# Ninth Circuit sides with school in banning American flag on Cinco de Mayo. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512 "2014-02-28T13:37:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/181 "2014-03-03T18:43:57Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Fair enough, but if that will be the rule the school certainly shouldn’t be having things like Cinco de Mayo or Traditional Marriage Day or anything remotely political. Even though I agree that they are generally mouthy little bastards that are just parroting what they have been told, they shouldn’t be forced to sit quietly while a political viewpoint is foisted upon them they disagree with. I’m not sure what viewpoint is being advanced by having a Cinco de Mayo observance. I seriously doubt the school was promoting La Reconquista or something. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/182 "2014-03-03T18:44:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Because if I’m the kid who’s threatened with violence, I know that the flag is an implicit continuation of the threat. The teacher can protect me from the dread of the threat, in addition to protecting me from actual violence, by banning what I’ve been told is a continuation of the threat. i usually hate slippery slope rebuttals but i think this is a clear example of where it applies. if a kid wants to beat another kid up for having long hair, do you tell everyone to get short haircuts? no, right? but how do we decide what is too small an infraction and what is too large? surely only the worst most inciting incidents should be banned, right? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/183 "2014-03-03T18:56:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think you’re shedding light on the problem here and show that the problem lies in being too quick to ban anything. The more obscure the symbol the more it needs to be left alone. You start to get into the realm of thought-crimes. > > Now, it IS _possible_ that symbols can be so tightly associated with violence that it becomes a legitimate target of banning. I think the perfect example of this is gang motifs, even gang colors. But i=even here, where does one draw the line. It’s one thing to ban, say, red bandanas. But how about if you add a red shoes? Hat? Scarf? Shirt. And what percent of the shirt must be red for it to fall under the band. > > I’m for banning as little as possible, while protecting people from violence as much as possible, If some skinhead idiots want to wear “88” on their shirts, let them advertise their assholeness. But if they become violent, or threaten violence, I’d come down on them with as hard as possible. exactly! it quickly becomes a complicated issue but there are some clear points on both ends of the spectrum ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/184 "2014-03-03T19:21:05Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > i usually hate slippery slope rebuttals but i think this is a clear example of where it applies. if a kid wants to beat another kid up for having long hair, do you tell everyone to get short haircuts? no, right? but how do we decide what is too small an infraction and what is too large? surely only the worst most inciting incidents should be banned, right? I actually don’t think that applies. The most basic format of the threat I was describing is this: Bob: Alice, the next time I engage in this non-default action, I will commit violence against you! Teacher: Bob, not only are you in trouble for issuing a threat, but to keep Alice from feeling further threatened, I’m forbidding you from engaging in that non-default action. Note that this isn’t the same thing as the OP’s case, as far as I can tell, but is rather an example of when a flag shirt might be forbidden (if wearing it is the non-default action in question). Your haircut scenario is something like: Bob: Alice, because you have engaged in this non-default action, I will commit violence against you! Teacher: Bob, not only are you in trouble for issuing a threat, but to keep Alice from feeling further threatened, I’m forbidding ALICE from engaging in that non-default action. That minor change makes a world of difference, and it’s not a slippery slope. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/185 "2014-03-03T19:25:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I actually don’t think that applies. > > The most basic format of the threat I was describing is this: > > Bob: Alice, the next time I engage in this non-default action, I will commit violence against you! > Teacher: Bob, not only are you in trouble for issuing a threat, but to keep Alice from feeling further threatened, I’m forbidding you from engaging in that non-default action. > > Note that this isn’t the same thing as the OP’s case, as far as I can tell, but is rather an example of when a flag shirt might be forbidden (if wearing it is the non-default action in question). > > Your haircut scenario is something like: > > Bob: Alice, because you have engaged in this non-default action, I will commit violence against you! > Teacher: Bob, not only are you in trouble for issuing a threat, but to keep Alice from feeling further threatened, I’m forbidding ALICE from engaging in that non-default action. > > That minor change makes a world of difference, and it’s not a slippery slope. what do you mean by non default? is speaking with a southern accent non default? is listening to bob dylan on my headphones non default? is humming while listening to bob dylan non default? dancing in place but not humming? nodding my head to the music but not dancing and not humming? is smiling non default? is wearing a green tie non default? criticizing the president? what do you mean by non default? