You don't seem to understand what a slippery slope is.
Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.
We do indeed have limits on what clothes kids can wear (I've only made this point 2 or 3 times now in this thread). Saying that those limits are "anything someone finds offensive" is a fool's errand. Just accept that someone is going to have to make real rules and real decisions on what they're going to allow.
I agree with you. It's also possible to have regulations and have a clause for a case-by-case basis. By eliminating symbols like the conf flag, cross,cuss words,and hate speech, we've eliminated most of the issues people will complain about. There is always going to be that one person that complains no matter what you do. The idea is to make realistic common sense fixes without trending on the freedom of speech. There are real rules in place at most schools. I know at a lot of high schools, you can't wear gang colors. You can't wear cuss words, racist lingo, or anything else that is perceived to be controversial.
The bottom line is clothes is the least of our worries though. This kid smells, wears glasses, looks like Steve Rogers pre-super soldier formula, you get the idea. The school board in this case has the right to make rules that will restrict harassment and adhere to common decency. The idea is to not go overboard and blame clothes for the society problems that exist regardless. Edited, Oct 5th 2011 10:04pm by ShadowedgeFFXI