Child suspended for bringing SI to school

[April]

Monday, February 23, 2004


ESPN.com news services
A 12-year-old student at a Belpre, Ohio, school apparently has been suspended for bringing a copy of Sports Illustrated to school.


Of course, it wasn't just any old edition of the magazine.


Sixth-grader Justin Reyes was suspended for three days for bringing Sports Illustrated's swimsuit edition to his public school, Pittsburgh TV station WPXI reported on its Web site on Monday.


Belpre City School District officials said sexually suggestive material is not allowed on school property.


"You saw bad stuff on the Super Bowl halftime show," Justin said. "You could see more on that than in [the magazine]."


A teacher confiscated the magazine and officials recommended Justin spend time at an alternative school. His mother, Nicole, refused, adding that she's outraged the school district considers the magazine to school a delinquent act, WPXI reported.


"That is not sexual harassment. I doubt my 12-year-old is the only one looking at Sports Illustrated," she was quoted as saying.


Is it really sexual harassment? Should he have been suspended?

[MuddPrincess]

Ummmm :confused:

I don't know what to say!

[April]

I've seen worse stuff in Cosmo, I wonder if they'd suspend a 12 yr old girl for bringing that.
I think suspension is a little harsh.

[Quamie]

I think I understand what you are saying. But I can also understand where the school is comming from. I think they are trying to stop an issue from arrising. It is unfortuniate that this child has to be the example, but it should end with him.

I think the thoughts process is that tougher punishments will limit repeat offenders.

Could be could be not who's to say???

[MuddPrincess]

My REAL thoughts....

a 12 year old boy isn't wat a 12 year old boy was when we were 12!!!

They know more, they see more, they do more, they have access to more.

The only thing he did that was bad, that ALL OTHER boys his age haven't done is HE GOT CAUGHT!

He would have been better off going to the local swimming pool and seeing it live for cheaper!

[kingclick]

There is no way that this boy should be suspended. This is ridiculous.

[Peanut]

It is ridiculous the boy was suspended, but also a sad commentary on our culture that a twelve year old boy would defend his careless actions with the "We saw worse stuff at the Super Bowl" defense... :(

[Prisoner]

No, he should not be suspended. His parents should be required to take parenting classes though for allowing their 12 year old access to a magazine containing nudity.

Has anyone commenting actually seen the magazine? I have, it arrived a couple weeks ago. It is NOT a sports magazine, there are exposed breasts and nipples, ass shots. They are very tastefully done, but not appropriate for a 12 year old.

[Peanut]

Prisoner, I confess to never actually having seen a SI Swimsuit Edition. If I want to look at swimwear, I am more likely to pick up a Land End catalog or LL Bean.

I am fairly certain the "swim" wear they show wouldn't be very apropriate for actually swimming...and I would surely cause a lot of undue blindness in my community should I wear any of them! :D

[RogueAngel]

No, he should not be suspended. His parents should be required to take parenting classes though for allowing their 12 year old access to a magazine containing nudity.

Has anyone commenting actually seen the magazine? I have, it arrived a couple weeks ago. It is NOT a sports magazine, there are exposed breasts and nipples, ass shots. They are very tastefully done, but not appropriate for a 12 year old.

I am unsure of where you live, but here in PA, SI is sold on the magazine racks, not behind the counter where the pornography is. It could very well be his parents had no clue he had the magazine.

[Torlain]

Should this child have been suspended, no. This is a national magazine, not pornography. I have seen many issues of SI Swimsuit Edition, and I would let my son look at them, of course, I grew up overseas where nudity is commonplace, so I don't have all the hangups other people do....

[Prisoner]

I am unsure of where you live, but here in PA, SI is sold on the magazine racks, not behind the counter where the pornography is.
I live in Texas and it is sold everywhere too.


It could very well be his parents had no clue he had the magazine.
Shouldn't a parent know what their 12 year old is buying?

[kingclick]

I live in Texas and it is sold everywhere too.


Shouldn't a parent know what their 12 year old is buying?

They CAN but kids are able to buy it. He could have picked it up on the way to school. It's not the fault of the parents for the kid to get ahold of a magazine that is not restricted in sales. I wouldn't even care if my son bought that magazine. It's obviously not about the swimsuits but it's no big deal.

[Prisoner]

What you do in your house with your kid is your business. You do not have the right to force that onto my child in a public school by allowing your kid to bring inappropriate material to the school. Parents are never at fault for what their kids do anymore.

[kingclick]

What you do in your house with your kid is your business. You do not have the right to force that onto my child in a public school by allowing your kid to bring inappropriate material to the school. Parents are never at fault for what their kids do anymore.

