Analysis: What the narrative was trying to elucidate was that 3 siblings from Omaha, Nebraska, were honoring a friend, Julius Robinson, who passed away. Dan, Nick, and Cassie Kuhr were practicing thier amendment rights, by creating t-shirts, wristbands, and key chains. This was so that they could honor Julius and give the opportunity to give money to his family. Nevertheless, their rights were being threatened, since that Millard South High School (school that the Kuhrs went to) told them they were prohibited from wearing the shirts (because of gang alliances, response: refused, suspended for 2 days, lead up to a protest of 30 students). However, the district court judge, Laurie Smith Camp, denied to dismiss the case. Plus, she said that even though the school may have overreacted, it still cannot hesitate as far as the safety of the students is concerned. In the process, Brian Jorde, Kuhr's lawyer, asked questions, such as comparing being suspended or practicing your 1st amendment rights interrupting education more. In my opinion, I would have to coincide with the article. I believe this, because all the Kuhrs were striving to do was to honor someone who was killed in a gun incident. They were never trying to harm the school in any way. My final thought: Although the school was attempting to protect its students from gang confederacies, it may have ended up getting carried away. Because of standing up to the school and the court for what the Kuhrs believed was right, I credit their actions as constitutional.
Nebraska siblings who honored a slain friend can have their day in court, as federal judge won't dismiss their case against school that barred the clothing.
Via Casey Tumblety, dsnow37