You know how we get there? By putting societal pressure on the people who defend that flag - the flag of treason, of slavery, of lynching, of murder, of oppression, of Jim Crow - as something that, gosh, not everyone is offended by.
Absolutely. Sign me up. I would thrilled if there was never another one made and people that wear or fly them were shunned. I just dont think it’s the school or government’s place to ban it to get us there.
You’re also absolutely happy not to ever hear anyone say “fucking subhuman niggers” again but it should be phased out organically, not by the school punishing anyone who says that?
I refer back to the court standard: The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they “must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” that the conduct that would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.”
I trust you can see where “Fucking subhuman nigger” differs from the C.F. based on this standard.
This says more about you than it does about the rest of us. The idea that this flag does not belittle, marginalize or harm millions of Americans is completely ludicrous.
No, because I’m not required to tolerate their intolerance. Racists find black people offensive, I don’t have to listen to them either.
Is it different than “I like the people who enslaved your ancestors, and wish they won the war?”
You are butting up against the paradox of tolerance. A tolerant society has no obligation to tolerate bigots.
Can you not see how your argument boils down to: ban the things my side hates and permit the things my side like? Can you really not see where this opens your side up to problems when they are not in control?
If you literally can’t see the difference between tolerance and intolerance, then it’s just might makes right that you believe in.
I suspect part of the question here is what is meant by
If “disruption” means that fights are breaking out, whether physical or people screaming at each other: that’s one kind of meaning. But it’s “disruption or distraction to the educational process.” And that might easily be happening without anyone fighting or arguing. Some students, when their educational process is disrupted and their minds distracted by the evidence that other students are flying the flag of a slave-holding society and the school administration seems fine with that, may react by shutting down instead of by visibly or audibly protesting.
And I don’t think the First Amendment’s got much to do with it; at least, not if the school’s outlawing the Playboy bunny and mentions of beer, which are certainly protected by the First Amendment.
I have no earthly idea how this relates to anything I have said. If it wasn’t directed at me, I apologize.
The “things my side hates” is promoting the enslavement of people. Celebrating people who fought to enslave others, whose entire claim to fame is the fight to continue slavery. Claiming that their ‘cultural heritage’ is about the fight for slavery, and they LOVE their heritage.
The “things my side likes” is letting people love the people they love. Letting people be who they believe themselves to be, without hate or judgement.
If people who love slavery, racism, sexism, brutality and judgement are in control, I guarantee this debate we’re having isn’t going to happen again. It doesn’t matter AT ALL what precedent we set if hateful monsters are in control, they will do whatever the fuck they want to whoever the fuck they want, my evidence is the 20th Century.
BTW, if you want the monsters in control, the first step is letting them believe their twisted beliefs are just as valid as anyone else’s.
Of course it’s directed at you.
Your argument seems to be that if we insist on tolerance when the tolerant are in power, don’t complain when the intolerant trample you when they are in power.
I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
My argument is that the government doesn’t get to ban speech just because the speech is unpopular or offensive. If anyone finds that concept to be offensive, I don’t much care.
Schools dont get to ban speech just because its offensive. They have to show that it’s actually disruptive. You may want the CF to automatically be disruptive. Show me a court that has found that. There are hundreds of very liberal school districts in the country. Do you really think they wouldn’t ban the CF if they thought they could get away with it? Do you really think it wouldn’t have been challenged?
One of the many reasons to protect free speech is that you may some time be in the out group. The 99 have no more right to silence the 1 than the 1 has the right to silence the 99. It’s not about tolerance or intolerance. It’s about protecting fundamental rights, even when (especially when) the speech is unpopular and even offensive.
Yes, but the answer to speech is more speech, not bans. Win the argument.
Your side (my side by the way) does this all the time. Compare society’s reaction to same sex marriage in 2021 to 1991. 100% the argument was won by the strength of the argument, not by banning the opposition.
This has already been noted, I don’t have to tolerate anyone’s intolerance. I don’t have to treat intolerance as a valid position to be debated. Intolerance is the one ethical position I do not have to respect, I am not required to mount an argument against it, or convince you that it’s wrong.
Treating intolerance as though it were simply another debatable position serves to spread intolerance, not reduce it.
You don’t have to do anything with it. You also don’t get to ban it. See e.g. Westboro Baptist Church, the “God hates Fags” people that protest at soldiers’ funerals. They are intolerant, offensive and just about everyone in America would love to ban them. They’ve won time and again that they get to speak, loudly, and at really insensitive times.
No, it doesn’t. Absolutely no one is arguing that the Confederate flag should be removed because we hate it. What’s being discussed is whether allowing the flag to be worn is harmful, both to the teaching environment and to the students it attacks.
You are conflating arguing something is wrong—harmful, unfair, etc.—with declaring that you hate something. These are not the same thing. I see this all the time whenever something related to bigotry is discussed.
To show why this argument doesn’t hold muster, I will switch to a topic I’m sure we both agree is harmful and should not be allowed. It will be about a form of speech/expression. It will be extreme to make a point—I am not remotely arguing that you believe what I’m about to say.
Jane comes in and makes the argument that child pornography is harmful to children because it exploits them. John replies as you did: that this boils down to banning the things one side hates. He argues that this means that this will be a problem when “the other side” is in control.
See the problem with that? He didn’t rebut the argument. But also, there’s no inherent reason to believe that the pro-child-porn people will be in charge. And, even if they were, that is no reason not to try to ban child porn now.
The same is true of the Confederate flag issue. We would of course do what we can to keep racists and Confederate sympathizers from being in charge. And even if they do eventually take over, that’s no reason to let open racism continue now. The Confederate flag is not merely something we hate, but something we believe is actively causing harm to both students and the learning environment.
You appear to have lost sight of the actual subject here. We’re discussing what is acceptable in a school environment. The things the WBC do would definitely not be allowed. Not only would it be disruptive, but the things they said would go against many behavioral policies at schools—you know, the ones in the handbooks.
Public schools are not the same. One thing they have that real life doesn’t is dress codes—some even to the point of school uniforms. And these are perfectly legal, under the very disruption criteria mentioned. And what things count as disruptive? Clothes that the people in charge think look like gang signs. Hair dye in “inappropriate colors.” Clothes that show bare arms or too much thigh (often only on girls). A shirt that says “fuck” on it can be banned. It doesn’t matter one bit if any particular situation causes disruption. Heck, I know directly that it is usually the teacher saying something that causes more disruption than any of these actually do.
It’s really difficult for me to see any argument that wearing a Confederate flag should not count as disruptive, even if there are only a few black students who care but aren’t going to say anything because they know it won’t go well for them.
I will also note that a student in school can get in troubel for saying certain racist words–along with a whole lot of other words. And, as society is increasingly growing to understand, the Confederate flag, created to support the Confederacy and popularized by the KKK to fight against segregation, is, if not equivalent to that word, in the same general ballpark.
The fact that things are finally getting taken down is not a way to defend wearing the flag, but that we as a society are acknowledging what it is: a sign of discrimination, inherently inflammatory, and, yes, disruptive by its mere presence.
Some posters are discussing school issues. Others free speech more generally. My WBC comment was not related to the school standard. I know it’s a tangent from the OP, but one I havent taken alone.
And school districts are free to make this argument. If its challenged, and the Court agrees, then fine. It has not, nor have I found evidence of schools trying. The districts that are banning it, from my admittedly brief search, are still using the actual disruption standard.