That makes no sense. If your claim of jingoism is to have ANY chance of standing, there must be—via the definition which you provided—a component of aggression. So if you silly have patriotic items like the shorts and the Old Navy shirt, then that aggression is absent.
So, you’re disagreeing with yourself. Make up your mind.
But we’re not talking about gang issues. We’re talking about a very popular sport among young boys. A sport that is very diverse, by the way. One where the most effective method of fighting is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. It’s a sport that, evidently, kids that identify as Mexican enjoy, too.
:rolleyes:
If you are not aware of what Tap Out cater for (in practice, not just what the company wants), you are only displaying your ignorance.
And you are ignoring the threats and insults, as the court reported the threats and insults were made among the students before any flag issues were reported. What you are complaining about is really the school actually **defusing **the situation, I agree indeed with that.
And if they had been in the school I would had suspended them too.
This really does not help your case.
The court made the right ruling. School districts have wide latitude to restrict speech if it might interfere with the discipline in the classroom. If you want to argue with this viewpoint, fine, but that’s the Supreme court’s fault, not the Ninth Circuit’s.
Honestly, I have trouble finding fault with the school. The students were not disciplined in any way, the prohibition was for a single day, and it is clear from past history that the shirts were very likely to cause a disruption. It seems like to fit the standards set by Tinker perfectly.
But surely you would accept that a group of children surrounding a rotund classmate and yelling “Fatty! Fatty! Fatty!” can be reprimanded and punished by their teacher. Similarly the school should be given some leeway in taking actions to prevent racial intimidation. The question is where to draw the line.
It’s a bit much to assert that wearing a flag shirt is “racial intimidation”.
If they were ruling on that basis, they would have said so. They didn’t.
This is a good summation, I think.
Fairly reasonable, yes. Obviously, I don’t know all the details of what’s going on in that school, but generally speaking, I know there are a lot of Americans who don’t like immigrants. There are not a lot of immigrants who don’t like America, though - otherwise, they generally wouldn’t have immigrated here. It seems, generally, more likely to me that the problems were caused by a group of students who don’t like immigrants (or their kids) agreeing to wear American flag apparel as a sign of their distaste for immigrants, than a bunch of immigrants in America would be so anti-American that the mere sight of an American flag drives them to violence.
I could, of course, be completely wrong as applies to this case, and there may be a cadre of Hispanic kids as this school who have taken up radically anti-American attitudes, and are just going after other kids simply because those kids are demonstrating pride in their country. It’s certainly not impossible, it just seems less likely to me.
If you are not aware of what Tap Out cater for (in practice, not just what the company wants), you are only displaying your ignorance.
:rolleyes::rolleyes: You need a better schtick.
The threat of violence the principal was alerted to was toward the kids wearing the American flag. Not from them. What he should have done was sent home anyone who threatened violence in the least. He should have told the Mexican kids, too bad. They’re allowed to show pride in their home country the same way you are. What is not allowed is violence or the threat of violence. And nay kid who crosses those lines will be suspended and/or prosecuted, regardless of the flag he or she feels pride in.
Now I’ll ask you to entertain if there were a handful of gay kids who wanted to show their pride and wore gay pride t-shirts. If kids don’t like that, in your world all they have to do is beat some kids up once and then threaten that the same thing will happen next time. You’d be happy with that, I’m sure.
That’s not exactly the same thing. It would be more like wearing a gay pride shirt to annoy people on a school-sponsored Traditional Marriage Day.
And if you had noticed I also agree, and I was not talking about racial intimidation, but just old fashion trolling. Indeed, as the courts reported, it was not just the t-shirts that were referred to in the court report, but past behavior and threats and insults in the incident itself.
The thing about symbols is, they don’t have a literal meaning. And their subjective meaning can change very easily, simply by agreement among a group of people.
For a simple example, let’s say you and I were college roommates. Between the two of us, we agree that if one of us has brought someone home, we’ll hang an American flag out the window, so the other person knows not to interrupt. We’ve changed the meaning of the flag from, “I love America,” to “I’m getting laid.” We might be the only people who recognize that meaning, but to the two of us, it’s crystal clear.
Now, let’s say you and me really hate Mexicans. We might agree, between the two of us, that we’re going to demonstrate our hate for Mexicans by wearing little flag pins. From then on, whenever we see each other with our little pins, we know that we’re saying to each other, “Fuck the Mexicans!” even if no one else knows it. Then we get some more friends in on it, so there’s maybe a dozen of us with little flag pins, and each of us knowing what we “really” mean with out pins. Then we decide this isn’t enough, and we make a point of telling people (particularly Mexican people) “See this pin? This means ‘Fuck the Mexicans!’”
