A New Way to Dispel Dissent

Outlaw speech entirely.

The rationalization used by these folks for disallowing any flag t-shirts on the 6th anniversary of 9/11 is one that has gained significant public and judicial acceptance in the last few years. In order to avoid a problem with "content-specific" regulations governing speech (which are subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard in constitutional jurisprudence), schools and other government organizations are outlawing all speech on specific points. These "content-neutral" restrictions on speech are much easier to defend in the event that someone brings a lawsuit.

But does this modern jurisprudential theme comport with the ideas that the 1st Amendment was designed to protect?

This humble editor would posit that, NO, it does not. While the idea that content-specific restrictions on speech are subjected to strict scrutiny (the highest standard in constitutional jurisprudence) has merit, it's apparent syllogistic off-shoot (that content-neutral restrictions on speech are subjected to a lower standard) does not. In operation, this allows the government to restrict entire fields of speech; in the example above, these high school students were prevented from making any kind of statement about the 6-year anniversary of a national tragedy in order to avoid a possible 1st Amendment issue (as would have arisen if teachers had asked a student to remove a t-shirt with an Iranian flag, or a picture of Osama bin Laden). So, in it's attempt to protect minority speech, the current state of 1st Amendment jurisprudence has allowed for the silencing of all speech on particular issues.

EDIT: The rule has been repealed. Apparently, the rule was instituted after the school received "information from law enforcement of gangs wearing foreign flags as gang symbols." Nothing says "street" like the French flag on a t-shirt. "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, BITCH."