There is a big difference between something legally allowed and something that is illegal. SI is not inappropriate by the standards of society or they would have created laws to prevent it from being sold. And if your kid LOOKS at my kids SI then it would be YOUR parenting that should be in question. Because MY kid would not be doing anything wrong.

[Prisoner]

Nudity is not appropriate in the schools. Magazines containing nudity are not permitted in public schools.

You are right, if my kid looks at the nudity that your kid brings to school, I would definately deal with it. I would not excuse it. I am not afraid to be a parent. I take that responsibility seriously and to excuse it as, "well shucks, the kid bought it on his own, so he has every right" is not an answer to me.

[Prisoner]

Because MY kid would not be doing anything wrong.
He would be doing something wrong if bringing a magazine containing nudity to school is a violation of school policy.

[kingclick]

Nudity is not appropriate in the schools. Magazines containing nudity are not permitted in public schools.

You are right, if my kid looks at the nudity that your kid brings to school, I would definately deal with it. I would not excuse it. I am not afraid to be a parent. I take that responsibility seriously and to excuse it as, "well shucks, the kid bought it on his own, so he has every right" is not an answer to me.


Interesting. SI is not considered pornography in my city. It may be in your city but not here. Therefore the point you made is.....invalid.

Now if my boy brought Playboy to school. He would be punished.

[Prisoner]

Interesting. SI is not considered pornography in my city. It may be in your city but not here. Therefore the point you made is.....invalid.

Now if my boy brought Playboy to school. He would be punished.
We are not talking about the city, this is about what is appropriate for schools.

Is nudity permitted in the school that your child attends? That is the issue here.

You are only focusing on the NAME of the magazine, try focusing on the CONTENT of the magazine.

[kingclick]

We are not talking about the city, this is about what is appropriate for schools.

Is nudity permitted in the school that your child attends? That is the issue here.

You are only focusing on the NAME of the magazine, try focusing on the CONTENT of the magazine.

And focusing on the CONTENT......get's me distracted....uh....where was I....OH yeah. Focusing on the content of the magazine shows skin. Not nudity. The standards for what kids can bring to school are based on the public standards of decency. If the city (which is the actual decider of what is indecent, constitutionally speaking) has no prohibitions on SI, then what the boy did was not wrong.

[Prisoner]

Have you even dealt with a school? Apparently not. The fact is, the school sets their own rules.

I suggest that tomorrow, you call your kid's school and ask if magazines containing nudity to include exposed female nipples, even if legally purchased by the child, are permitted.

[Prisoner]

The standards for what kids can bring to school are based on the public standards of decency. If the city (which is the actual decider of what is indecent, constitutionally speaking) has no prohibitions on SI, then what the boy did was not wrong.

From the original post:
Belpre City School District officials said sexually suggestive material is not allowed on school property.

Here's an example of school setting their own policy:(Speaking for the district I live in). I am not stating whether or not I agree with the rules, just showing the existance of rules that differ from the city's laws.

It is perfectly LEGAL for me to give my son a pocketknife and for him to carry it on the street. It is not permissible for him to carry that same knife to school.

It is permissible for an 18 year old to buy a knife, it is not permissible for that same 18 year old to carry that knife on school property.

It is permissible for an 18 year old to buy cigarettes. It is not permissible for that same 18 year old to consume those cigarettes that he purchased legally on school property.

Smoking is not permitted on school property, which includes the football stadium. Therefore, an adult attending a football game must leave the school property and go to the city property, the street in front of the stadium, to smoke a cigarette.

[RogueAngel]

Shouldn't a parent know what their 12 year old is buying?

Should they? Yes. Is it reality? No. Kids can have paper routes, allowances, whatever and take their money and spend it.


Parents are never at fault for what their kids do anymore.

No, it's not the parents fault when children make poor choices. It is the CHILDS fault. He should have to take the consequences for his actions. The parents need to set those consequences. At 12, this boy knows the difference between right and wrong. This is assuming normal parenting has taken place for this child of course. Also, at 12, he is at the age where stuff like this is attractive to him. A normal pre-teen boy. I don't believe he should have been suspended as it is not illegal matieral for him to have. I do believe the magazine should have been taken away from him then given to the parents and they should deal with it at home how they see fit.

[emilina]

I think he should've just been told not to bring the magazine back. A suspension is much too harsh.

Oh, and by the by, I've been a subscriber to SI since I was 12 and I used to bring the swimsuit edition to school to give to one of my male friends. I was quite popular with the boys, as you may imagine.

[kingclick]

From the original post:


Here's an example of school setting their own policy:(Speaking for the district I live in). I am not stating whether or not I agree with the rules, just showing the existance of rules that differ from the city's laws.