At that point (assuming we’re still in college in this hypothetical) the school has a reasonable justification to step in and say, “Stop wearing flag pins.” The normal meaning of the flag (I love America!) has, in the context of this school, been changed to “I hate Mexicans.” The school is not quashing an expression of patriotism, its quashing an expression that has been specifically defined by the speaker to mean something something different when he says it.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly! But in this case, they sent the fat kid home.
That only works only by ignoring the threats and insults were the things that brought the kids to the attention of the administration in the first place. I have seen other reports that point out that other kids that were not involved in the incident that had American flags were allowed to stay, either because they were not involved making threats and insults or that they just obeyed what the teachers told them and turned their shirts inside out.
This item to me is very important, defiance of authority is not something that can be ignored, specially after the context told the school administrators that the students being told to turn their shirts inside out were making threats and insults to others. Not complying with that request was grounds for suspension.
What Really Not All That Bright said.
Wow. You and I are living in two different realities. There are plenty of immigrants, particularly those of Mexican descent living in CA and the Southwest who do NOT like Americans. You might want to look up “Reconquista” and “La Raza”.
The most likely take is that the Mexican kids wanted to celebrate Cinco de Mayo without having to have American kids show patriotism for their country on the same day. Now we can argue if that is a dickish move or not, but this is a perfect example of the concept of the “Heckler’s Veto” that Bricker brought up. And it seems to be a VERY bad precedent to set.
Care to opine on the hypothetical I raised with the gay kids?
Speaking of symbols I have seen (in the wild of Phoenix) 
even phone area codes and diamonds used as gang symbols, students continuously attempt to get around gang symbol prohibitions; so, many times they do co-opt common and even popular logos to identify themselves.
I don’t see that this was addressed, but I apologize if I’m missing it:
In the sense you’re using it, sort of, but you have to ratchet it down one level. Everyday dress is not speech at all, as it isn’t expressive. Expression via dress is protected by the First Amendment, but it’s a close-run thing. We have to see that there’s some element of communication necessarily connected to what you’re wearing in order to start talking about the First Amendment at all. In other words, it’s only Issue (Dress), and not Everyday (Dress) which actually constitutes an exercise of the right to free speech.
The answers to your other concerns related to that distinction cascade from that point, I think, although I find with First Amendment stuff that it is extremely difficult to keep the sort of mental directional arrows pointing the right ways as far as who can do what and why. It seems to me that you’re approaching it from the angle that, well, only Issue Dress really presents a concern to the school, because it’s only that sort of dress that is going to rile anyone up. The way a court would look at it, though, is that if it isn’t Issue Dress, the First Amendment doesn’t limit the school’s authority to regulate it at all. It simply doesn’t exist from a free speech perspective. The trouble this poses (I think) to your perspective is that if it’s true that these kids were just coincidentally wearing American flag gear as part of their everyday wardrobe, and they didn’t mean anything by it, that is necessarily fatal to any free speech claim. Because they weren’t using it to speak.
So paradoxically, in order for them to be protected on First Amendment grounds from the school’s regulation of their dress, these students are obligated to argue that they were wearing it to get a point across, which destroys any claim they might make that American flag gear is totally innocuous and commonplace.
I read the opinion. I didn’t see where the any kid wearing the American flag made any threats. If so, send his ass home with a kick on the way out the door. The threats were made in the other direction—against the American flag-wearing kids. If you read differently, please cite it.
Again, can you cite this? If a kid makes a threat, I wouldn’t bother asking him to turn his shirt inside out, I’d send him home. Or in extraordinary circumstances, bring in the police., if that made sense.
I’m about to correct her, but you can answer. Can’t see why you refuse to.
We already know about your sources. They concentrate only on a small segment of the community with ties to Mexico.
Only that it was not just that, insults and threats flew first. Stop pushing ignorance and I have to mention here that a lot of the students are not really Mexicans, but just like the Irish they remember where their families came from.
I misunderstood this on my first reading. But taken what you proposed, so what? Why do those supporting traditional marriage need to be protected from a different point of view? And as long as the gay kids didn’t threaten violence, why should they be sent home? I wouldn’t send anyone home, until there was violence or the threat of it. I=And if there was a threat, I’d send home the kids doing the threatening.