In general I fall into the libertarian perspective when it comes to regulations such as these. This means I tend to despise most regulation on speech and expression except in the most extreme circumstances. However, given the 10 year record homicide rate and the shamefully low percentage of “solved” homicides it is clear that we have a terrible problem on our hands and the potential for one of those “extreme” circumstances. I would have to argue that in the present circumstances the best efforts of law enforcement are being thwarted by, literally, thugs. The societal pressure that surrounds these “codes of silence” is intense and difficult to combat. If our streets are to be safe however then we must figure out ways to combat this pressure.
So I think we need to look at the expression being made by the t-shirt. The shirt’s intent is to convey a message which is that one does not turn his or her back on the community for the benefit of the police. From what I have gathered the idea is that the community takes care of itself. The expression made by the t-shirts is as clear as if a juror held a sign saying their vote could be bought for $50. I do not believe that a juror offering her “services” would be allowed to have such a sign or even to make such an offer. One reason for this is that the offer would be an illegal criminal conspiracy. So this example leaves me to wonder why we should allow a court visitor to wear a t-shirt which the purpose of is to remind a witness of the penalty for “snitching.” Isn’t such a shirt as much an obstruction of justice as the juror offering her vote? And if so then aren’t we as justified to ban the shirt as we are the sign without trampling on our precious freedom of expression? I am curious to hear what others think.
… but it’s my impression that a judge can do whatever he damn well pleases to keep order. And I don’t think that a “Stop Snitchin'” t-shirt does much except threaten the proper running of a courtroom, i.e. that’s the whole point of the shirt.