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/186 "2014-03-03T19:29:41Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > what do you mean by non default? is speaking with a southern accent non default? is listening to bob dylan on my headphones non default? is humming while listening to bob dylan non default? dancing in place but not humming? nodding my head to the music but not dancing and not humming? is smiling non default? is wearing a green tie non default? criticizing the president? > > what do you mean by non default? Whatever you normally do is your default. Wearing a shirt is default. For some people, speaking with a Southern accent is default. But if it’s something that you make the choice whether to do, if it’s something that you can easily and trivially choose not to do, and you threaten someone with violence next time you do it, then you’ve turned your next such choice into an implicit threat, and it’s appropriate for you to be stopped. Consider: “The next time you see me with my eyes open, I’ll hit you.” In this case, it’s not trivial for the kid to not open their eyes; you can’t really treat that as a threat. But, “The next time you see me wearing a red shirt, I’ll hit you.” It’s trivial for the kid to not wear a red shirt, so you can treat that as a threat. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/187 "2014-03-03T19:30:09Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I actually don’t think that applies. > > The most basic format of the threat I was describing is this: > > Bob: Alice, the next time I engage in this non-default action, I will commit violence against you! > Teacher: Bob, not only are you in trouble for issuing a threat, but to keep Alice from feeling further threatened, I’m forbidding you from engaging in that non-default action. > > Note that this isn’t the same thing as the OP’s case, as far as I can tell, but is rather an example of when a flag shirt might be forbidden (if wearing it is the non-default action in question). > > Your haircut scenario is something like: > > Bob: Alice, because you have engaged in this non-default action, I will commit violence against you! > Teacher: Bob, not only are you in trouble for issuing a threat, but to keep Alice from feeling further threatened, I’m forbidding ALICE from engaging in that non-default action. > > That minor change makes a world of difference, and it’s not a slippery slope. I think you make a very acute and important distinction here. I see the situation referred to in the OP as (I changed the names to reflect the ethnicity’s of the groups involved): **Miguel** : Billy, because you have engaged in this non-default action (wearing of the American flag), I will commit violence against you! **Principal** : Bob, not only are you in trouble for issuing a threat, but to keep Billy from feeling further threatened, I’m forbidding BILLY from engaging in that non-default action. Which is what tweaks my WTF meter. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/188 "2014-03-03T19:36:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think you make a very acute and important distinction here. I see the situation referred to in the OP as (I changed the names to reflect the ethnicity’s of the groups involved): > > **Miguel** : Billy, because you have engaged in this non-default action (wearing of the American flag), I will commit violence against you! > > **Principal** : Bob, not only are you in trouble for issuing a threat, but to keep Billy from feeling further threatened, I’m forbidding BILLY from engaging in that non-default action. > > Which is what tweaks my WTF meter. That’s kind of how it sounds to me as well, except that WTF is the principal doing talking to Bob about what Miguel did? However, I can’t quite tell from the stories whether Billy is the victim here, or whether Billy is also engaging in violence. If it’s the latter, the situation becomes murkier. In any case, I reiterate that in this case, I don’t think restricting speech is legitimate. It seems to me to fall into a gray area of Tinker. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/189 "2014-03-03T19:39:05Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Whatever you normally do is your default. > > Wearing a shirt is default. For some people, speaking with a Southern accent is default. But if it’s something that you make the choice whether to do, if it’s something that you can easily and trivially choose not to do, and you threaten someone with violence next time you do it, then you’ve turned your next such choice into an implicit threat, and it’s appropriate for you to be stopped. > > Consider: “The next time you see me with my eyes open, I’ll hit you.” In this case, it’s not trivial for the kid to not open their eyes; you can’t really treat that as a threat. But, “The next time you see me wearing a red shirt, I’ll hit you.” It’s trivial for the kid to not wear a red shirt, so you can treat that as a threat. but you said: " if i see you wearing tennis shoes again i’ll beat you up?"