Guilty for saying not guilty

In December 11th news, a Pennsylvania judge cleared four former Pittsburgh-area high school students of harassment for wearing T-shirts with the words "Not Guilty" to school.
The background story was that David Hood of Penn Hills High School argued with a girl about prom expenses. That girl then filed a harassment charge against Hood. Leonard Hromyak, the judge in the case, stated he would dismiss the case provided that Hood stayed out of trouble for 60 days. Hood got into trouble the next day when he, his twin brother, and two friends wore shirts with “Not Guilty” messages on them. As a result all four students were suspended by school officials, and found guilty of harassment by Hromyak. In addition, Hood wasn’t allowed to attend prom or graduate.
The judge’s mishandling of his duties and responsibilities to the First Amendment is almost laughable, if it weren’t for the fact that four students were seriously screwed over, so to say. First off, I’m not an expert on how the lower courts work or even the details of our justice system for the matter. Nonetheless, I think it’s strange that the judge included a “clause” for dismissal of the harassment charge—namely that Hood had to “stay out of trouble for 60 days.” Maybe I’m just ignorant of how things work, but if the harassment charge isn’t legitimate, it should be addressed impartial of Hood’s other independent actions.
It goes without saying that even with the “don’t-get-in-trouble” clause in place; he should’ve never gotten in trouble for exercising his freedom of speech. Wearing a shirt that says “Not guilty” would be just as illegal as wearing a shirt with a Nike slogan, or a shirt saying “I like free food.” In other words, the judge totally got it wrong. There have been complaints of “Islam is of the Devil” shirts worn to school before, and in such cases the defendants were protected under the Freedom of Speech. Keep in mind that we’re talking about the slandering of an entire religion here. In Hood’s case his worst crime was apparently stating his belief that he was innocent. How is that any different or any more illegal than if he said out loud to his friends, “I’m not guilty”?
Fortunately, the students won an appeal on December 9th, and their convictions were overturned. This is a well-deserved redemption for four kids who had their First Amendment rights completely ignored and had to suffer for it.

Siyang Liu