By that logic, we can just declare gay folks to be inciting violence by the act of attempting to get marriage licenses, so it’s no longer legal.
Banning a particular message delivered in a particular way, while allowing a nigh-identical message to be delivered in that same particular way, is unconstitutional on its face, IMHO. I don’t care if it’s the flag on a t-shirt, or a newspaper, or fucking mime.
You seem to be very confused about the particulars of this case.
That doesn’t answer where you found error in the District Court’s holding. It’s completely outside its scope. I can’t link or copy/paste at the moment, but the decision is a short one. Take a look at the Tinker standards, tell me where the District Court went outside its bound. Or would you completely reverse Tinker?
Even if it is real, it is incumbent upon the school to stop those who might become violent from acting violently. In this case, this was (theoretically) the kids of Mexican heritage. The kids wearing the flag did nothing wrong. If you think that wearing a shirt with an American flag—one that is perfectly done every day of the year, then you’ve hit the bong 1 million too many times.
It is? You got a cite for that? Or is it just something you “know”?*
I’ll save you the time and effort of simply repeating your foolishness again and tell you that you’re wrong; there’s no language at all like what you describe in either the school’s or the district’s policies. In fact, the policy is to remove the person provoking the violence.
Nope, the kids doing the provoking were the kids wearing the US flag.
Face it: all you have is “teh FLAG!!1!” as an argument. You can’t even articulate why you think it’s okay, because if you do you’ll have to admit that the flag is being used as a symbol, and as such is being used by the students to harass anyone trying to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, and then your argument, such as it is, fails. That’s why you and others just keep saying “but… but… the FLAG!!1!” instead of trying to form a cogent argument.
First of all, Tinker requires that that there be a credible threat of violence. The administrators are offering the thinest justification that violence was expected. A few students claiming the violence might ensue is not credible. The administration claims that previous years implied violence might ensue, and yet they offer no evidence that the took measures to quell violence bases solely on their experience from previous years.
Beyond that, though, Tinker is not a license to ignore the requirement for constraints on free speech must be content neutral. The administration cannot ban US flags but allow Mexican flags. It strains credulity that the US flag, displayed in a public institution, is an incitement to violence but a foreign national flag flow in the same venue is not.
Keep in mid that SCOTUS upheld the protest in Tinker, because the threat of violence was not credible. The school sought to ban arm bands, but SCOTUS shot that down. It is incumbent on the school to defend its action, and in this case, the school comes up short. When the American flag, displayed in a public setting, is an incitement to violence, then free speech loses all meaning.
Does anyone think this looks bad when a judge says, “You can’t wear that shirt lest some Mexicans beat you up” ?
Can kids not wear Gay-Straight Alliance shirts in a conservative community? Is this ruling about protecting the minority from phyiscal harm or protecting the ‘correct’ side?
Schools banning certain colors or requiring uniforms is one thing, but this incident sounded like the admin was deliberately silencing dissent.
Nope. I’m not imbuing the flag with some magical significance. While there is no doubt that the flag is a symbol, YOU are merely claiming that it is used to “harass” anyone. And if this was bizarro world and you were right about that, then all flags—Mexican ones, as well—are also symbols. And it’s much closer to “harassment” for a group to display a foreign flag among Americans then it is for American kids to display an a American flag…wait for it…IN AMERICA!
I seems like you’d be okay with a group of gay kids being told they can’t wear shirts with rainbows because the majority of other kids might not like it and beat them up. Come on, man, get your head out of your ass. It’s nice out here. Fresh air and everything.
Imagine a situation where certain Muslim girls wear the hijab to school, and the administrators force them to remove their covering because some white guys threaten to beat up any “towel heads” they see on campus. I assume that Rythmdvl would be completely supportive of the administration in this instance, since after all, it’s for the girls own safety.
That’s actually a better hypothetical. I’d like to see the detractors here defend a school administration that forces a group of students wearing T-shrits with a rainbow flag to remove those shirts because some of the jocks have told the administration that the captain of the football team has threatened to kick the shit out of any faggot he sees on campus.
Perhaps that scenario will illustrate that the administration is tasked with creating a safe environment for students, and they can’t hide behind their own incompetence requiring that students with unpopular opinions suppress those opinions in favor of “keeping the peace” and not upsetting the campus bigots.
I’m going to agree with John Mace on this one. That interpretation of Tinker allows any majority to silence any minority simply by creating a vague “threat” of violence. What happens when the white kids start a whispering campaign that they’ll start a fight with anybody who wears a Mexican flag on Cinco?
You are ignoring, again, the fact that the kids wore the US flag in order to harass. The US flag itself is being used, by these kids, as a symbol of harassment.
You can keep denying that it’s impossible to use the flag as a symbol of harassment all you want, but in the real world, you are wrong.
Further, though, if the administration is to claim there was a threat of violence, they need to show what they did to quell the violence. By there own testimony, they claim one particular kid told a teacher or administrator that he was going to “fuck up” the kids wearing US flags. And yet, nothing was done to that kid. Instead, the first and only action taken by the administration was to tell the white kids to change clothes.
They didn’t make an announcement over the PA system that violence would not be tolerated, and that all students needed to respect each other.
They did not seek out the potentially violent kids and warn them.
Nothing.
They took the easy way out, and targeted the white kids for action.
They claim they had reason to fear violence since an altercation had taken place last year on that date, but they give no indication of actions taken on their part to quell violence in advance. The school has a full time cop on campus to keep things under control, and yet no mention of this cop being brought into the discussion of what should be done. No mention that the cop was put on alert to watch out for violence against a handful of kids who did nothing more “provocative” than to wear the US flag on public property.
I find they’re fear of “violence” to be nothing more than a post-facto justification for sloppy action on the part of that administrator.
Those are facts not in evidence here. There is nothing in the court finding that says the kids were determined to have an intent to harass.
This raises an interesting point, especially in light of what another poster suggested upthread. Every school I’ve ever attended in the U.S. flew the American flag. Would the administration be required to take it down during the Cinco de Mayo festivities? If not, why? Why would the students celebrating be offended by the tee-shirts but not the actual waving U.S. flag?
Well, I don’t think it was the flag itself that caused the offence. I think it was more the fact that it was being used as a substitute for an extended middle finger.
As Mace pointed out, you’re pulling this out of your ass. You may want to look up the word “fact”.
And how in the world is it harassing anyone to wear a shirt showing pride in your country? Whatever your answer is, newsflash: the harassment is multiplied when the flag is not of the country you’re in. Now, I’m not arguing that the Mexican kids were necessarily trying to harass anyone, but if you think American kids were guilty if this, then the Mexican kids were guilty of it X a million.
For the sane of us…if you are “harassed” by the image of the country in which you are located, you need to either grow up and get the fuck out.
But I liked how you moved from it being a “fact” to it being possible. Maybe there is hope for you.
Nah.