… that if you were the principal you’d ban tennis shoes, right? or did i get that wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/190 "2014-03-03T19:45:24Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Consider: “The next time you see me with my eyes open, I’ll hit you.” In this case, it’s not trivial for the kid to not open their eyes; you can’t really treat that as a threat. But, “The next time you see me wearing a red shirt, I’ll hit you.” It’s trivial for the kid to not wear a red shirt, so you can treat that as a threat. ok but what if the kid, george, lives in ohio. he’s on the school baseball team. he LOVES the cincinati red’s. but (to be silly) this other student, fred, HATES communism. fred feels communism and the color red are one in the same. he wants to beat up anyone wearing red. or at least harass them. i assume you will make case to case decisions and allow george to wear red tshirts in this case, right? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/191 "2014-03-03T19:51:20Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s kind of how it sounds to me as well, except that WTF is the principal doing talking to Bob about what Miguel did? > > However, I can’t quite tell from the stories whether Billy is the victim here, or whether Billy is also engaging in violence. If it’s the latter, the situation becomes murkier. > > In any case, I reiterate that in this case, I don’t think restricting speech is legitimate. It seems to me to fall into a gray area of Tinker. I think I agree with this. The suppression of speech in the case I think is particularly problematic because they suppressed only one side of the competing messages. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/192 "2014-03-03T20:02:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, that’s the way I see it. It’s very problematic. And as I wrote above, IANAL, but I too do not see this as being analogous to the Tinker case. Agreed. I am a lawyer. 🙂 I think if anything the Tinker case supports the right of these students to wear US flag shirts because the act of wearing a flag T-shirt is not disruptive of the educational environment. If under the picture of the flag it said, “Fuck you Mexicans go back home!” then that would be disruptive and bannable. But IMHO, the test for being disruptive should focus only on the content of the speech and the actions of the speaker, not a hypothetical unlawful reaction from his opponents. ---
**Author:** ![dude77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce73a5/32.png) [@dude77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dude77)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/193 "2014-03-03T20:19:22Z")
a shirt with the american flag doesn’t imply any hatred or violence … why would an american(the mexican kids) even think that ? … I’ll go even further and say the mexican kids who were supposed to be offended should have been proud to see the flag as they’re supposed to be a part of this country … I’m cuban and we can be having the biggest, all everything cuban celebration and I would be all for it if someone came over and planted the american flag in the middle of the party … I’m as american as I am cuban … so saying they were offended by the american flag is what is troubling to me here … and wearing a shirt with an american flag is completely separate from someone threating or intimdating someone else … you can’t ban the flag because an individual committed a crime wearing it … that makes no sense … you just ban the person if need be … if the flag wearers were doing nothing but wearing an american flag shirt in school and it was the flag hating students who were getting angry and riled up because of the flag shirts **then they are the ones who should have been delt with** … the principal should have reprimanded the flag hating students and sent them home … not the ones wearing the flags if this is what happened … but I want to assume that the flag wearers were the ones \* \*inciting violence or making threats because otherwise this ruling is completely wrong ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/194 "2014-03-03T20:32:43Z")
> [@dude77](#): > > a shirt with the american flag doesn’t imply any hatred or violence … why would an american(the mexican kids) even think that ? You haven’t read the thread either, have you? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/195 "2014-03-03T20:35:10Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > If under the picture of the flag it said, “Fuck you Mexicans go back home!” then that would be disruptive and bannable. Are all messages the same, or can a message have a different meaning in a different context? If the patriotic kids only wear their patriotic flag on Cinco De Mayo and do so in numbers, then yeah, it can be easily (and in this case, correctly) interpreted as “Fuck you Mexicans go back home!”. Especially if there were previous conflicts between 2 groups. It can convey menace while staying _juuuust_ inside the lines. That is one of powers of symbols. So let me ask my stupid question. Is this regular garb for these kids to wear, or did they save it for a special occasion, like May 5th? If the Mexican kids all wear their Mexican flag stuff on say, the day before the 4th of July holiday, would this be an example of ‘showing pride in our heritage’ or a not so subtle ‘fuck you’? Not that I think anything should be banned from being worn. Just about everything I wanted to wear was banned in my high school. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/196 "2014-03-03T20:38:55Z")