It is perfectly LEGAL for me to give my son a pocketknife and for him to carry it on the street. It is not permissible for him to carry that same knife to school.

It is permissible for an 18 year old to buy a knife, it is not permissible for that same 18 year old to carry that knife on school property.

It is permissible for an 18 year old to buy cigarettes. It is not permissible for that same 18 year old to consume those cigarettes that he purchased legally on school property.

Smoking is not permitted on school property, which includes the football stadium. Therefore, an adult attending a football game must leave the school property and go to the city property, the street in front of the stadium, to smoke a cigarette.
Yes. I've dealt with schools. But bringing my "experience" into the debate is not debate has nothing to do with debate.

You do have a point that I will concede though. The schools make the rules and this rule was stated sexually suggestive. A naked woman is not suggestive. A naked woman in a sexual pose is. A naked woman with a naked man is. But Bikini clad women are not sexually suggestive. So again, the boys PARENTS don't need a parenting class. Yes, that is where this discussion is in dispute, you are attempting to blame a parent when the child did nothing illegal or wrong.

[Loveone]

I just have a question, I haven't seen SI in about five or so years now, but when did they start putting nudity in the mag?

[kingclick]

I just have a question, I haven't seen SI in about five or so years now, but when did they start putting nudity in the mag?
Every once in a while they might have a see through top or something like that. But they never show a full breast nor do they show a womans crotch. Saying it's "nudity" is just really pushing the envelope.

[Loveone]

Thanks KL, that's what I thought, but I wasn't sure if they changed things or not. I would love to get this years SI before I make up my mind about this. But if a kid can go into 7-11 and buy it I see nothing wrong with him looking at it, but taking it to school that's up to the school if it's allowed or not, but I don't think he should have been suspended for taking it to school. This is the answer for every little thing with them now adays. I can't even send cough drops to school with my kids anymore, cough drops, can someone tell me what is wrong with that? I sent lemon drops(the candy) with my son once because he had been sick and I knew about the cough drop thing, and he got sent to the office because he had them, but they didn't suspend him, they just call me to find out what it was. But that's another story, another thread.

[Prisoner]

Saying it's "nudity" is just really pushing the envelope.
Define nudity.

[Loveone]

Every once in a while they might have a see through top or something like that. But they never show a full breast nor do they show a womans crotch. Saying it's "nudity" is just really pushing the envelope.
Did you read his post? He defines it for you right in the post.

[Prisoner]

Did you read his post? He defines it for you right in the post.
Actually, he is defining what he thinks I am considering to be nudity.

I asked for his definition of nudity.

[kingclick]

Actually, he is defining what he thinks I am considering to be nudity.

I asked for his definition of nudity.
Without CLOTHES.

A nude person doesn't have socks on or bikinis or sheer tops or parkas around their knees.

[Prisoner]

Without CLOTHES.

A nude person doesn't have socks on or bikinis or sheer tops or parkas around their knees.
Thank you

I took the liberty of scanning a few of the pictures from the magazine and uploading them to my website and I will link to them.

In this picture you will see that this lovely lady apparently didn't get the memo that this was the SWIMSUIT issue. Oh wait, I found the swimsuit, it is hanging on the door handle.
http://www.freespeechforums.net/pics/SI/SI1.jpg

In this one, she actually has the swimsuit bottoms on a part of her body, he ankles. The top is no where in the picture.
http://www.freespeechforums.net/pics/SI/SI3.jpg

In this one, the swimsuit is laying on the beach, next to her feet.
http://www.freespeechforums.net/pics/SI/SI4.jpg

And finally, this one the top to the swimsuit is open and there is clearly some visible nipple.
http://www.freespeechforums.net/pics/SI/SI2.jpg

Now I am confident that you would have to agree that these pictures contain, not an envelope pushing of nudity, but nudity that fits even your definition of nudity and therefore, has no place in an elementary school.

[kingclick]

Nope. Each one of them has part of the body covered by some clothing or something else.

[Prisoner]

Without CLOTHES.

A nude person doesn't have socks on or bikinis or sheer tops or parkas around their knees.
By your own definition, it is nudity.

[kingclick]

They are all with clothes in some way or another. They are partially covered.

[Prisoner]

But Bikini clad women are not sexually suggestive.

These are not bikini clad women.

Every once in a while they might have a see through top or something like that. But they never show a full breast nor do they show a womans crotch. Saying it's "nudity" is just really pushing the envelope.
As long as it isn't full breast, and just showing nipples it is ok to be in elementary schools?

[Prisoner]

They are all with clothes in some way or another. They are partially covered.

They still do not fit even your definition of nudity.

