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » December 13, 2006, 10:44 pm

IF she had sued for money, I'd be saying she's a stupid fucking bitch. However, that is not the case. In this case the school is fucking pathetic and I hope they fire the overly-sensetive ass-munch that pressed the issue of banning his photo.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » December 13, 2006, 11:03 pm

Ashur wrote:Idiocy in action. Here's my favorite part of the article

The complaint says there is nothing in the weapons policy that would apply to the picture Agin submitted. It also says the weapons policy is arbitrarily enforced, noting theatrical plays at the school have included prop weapons and that the mascot — a patriot — is depicted on school grounds and publications as carrying a weapon.
P.S. All that aside, JFC wtf would you want to be remembered as the asshat dressed like knight?

He's passionate about something. What is wrong with that? I respect him for being so into something that assholes like you haven't scared him away.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 14, 2006, 3:23 am

haha, LARP'er

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » December 14, 2006, 10:01 am

I don't think this kid is a LARPer. Seems more like one of those delusional sorts that is longing for simpler days back when you could split some pissants head open with a giant sword....

Morgrym · Post by **Morgrym** » December 14, 2006, 10:14 am

Think he would have been denied if he was the star QB?

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » December 14, 2006, 11:48 am

Something like this happened back in '04.
A kid that was an avid hunter, gun enthusist, and NRA member wanted his yearbook picture to be one with him in a hunter outfit with a shotgun and got denied.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 14, 2006, 1:05 pm

Couldn't he just ask to retake the picture without the sword? Seems like the logical thing to do instead of suing.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » December 14, 2006, 1:28 pm

kyoukan wrote:
laneela wrote:What I find most ridiculous is someone suing because their picure won't be in a yearbook. Seriously, who is that hurting? Is the kid going to be damaged for life because of it? The sue-happy mentality the americans has developed is absolutely hysterical.
what other option do they have if their request has already been blocked and they think it is unfair? ask again really, really nicely?

Yeah, why not. They can try that... Or they can either get over it and deal with the concequences of not making sure that that kind of picture was suitable for the yearbook beforehand or ask if they'll allow him to submit another picture - one that doesn't go against school policy (a school policy that I don't feel is infringing on anyone's human rights)

My issue is that in suing, they're wasting people's time and money on what is basically a kid's whim. While I believe that not having your picture may suck, I really don't find it detrimental.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 14, 2006, 1:36 pm

In this case it appears that the school is selectively enforcing a 'zero tolerance' policy on weapons. I would consider that an injustice and sue for my right to have my picture put in there too.

Only I'm not a fucking weirdo LARP'er who has a sword and chainmail armor.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he can re-submit a different picture. You shouldn't have to 'suck it up' when a wrong has been commited against you.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » December 14, 2006, 3:12 pm

How are they selectively enforcing the rule?
Is there evidence of another student getting a picture in the book with a weapon?

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 14, 2006, 3:46 pm

Sabek wrote:How are they selectively enforcing the rule?
Is there evidence of another student getting a picture in the book with a weapon?

Yes. The mascot, who is a patriot, has a weapon. I'm quite sure he will make it in the yearbook a time or two.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » December 14, 2006, 3:47 pm

Sabek wrote:How are they selectively enforcing the rule?
Is there evidence of another student getting a picture in the book with a weapon?

Read the bit at the end of the article about the patriot mascot who has a weapon (or somesuch situation).

Edit: F Zamtuk.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » December 14, 2006, 4:43 pm

Leonaerd wrote:
Ashur wrote:Idiocy in action. Here's my favorite part of the article

The complaint says there is nothing in the weapons policy that would apply to the picture Agin submitted. It also says the weapons policy is arbitrarily enforced, noting theatrical plays at the school have included prop weapons and that the mascot — a patriot — is depicted on school grounds and publications as carrying a weapon.
P.S. All that aside, JFC wtf would you want to be remembered as the asshat dressed like knight?
He's passionate about something. What is wrong with that? I respect him for being so into something that assholes like you haven't scared him away.

