The vague nature of the Constitution allows subjective interpretations of many key concepts of the present day political system, one being the meaning of speech. The court has determined that speech can regard the burning of an American flag to the writing in an essay. Somewhere on the spectrum of speech there is the clothing one wears, according to the Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines which laid the groundwork for dress code violations on a Constitutional level. In Tinker, three children wore armbands in protest of the Vietnam War and were suspended for doing so. The court ruled in favor of these children and defined clothing under the freedom of speech and gave the rule of law stating that the interference of ones clothing in schools should be because of "material and substantial interfere".…show more content… The issue is that the idea of determining what dress should be restricted this way is dependent on the people rather than the dress. For example one school may ban shorts in preparation that it may cause a substantial interference but in reality there may be or may not be an interference from the showing of a leg, it merely depends on the people that could take it as an interference. This is not to say substantial interference allows all dress for health risks such as in a hospital or restaurant setting are directly correlated with dress and should be restricted as needed for the safety of others.
Allowing dress codes to become stricter beyond the "material and substantial" rule creates a dangerous precedent for the restriction of first amendment rights. To follow Tinker's rule gives the people the right to determine appropriate dress in a manner that restricts the right to speech the least rather than giving power to boss's or principles to take away first amendment rights