Washington — A former high school student says he had a free-speech right to wear Marilyn Manson T-shirts to class. But school officials banned them as offensive, and on Monday the student lost a Supreme Court appeal.
The court, without comment, turned down the Ohio student's argument that school officials could not keep him from wearing T-shirts depicting Manson, a "shock rock" star who took his stage name from Marilyn Monroe and mass killer Charles Manson.
Marilyn Manson
Nicholas J. Boroff was a senior when he arrived at Van Wert High School in Van Wert, Ohio, in August 1997 wearing a Marilyn Manson T-shirt. Manson's real name is Brian Warner, and his group also is named Marilyn Manson.
The front of the shirt depicted a three-faced Jesus and the back of the shirt said "believe" with the letters "lie" highlighted.
A school administrator told Boroff the shirt was offensive and told him to either turn it inside out, go home and change, or leave and be considered truant.
Boroff left, and returned each of the next four school days wearing other Marilyn Manson T-shirts. Each time he was told he could not attend class wearing the shirt.
Boroff sued, saying school officials violated his constitutional rights to free speech and due process. A federal judge ruled for the school district, and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
School officials could ban the shirts because they were determined to be "vulgar, offensive and contrary to the educational mission of the school," the appeals court said, noting that school officials submitted evidence of the group's "pro-drug persona."
Public schools can prohibit students from wearing shirts that are offensive, even if they are not obscene and have not caused a substantial disruption of the school program, the appeals court said.
In another case on Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear Pizza Hut's argument that Papa John's slogan "Better ingredients. Better pizza," should be considered false advertising.
The court, without comment, turned down an appeal by Pizza Hut, which won and then lost a false-advertising lawsuit against Papa John's.
Pizza Hut filed a federal false-advertising lawsuit against Papa John's in Dallas in 1998, saying scientific evidence showed that Papa John's methods and ingredients made no difference in the pizza's taste.
A jury ruled that Papa John's claims of better sauce and dough were false or misleading. The judge barred the pizza chain from using the "Better ingredients. Better pizza" slogan and awarded Pizza Hut $467,619 in damages.
But a federal appeals court threw out the verdict last September and ruled for Papa John's. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the jurors were asked whether the ads were likely to deceive consumers, but they were never asked whether consumers actually relied on the claims in deciding what pizza to buy.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.