You Are Viewtiful
Member
They're kids lol
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Supreme Court rejects free speech appeal over Cinco de Mayo school dispute
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
They're kids lol
GoldenEye 007
Member
Eh.... Our government officials aren't infallible. The US Supreme Court has made plenty of disgusting, inhuman, and just plain wrong opinions over the years.
Not that this ruling is one of those. Just appeal to authority isn't always the best method I feel.
Did that really make sense even after you typed it?
What am I not understanding then?
They didn't ban the American flag. They banned wearing American flag apparel in an explicit attempt to instigate problems at a school.
Earthstrike
Member
What is interesting is how we might consider the set of plain wrong and disgusting decisions that are now agreed upon as being wrong. If we want to talk about such a set, we can talk about it ampliatively. For the set of all court decisions which all sides of the political aisle now consider wrong, was the decision made considered conservative or liberal at the time?
Edit: Did a random google search. It appears to be the case that the vast majority of "awful rulings", which is considered awful by both sides today, were rulings that favored the conservative point of view. Go figure.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Would be interesting for sure. And yeah... Not that shocking I guess after seeing your edit.
That is still a ban on American flags. Could each student carry around an American flag that day and the school be okay with it? That technically isn't apparel.
If they are so concerned with potential violence, they should increase security around the school, possibly even call police. My high school had some gang tension rise at one point and we had police officers there for like two weeks until things deescalated
Yeah, sounds way better than telling people not to wear a specific thing on a specific day for a specific reason.
timetokill
Banned
So... no real response then. Okay.
Fallacy- Appeal to Authority.
Your post was nonsensical. There's nothing of substance to address. Your initial premise is false and you have done nothing to amend or reconsider it.
timetokill
Banned
Sounds like your (lack of) reading comprehension is at fault here. That's okay, if you have no response that says plenty already. Saying "you have to amend your statement to agree with me" is nonsense.
No, you have to amend your initial statement to agree with reality. I didn't say it wasn't aligned with my opinion, I said it was false.
timetokill
Banned
And you've done nothing to prove why that's so. Simply saying it's so isn't enough. Again, I can only fault your lacking reading comprehension.
That said, I've seen several messages warning that discussion with you is fruitless so I suppose we can just forget it.
I pointed it out to you. Your statement that the ruling states or implies that you cannot show the American flag in America is false. That's just a fact. And as the person making the claim it's your job to support that conclusion anyway, which you have not done. There has been pages of discussion demonstrating your misunderstanding of what the ruling says and what it means, and you've offered nothing to support your contradictory interpretation.
I'm sure those messages were also from people who were wrong. Maybe you guys can form a club.
timetokill
Banned
Oh okay, so you're just being purposefully obtuse.
OBVIOUSLY you can still show the American flag in America. The ruling in this case, however, sets an example that displaying the American flag can somehow be inflammatory. I think that's a poor precedent, and ultimately sidesteps the real problem at hand here. It also suggests that Mexican descendant kids will just flip their shit if they see a kid wearing an American flag, which I think is pretty demeaning in all honesty.
I gave an example of another "inciteful activity" involving the flag as an example of why I think this is a poor, shortsighted decision. They're not coming to school wearing hate symbols like swastikas or anything. It's the emblem of the nation.
If there's some shithead kids trying to stir up trouble, then punish the children. Saying "you can't do A inciteful activity" just encourages them to move onto B inciteful activity. Not to mention it further ingrains resentment and "otherness" onto the hispanic populace in their eyes.
Obviously the schools have to do things to keep focus on studies and promote safety, but this just seems like such a silly bandaid solution with a high likelihood of further, more dramatic conflict.
benjipwns
Banned
What kind of families do these kids have that they'll throw money away on continuing to litigate a school shirt ban/suspension from five years ago?
I obviously haven't read any of the background because why should I before pontificating but I can't imagine they got a friendly ruling at any level.
I obviously haven't read any of the background because why should I before pontificating but I can't imagine they got a friendly ruling at any level.
"Somehow." That "somehow" is in fact the important context some of us have been trying so hard to get some of you to pay attention to. Until you do I'm afraid this whole thing will continue to confuse you.
What? Again with typing things that don't make any sense. These are children in a school causing shit between groups with pre-existing tensions.
You gave a hypothetical situation which was not ruled on. In the context I offered the example it had value; your attempt to use it fails to be useful or relevant. Nothing decided on suggests what response is allowed if a group of children gather around a flag chanting.
It's clothing chosen specifically to instigate and antagonize. What the pattern happens to be matters not. And this particular arrangement of red, white and blue is no more valuable or protected than any other.