Now you are changing your definition of nudity from "without clothes" to covered by something.

I am glad this school had the guts to stand up to this parent who let their 12 year old run around with this at school. It is just a shame that the kid was punished because the parent lacked common standards of decency.

I guess we will have to just disagree on this one.

[kingclick]

There weren't any nipples in those photos. The one is VERY questionable.

[Prisoner]

There weren't any nipples in those photos. The one is VERY questionable.
Here is the full size scan of it.
http://www.freespeechforums.net/pics/SI/SI2full.jpg

There is no question, but it doesn't matter, it seems that your mind is made up.

[kingclick]

Still is questionable. But assuming that it IS nipple. I still see nothing wrong with it. It's "happenstance" nipple. Not nudity. This woman is very covered.

[Loveone]

Thank you

I took the liberty of scanning a few of the pictures from the magazine and uploading them to my website and I will link to them.

In this picture you will see that this lovely lady apparently didn't get the memo that this was the SWIMSUIT issue. Oh wait, I found the swimsuit, it is hanging on the door handle.
http://www.freespeechforums.net/pics/SI/SI1.jpg

In this one, she actually has the swimsuit bottoms on a part of her body, he ankles. The top is no where in the picture.
http://www.freespeechforums.net/pics/SI/SI3.jpg

In this one, the swimsuit is laying on the beach, next to her feet.
http://www.freespeechforums.net/pics/SI/SI4.jpg

And finally, this one the top to the swimsuit is open and there is clearly some visible nipple.
http://www.freespeechforums.net/pics/SI/SI2.jpg

Now I am confident that you would have to agree that these pictures contain, not an envelope pushing of nudity, but nudity that fits even your definition of nudity and therefore, has no place in an elementary school.
Ok my husband bought the mag today and brought it home and I looked at it, those pics you posted aren't even the ones I thought you were talking about, and I don't see anything wrong with them, you can't see thier nipples, thier butt or there other area.

[Prisoner]

there other area
I never said they did.

The ones I posted were posted to prove that they fit the description of nudity given by KL. That is, until he decided to change his definition. Except of course, for the one with the nipple shot that you all claim is not visible.

It does seem that there has been great success in the people being numbed down by excessive exposure to this stuff and that the majority of people do not care if their kids are exposed to this non-stop and now it is acceptable in elementary schools.

[Loveone]

I was just pointing out that I didn't think of those when I thought ok this one might be bad. There are three or four pics in there where the girl is wearing a sheer top and you can see her breast right through it. Those I thought were bad but not bad enough to not let my eight year old son look at. Now would I let him take the mag to school? No, because I know he might get in trouble by doing so.

[Prisoner]

I understand, I was just letting you know why I posted the one's I did. They were what I considered nudity.

[Loveone]

So you condsider those to be nudity and the ones where you can see thier nipples full one not to be?

[Prisoner]

No, I consider the one with the nipple shot nudity as well and not acceptable for elementary schoolage kids.

[Beelzebub]

Should this child have been suspended, no. This is a national magazine, not pornography. I have seen many issues of SI Swimsuit Edition, and I would let my son look at them, of course, I grew up overseas where nudity is commonplace, so I don't have all the hangups other people do....

My sentiments exactly.

Torlain am I right in saying you grew up in Germany?

If so, did you goto the love parade? :cool:

[Loveone]

My sentiments exactly.

Torlain am I right in saying you grew up in Germany?

If so, did you goto the love parade? :cool:
I'll answer for my loveable hubby, yes he grew up in Germany, but I have no idea about the love parade, I have never heard of him speak of it tho. So I am guessing the answer is no. But that's just a guess.

[Epicurus]

In essence I agree with Prisoner. It doesn't matter if I would allow my kids to view this or not. Those pictures would be perfectly in place in any issue of Playboy. They were nude and sexually suggestive at the same time. The point to me is that the parents who think this is great fare for their 12 yr olds should not be imposing their morality on the other children in the school whose parents do not feel it is appropriate fare.
Correct me if I am wrong, but people don't send their kids to school to look at pictures of naked women. Since I homeschool perhaps I am unaware of the true purpose of public schools. It was said in a debate sometime back that schools should even be responsible to teach kids how to masturbate so perhaps some parents do send their kids for these reasons. I am guessing that most parents don't wish for their kids to be spending their school time in this way.
My 13 yr old does not have the opportunity to buy a girlie magazine behind my back. I know where he is at all times or some other adult in my place does.
I do not think the boy should have been suspended. I think his parents should have been notified and he should have been told what the consequences would have been if he brought it back.
They should save the suspensions for issues dealing with violence IMO.

Collette