From the moment 13 News first broke this story on 13 News at 11 on Thursday, emails, Facebook posts and phone calls from people all across the country have been pouring in. Despite all of the attention, Jared Marcum and his family say they’re no closer to a resolution than they were when it all began.

Jared Marcum, an 8th grade student, was suspended, arrested and is now facing two charges after refusing to change his shirt.
“People are saying that I did the right thing, that they’re proud,” Jared said.
The 14-year-old student at Logan Middle School in Logan, West Virginia says the NRA shirt that sparked the controversy now symbolizes a fight that is just getting started.
What they’re doing is trying to take away my rights, my freedom of speech and my second amendment,” Jared said.
You can take the firearms out of the equation, what this about is fundamental rights,” Jared’s father Allen Lardieri said. 
Lardieri says his questions for the school district remain unanswered.
“I’m still confused, thoroughly confused,” he said.  ”They school didn’t even make a statement to the news agencies, much less myself.”
After several attempts the only comment 13 News received from the Logan County School District was no comment.
They gave me no paperwork, all they said to my mother was not to bring me back to school the next day,” Jared said.
So, while Jared spent the first day of his suspension at home, some of his friends showed their support for Jared at school.
“I did try to wear a shirt with guns on it and I was told to take it off,” Jared’s friend Dustin Vickers said.
One question that many are asking is how clothing that displays images of firearms can be punishable when a statue with a soldier carrying both a gun and a grenade stands proudly in the school parking lot.
“No matter all the attention, I have a genuine fear for my son,” Lardieri said.  ”I do not know where his future lies.  He has criminal charges, he has a bright future, this could do a lot to damage that”
13 News was contacted by Benjamin White, the attorney handling Jared’s case.  White says first, they’ll be working on getting the charges, obstruction and disturbing the education process, dropped. Then, they plan on filing any federal or civil suit that is in order.

Fed Judge Rules In Favor Of Attack Ads At MTA Stations Targeting Radical Muslims Transit Agency Overruled; Pro-Israeli Ads To Include Terms ‘Savage’ And ‘Jihad’ - FREEDOM OF SPEECH BABY :)

MTA pro-Israel ad

(via Whoopi Defends Chick-Fil-A)

I mostly disagree with her politics, but good for you Woopi.

antigovernmentextremist:

philosophicallust:

waycoolhacky:

brttnywht:

lovelesss-sorrow:

My meme is so accurate omg

*except when the owner of Chik-Fil-A uses the money he makes to make sure those he doesn’t agree with can’t have the same rights as him because he thinks he’s better because of the God he believes in.

 To be honest, this thought has crossed my mind. This is coming from a person that would eat Chick Fil A like 3 times a week. Now, I haven’t eaten there in almost 3 weeks.
I would be perfectly fine if he simply said he didn’t agree with it. Honestly, I would because of the fact everyone simply can say how they feel about a topic, even if I don’t agree with it. Yet it is the fact that they do use the money to support the denial of a certain group of people’s rights that simply bothers me beyond all words. I don’t eat meat to begin with so going there never really happened for me, but I find it interesting to watch as this unfolds. At nearby Chick Fil A establishments in Oklahoma, there are people going there to support the company and rallying there in support. There are also people doing sit-ins against the company. It’s all very fascinating to watch.

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.” — F.A. Hayek
This is ultimately what the debate is about. Do we justify local governments and their actions to bar Chik-fil-a from opening stores in their areas on the arbitrary fact that the CEO holds an “undesirable” opinion? Is the disapproval of gay marriage enough to justify the use of force to prevent individuals from trading voluntarily with one another.
If you say “yes” then you must invariably support the same treatment to firms that hold your opinions. How would you feel if conservative cities started preventing Planned Parenthoods from opening under the justification that PP “denies unborn humans their right to life?”
You have to support the freedom of speech at all times. You must support Chik-fil-a’s right to free speech as much as Westboro Baptist Church’s right to free speech as much as our right to free speech. In fact, it’s more important to make sure the speech you disagree with is protected because that’s the only way a debate can be had. If you try to stifle or chill dissenting opinion by witholding business permits for “undesirables” then you shut down discussion before it even starts.

This girl must want to shave her head and hide after all the great memes.

antigovernmentextremist:

philosophicallust:

waycoolhacky:

brttnywht:

lovelesss-sorrow:

My meme is so accurate omg

*except when the owner of Chik-Fil-A uses the money he makes to make sure those he doesn’t agree with can’t have the same rights as him because he thinks he’s better because of the God he believes in.


To be honest, this thought has crossed my mind. This is coming from a person that would eat Chick Fil A like 3 times a week. Now, I haven’t eaten there in almost 3 weeks.

I would be perfectly fine if he simply said he didn’t agree with it. Honestly, I would because of the fact everyone simply can say how they feel about a topic, even if I don’t agree with it. Yet it is the fact that they do use the money to support the denial of a certain group of people’s rights that simply bothers me beyond all words. I don’t eat meat to begin with so going there never really happened for me, but I find it interesting to watch as this unfolds. At nearby Chick Fil A establishments in Oklahoma, there are people going there to support the company and rallying there in support. There are also people doing sit-ins against the company. It’s all very fascinating to watch.

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.” — F.A. Hayek

This is ultimately what the debate is about. Do we justify local governments and their actions to bar Chik-fil-a from opening stores in their areas on the arbitrary fact that the CEO holds an “undesirable” opinion? Is the disapproval of gay marriage enough to justify the use of force to prevent individuals from trading voluntarily with one another.

If you say “yes” then you must invariably support the same treatment to firms that hold your opinions. How would you feel if conservative cities started preventing Planned Parenthoods from opening under the justification that PP “denies unborn humans their right to life?”

You have to support the freedom of speech at all times. You must support Chik-fil-a’s right to free speech as much as Westboro Baptist Church’s right to free speech as much as our right to free speech. In fact, it’s more important to make sure the speech you disagree with is protected because that’s the only way a debate can be had. If you try to stifle or chill dissenting opinion by witholding business permits for “undesirables” then you shut down discussion before it even starts.

This girl must want to shave her head and hide after all the great memes.