> [@dude77](#): > > a shirt with the american flag doesn’t imply any hatred or violence … why would an american(the mexican kids) even think that ? … I’ll go even further and say the mexican kids who were supposed to be offended should have been proud to see the flag as they’re supposed to be a part of this country … I’m cuban and we can be having the biggest, all everything cuban celebration and I would be all for it if someone came over and planted the american flag in the middle of the party … I’m as american as I am cuban … so saying they were offended by the american flag is what is troubling to me here … > > and wearing a shirt with an american flag is completely separate from someone threating or intimdating someone else … you can’t ban the flag because an individual committed a crime wearing it … that makes no sense … you just ban the person if need be … > > if the flag wearers were doing nothing but wearing an american flag shirt in school and it was the flag hating students who were getting angry and riled up because of the flag shirts **then they are the ones who should have been delt with** … the principal should have reprimanded the flag hating students and sent them home … not the ones wearing the flags if this is what happened … > > but I want to assume that the flag wearers were the ones \* \*inciting violence or making threats because otherwise this ruling is completely wrong It’s not that simple a case, and(ghod, how many times does this have to be repeated) it wasn’t just a case of kids wearing shirts with flags on them. If you don’t want to read through the thread to get the details, at least take a look at the links provided in posts #217, 48, 52 and 84. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/197 "2014-03-03T20:53:24Z")
> [@dude77](#): > > but I want to assume that the flag wearers were the ones \* \*inciting violence or making threats because otherwise this ruling is completely wrong They were not, noir exclusively, anyway. I did not see one =reference to any threat they made in the article or the opinion from the court. Much is unclear, but according to the links supplied, one “White” student and one “Mexican” student alerted the administration that there might be a problem. It is unclear if these kids were ones directly involved in the flap or just innocent kids trying to avert a fight. It does seem that the Mexican kids had a real problem with the kids wearing the flag. You can read the opinion yourself and draw your own conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/198 "2014-03-03T21:30:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It’s not that simple a case, and(ghod, how many times does this have to be repeated) it wasn’t just a case of kids wearing shirts with flags on them. If you don’t want to read through the thread to get the details, at least take a look at the links provided in posts #217, 48, 52 and 84. so what? i looked at all of those and, so what? at the end of the day a flag is a flag. chanting USA USA USA is vocal. WEARING a t shirt with flag on it is not vocal, it is the definition of silent protest. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/199 "2014-03-03T22:02:17Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 1. A kid tells another kid, “Next time I wear an American Flag t-shirt, I don’t care what punishment I get, I’m gonna beat you up.” In addition to punishing the kid for the threat, it’d be reasonable to ban that kid from wearing an American flag t-shirt. I assume you mean “Next time **you** wear an American flag T-shirt, I am going to beat you up.” Is that correct? FTR I would not agree that it would be reasonable to ban the T-shirt (in addition to punishing the threat), but I am not sure if that is what you are advocating. Because it is like dealing with anti-gay bullying by banning both gay-bashing and gay pride T-shirts. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512/200 "2014-03-03T22:07:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I assume you mean “Next time **you** wear an American flag T-shirt, I am going to beat you up.” Is that correct? > > FTR I would not agree that it would be reasonable to ban the T-shirt (in addition to punishing the threat), but I am not sure if that is what you are advocating. Because it is like dealing with anti-gay bullying by banning both gay-bashing and gay pride T-shirts. > > Regards, > Shodan Actually, it’s worse than that. The school administration only went after kids with the American flag depiction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-sides-with-school-in-banning-american-flag-on-cinco-de-mayo/682512.md?page=11)