It's obvious you are just ignorant and call me an asshole based on that ignorance.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » December 14, 2006, 5:02 pm

I say let him do it, and if a child wants to wear a Black Panthers t shirt or a KKK outfit why not let them.

dont forget the Trench Coat Mafia.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » December 14, 2006, 5:33 pm

Cartalas wrote:I say let him do it, and if a child wants to wear a Black Panthers t shirt or a KKK outfit why not let them.

dont forget the Trench Coat Mafia.

Because Knights in Armour are so closely related to the aforementioned...

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » December 14, 2006, 5:36 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Cartalas wrote:I say let him do it, and if a child wants to wear a Black Panthers t shirt or a KKK outfit why not let them.

dont forget the Trench Coat Mafia.
Because Knights in Armour are so closely related to the aforementioned...

Im sorry your right they only killed muslims.

Al · Post by Al » December 14, 2006, 6:14 pm

The definition of weapon is vague, at best. In the proper situation, nearly anything can be used as one. A weapon is merely a tool, being used to accomplish a task. A hammer is a tool, and no one would consider telling a contractor he couldn't use his hammer in the school. A hammer is also a very deadly weapon. I don't see the problem with this kids picture. I have seen people pose in Marines uniform with sword in hand for their senior picture. This is silly, and the lawsuit is reasonable because the school is being silly. Mind you, the lawsuit is silly as well. I wouldn't go to court over my picture in a yearbook, especially not THAT picture, heh.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 14, 2006, 6:59 pm

I knew it was just a matter of time before someone says something about anything being a weapon. Its such a lame argument.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » December 14, 2006, 8:00 pm

Clothing can be a weapon so we should require all students to pose without clothing for year book pictures. And technically, teeth can be used to bite out someone's jugular, so smiling should be prohibited unless a student elects to have his/her teeth removed.

Personally I think the kid (really his parent) should have used their noggin before expecting a picture with a giant f-ing sword in it would be accepted. He has the right to have whatever pictures of himself at home, but what the school publishes is their choice. Tough shit for the kid that someone didn't have the sense to question it before taking the picture. If they let him take a pic with a sword, then next year some hoodlum wants to pose with a pistol. Children need explicit rules.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » December 14, 2006, 11:40 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Cartalas wrote:I say let him do it, and if a child wants to wear a Black Panthers t shirt or a KKK outfit why not let them.

dont forget the Trench Coat Mafia.
Because Knights in Armour are so closely related to the aforementioned...
Im sorry your right they only killed muslims.

Yeah those darn french muslims at Agincourt...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 14, 2006, 11:48 pm

Lalanae wrote:Personally I think the kid (really his parent) should have used their noggin before expecting a picture with a giant f-ing sword in it would be accepted. He has the right to have whatever pictures of himself at home, but what the school publishes is their choice. Tough shit for the kid that someone didn't have the sense to question it before taking the picture. If they let him take a pic with a sword, then next year some hoodlum wants to pose with a pistol. Children need explicit rules.

There is a big difference between posing with a gun in order to look gangsta and posing with a sword which is basically a prop for a globally recognized organization.

When I was in high school we had fencing as an extra cirricular event. There is a picture of me in my grade 12 yearbook with an epee. I'm sure there are lots of schools in the US with fencing clubs that would have their pictures and the school wouldnt worry about it with a no weapons policy. This is not that much different.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » December 15, 2006, 12:46 am

Another reason why zero tolerance rules are bullshit. Painting everything black and white just leads to trouble.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 15, 2006, 1:17 am

Morgrym wrote:

Think he would have been denied if he was the star QB?

The sword could be interpreted as a phallic symbol but I'd allow this picture due to the great mug holder on his belt. There was a bar in college that had "Big Ass Beer" night on Wednesdays but you had to bring the special mug you originally purchased there for the cheap beer all night. That belt would have come in handy!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » December 15, 2006, 1:24 am

christ on a stick, what a pathetic loser that guy is.

How embarrased is he going to be in about 5 years when it dawns on him how absolutely fucking stupid he looks.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 15, 2006, 1:40 am

Nick wrote:christ on a stick, what a pathetic loser that guy is.

How embarrased is he going to be in about 5 years when it dawns on him how absolutely fucking stupid he looks.

