Plus it’s my understanding that protest clothing is allowed - to a degree. What exactly distinguishes this from a person wearing a CAIN '12 t shirt? 
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, there are many people who will feel that the presence of the US flag has some magical ability to make everything ok, that there can be no wrong-doing as long as it’s done under the color of the US flag.
That such an opinion is ill-informed and ridiculous is a hard thing to get across to such people.
Yes, we need to guard against the horrible dangers of people wearing T-shirts with the US flag on it. Burn the flag if you want, but don’t you dare wear it on Cinco de Mayo. You might “offend” some hyphenated Americans, and we can’t have that!
Wow, you usually don’t evade the answer so much. You say this should go to SCOTUS. Why? What error reversable error was made? Should they overturn Tinker? Should schools not have the right to prevent likely disruptions and only act after the fact? Should they not be allowed to curtail speech under any circumstances? Are you trying to carve out a special place for the flag? If a student starts loudly reciting the Pledge of Allegiance during an assembly, should that student not be removed?
Oh, and on assumptions: Five male students show up on Cinco de Mayo all dressed in similar clothing (i.e. flag apparel). Your saying that’s a coincidence? No pre-planned agreement at all? That’s quite a stretch.
It takes much fewer steps to see the kids were trolling. The principal acted to avoid an altercation–allowable under Tinker and common sense–and the courts have upheld that action. Just because it was cloaked in faux patriotism doesn’t give it special protection.
Lest we get too sidetracked from the actual court decision, the justification is that the school officials were found to be within the bounds of the law by asking the flag wearing kids to remove that clothing for their own protection. The implication being that it was the Hispanic kids who might initiate violence and/or disrupt the school.
Frankly, I find that to be pure BS on the part of the school administration. It really will result in a policy that allows the wearing of flag-decorated clothes on any given day of the school year except May 5th. The only way I can see this being constitutional is if they school forbids the wearing of any country’s flag, period. Not just on any given day, but on every day of the school year. Else, all students have to do to silence someone is to do what the Hispanic students did here-- run to the principal’s office and claim that a disturbance might ensue.
At some point the school administrators have to belly up to the bar and take responsibility for maintaining order on campus without caving into any one special interest.
Rhythmdvl: I wrote the above post before reading your post, but I think it addresses your questions.
iirc, this isn’t the first time Judge Ware has made a splash.
What a ridiculous statement.
So, would it be “caving into any one special interest” if the school forbid students from wearing shirts that said “Kill All Gays”?
Would it be “caving into any one special interest” if the school forbid students from speaking out on campus about how kids with a 4.0 should be beat up in the school parking lot?
How exactly would you maintain order if violence is directed at a group without being perceived as “caving into” that one group’s interests?
What a ridiculous analogy. Or rather, what a ridiculous pair of analogies. There is no comparison between a shirt with a flag on it and a shirt that explicitly, in writing, advocates violence. None whatsoever, except as noted above, in the minds of butthurt offenderatti.
In this case, it was assumed that the Hispanic kids just couldn’t control themselves in the presence of a US flag. I find that outrageously racist.
In other words, you got nothing to back up what you said school officials should be able to do. Got it. Thanks for participating.
I am not a school official, so it’s not my job to come up with what they need to do. But they don’t get go around violating the constitution because they are incompetent. In this particular case, it appears that the violence was imaginary, and the officials just wanted to avoid controversy. Well, they ended up creating controversy instead.
You don’t read for comprehension well, do you?
The constitution was not violated, the officials wanted to avoid violence, and the controversy was inevitable given the fact that the US flag was involved.
The fact that you can’t or won’t even try to come up with a way to do what you said the officials should have done will continue to impress people with just how ridiculous your initial statement was. Thanks again for participating.
The “for their own protection” part is horrible precedent. Or at least, it’s inconsistent with how the Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to protest. They’ve gotten death threats. Is your school really so out of control that it’s worse than that?
It’s not like the disruption rule, for which there is an argument that it applies differently at a school than elsewhere. There’s no reason why being in danger at school is any worse than being in danger elsewhere.
And I say that even though I’m not totally decided on the issue itself, as I have a hard time thinking of a non-racist reason to both due this and sue over getting caught (making it unlikely that they were just being silly.) And racism is disruptive–far more than some girl wearing too short shorts–which, remember, the school can kick her out for.
Freedom of speech is very much curtailed on school grounds due to the disruption rule.
The violence was imaginary. A bunch of butthurt students went whining to the principal, and he caved. The precedent set is that all you have to do to silence someone is get a few people to run to the principals office and make the same claim.
Pffft. It is not incumbent on me to figure out how they should do their jobs.
De nada.
Wearing short skirts to school is not protected speech.
If this case gets to the SCOTUS, and I hope it does, I have no doubt it will be overturned. The threat of violence has to be real, and that was not the case here.
You were there? You have firsthand knowledge of this? No? Then what evidence do you have that the students’ fears of violence were unfounded? I’m going to go out on limb here and guess that the answer is “none”.
You don’t know much about school rules and administration, do you? If you did, you would know that this was already the case with respect to schools and how they deal with the possibility of disruptions. This case set no precedents with respect to how schools deal with this.
Yet you feel it is incumbent on you to figure out how they should do their jobs, since you keep telling us that they should do their job differently than they already are… you just don’t want to offer any specifics because all you really are doing is talking out your ass in an effort to express your unfounded outrage at a sequence of events you don’t really understand.
Thanks (once again) for participating.
Yes, I think we’ve all seen by now what your net contribution has been.
Absolutely wrong. The threat of violence has to be perceived as real, and apparently that was the case here, since that’s what the testimony was about and what the ruling found.
There was no violence, so yes, I am right.
SCOTUS will overturn. Wearing a shirt with a US flag on it cannot be deemed to be inciting violence. Students being told they can wear a Mexican flag, but not a US flag is absurd on the face of it.
That’s the second and third time you’ve said the SCOTUS will/should overturn.
Can you articulate where you find reversible error in the District Court’s holding? Can you articulate some rule of law that should be put in its place?
So far all his arguments, like so many in this thread, boil down to “BUT IT’S TEH FLAG!!1!”
I already said that the school cannot selectively ban the US flag and not the Mexican flag, even if just on one particular day.