I think you're having reincarnation visions back to when an English soldier beat your ass dressed like that!

rawr

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » December 15, 2006, 6:49 am

Winnow wrote:
Nick wrote:christ on a stick, what a pathetic loser that guy is.

How embarrased is he going to be in about 5 years when it dawns on him how absolutely fucking stupid he looks.
I think you're having reincarnation visions back to when an English soldier beat your ass dressed like that!

rawr

Ohh, that one hurt

And they didnt look like that, they were a few years younger, and didnt have bigass mugs

Al · Post by Al » December 15, 2006, 4:31 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Cartalas wrote:I say let him do it, and if a child wants to wear a Black Panthers t shirt or a KKK outfit why not let them.

dont forget the Trench Coat Mafia.
Because Knights in Armour are so closely related to the aforementioned...
Im sorry your right they only killed muslims.
Yeah those darn french muslims at Agincourt...

Don't forget the Germanic Muslim tribes, and those Muslim Britons and Celts. And the Gothic Islamists. Oh, and the Saracens. Wait... that last one really does refer to an Islamic civilization.

Gemily · Post by **Gemily** » December 17, 2006, 8:53 pm

I think he looks cool. I hope he wins his lawsuit.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » December 18, 2006, 6:15 am

Can the school decided what to write under a picture?
Then they should let him get the pic in the book, and write "this loser actually tried to sue us to get this picture in the yearbook, feel free to laugh" or something similar.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » December 18, 2006, 12:26 pm

Hesten wrote:Can the school decided what to write under a picture?
Then they should let him get the pic in the book, and write "this loser actually tried to sue us to get this picture in the yearbook, feel free to laugh" or something similar.

Hrmmmm that would make for a different lawsuit entirely.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » December 18, 2006, 11:08 pm

I dont see what the big deal is, let the kid have his picture in the book. Im sure it will lead to some slippery slope, who cares fight that battle when its worth fighting...kid with sword who is a member of some organization not bent on fucking with other people is not really worth stirring shit up over

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » December 19, 2006, 1:15 pm

WTF? If I remember right, the senior portrait pictures are pretty small....after they scaled that thing down & squeezed it in amongst the rest of the "normal" portraits....anyone who looked at it would be thinking '''wtf am I looking at? What the hell is he wearing? is that a sword he's carrying? I say let the dumbass have his way....and let him regret it a few years later!!

Post by **Sylvus** » December 19, 2006, 1:35 pm

Granted, I went to a small High School, but the seniors each got their own page in the Yearbook. I think mine had 4-6 pictures on it, and I could make them whatever size I wanted.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » December 19, 2006, 11:04 pm

Sylvus wrote:Granted, I went to a small High School, but the seniors each got their own page in the Yearbook. I think mine had 4-6 pictures on it, and I could make them whatever size I wanted.

I must be old, I think the most popular/rich kids may have had 4-6 photos in the whole yearbook....nobody had their own page. We did have advertizing space in the back of the book where companies could advertise in a space a little bigger then a credit card...many where bought up by families congratulating their kids.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » December 19, 2006, 11:12 pm

We had 200+ in my senior class. I don't think the yearbook even had that many pages in it!

Tuddi2 · Post by **Tuddi2** » December 20, 2006, 7:27 am

Winnow wrote:The pommel of the hilt of that sword is bigger than his fucking head!

well it is a two handed sword, the kind used by footsoldiers to get mounted enemies of their horse among other things.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » January 30, 2007, 4:50 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/01/30 ... index.html

The school is printing the photo because they can't afford to fight it legally.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 30, 2007, 9:55 pm

Seems more like they are doing it because:

The state education commissioner this month ordered the district to print the photo. School officials can regulate the yearbook's content, the commissioner said, but rules were being enforced unfairly, since past editions of the yearbook contain photos of toy guns, arrows and a knife. The school band's banner depicts a rifle-toting patriot.

And the attorney just doesn't want say they were wrong.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 30, 2007, 10:52 pm

Once again the ACLU comes through again for another victory in the name of justice.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 1, 2007, 1:22 pm

FOR GREAT JUSTICE!