This either/or scenario is your own fabrication. Can you lend support to your suggestion or implication that anyone expects merely disallowing US flag themed clothing on a specific day of the year serves to largely solve the problem, leaving no other action necessary? I wonder if the school can't do both. Why don't you?
There's no reason children shouldn't have 1st amendment rights.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I can think of plenty of reasons. I'm sure you can too.
The free speech rights of students are generally constrained somewhat in the school setting.
But more to the point, it would be unwise to read too much into this. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal is not a tacit endorsement of the lower court's reasoning, much less a "ruling" or a "verdict" in the colloquial sense. The Supreme Court grants review to only a very small percentage of the petitions it receives.
But more to the point, it would be unwise to read too much into this. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal is not a tacit endorsement of the lower court's reasoning, much less a "ruling" or a "verdict" in the colloquial sense. The Supreme Court grants review to only a very small percentage of the petitions it receives.
benjipwns
Banned
Yeah, the Court mostly hears things it wants to change its mind on or clarify, and in this case they've already got enough similar rulings that four or more didn't see reason to hear it.
The ACLU strongly backs the students wearing the flag. I would be inclined to side with the ACLU on issues of free speech.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/students-american-flag-t-shirts-are-protected-speech
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/students-american-flag-t-shirts-are-protected-speech
EatinOlives
Member
I'm gonna have to ask where all this "fake holiday" bullshit started coming from.
Cinco De Mayo is a very real holiday in the state of Puebla. Anyone in Mexico knows exactly what May 5 is.
Schools are closed. President Juarez declared it a national holiday. Official holiday in the state of Puebla, where the battle took place (and in Veracruz).
It's a fucken holiday. That Americans have no damn clue what it is doesn't not make it one.
That blog post came out less than a week after the incident. Neither it, the letter nor the article it links to provide a fraction of the factual context set forth in the 9th Circuit opinion. I'd be more interested in seeing any statements the ACLU has made since that decision.
Children should not be silenced by law.
Cinco de Mayo is a real holiday, but Americans don't celebrate it as a real holiday. It's treated as just an excuse to get drunk.
EatinOlives
Member
Yeah, this isn't the ACLU's brightest moment. Didn't bother to look at the context as to why this was being done.
OK, I laughed pretty damn hard at this
Mexican-Americans have adopted the day as a general-purpose "Mexican pride day", which obviously is not "official". Neither is it an "official" get-plastered day as it is observed by many Americans.
The problem is the insistence that it's "not a real holiday". I've heard and seen this multiple times from multiple people. It's not a "real" holiday in the US, but again, that doesn't make it a "fake holiday" altogether. That people never actually make that distinction is borderline offensive. Usually when people are this contrarian about something they throw in the actual facts while they act smug, not just call out half-truths with more half-truths.
timetokill
Banned
:lol
Keep fighting the "good" fight.
I'm not confused about the ruling. I disagree with it. I know that shakes your worldview to its very core but disagreements do happen.
I know you love playing the obtuse angle, but if the school has these tensions, banning the flag shirt for one day is not really going to help the issue in any long-term way. I also don't agree that the mere wearing of the shirt can be a legitimate "incitement." Thi
Hypotheticals are incredibly useful when discussing matters of principle and philosophy. It seems like you want to have a discussion that amounts to:
"Well, X just happened."
"Hm, yes, I agree, that did happen."
If you want that, go talk to a mirror.
The pattern is actually critical, because its symbolism is what makes it inflammatory or not. If you think simply wearing a US flag shirt to a school in the US should be considered at any time inflammatory and inciteful then we disagree.
Again you show your disinterest in the underpinnings of the discussion and want to focus on merely the surface. It's not a question of CAN they -- the Supreme Court has long ruled that they can. It's a question of SHOULD they -- and that gets to that philosophical stuff you hate so much, but there it is. I disagree with it on principle. I don't think it solves the problem, and in fact I don't think it even diminishes the problem.
I largely agree with the ACLU's statement here: "Using censorship to suppress student speech is exactly the wrong thing to do in this kind of situation."
See, you say you aren't confused and then clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding. No one "simply wore" a shirt. That's the whole point you and others are failing to grasp. The rest of your post is wrong because of this exact misunderstanding. Your ideas about why the court ruled as it did and what the ruling means are not correct.
timetokill
Banned
Okay, so educate me then. What did they do besides wearing a shirt?
Squirrel Killer
Member
Note: I haven't read the whole thread, so I haven't read the whole development of Brakke's argument.
With that said, while I agree that a blind appeal to authority is flawed, so to is a uninformed dismissal of an authority's findings (not saying you're doing that, just stating for the record.) One of the most disappointing trends in discussions I see is people seemingly reflexively essentially saying "I don't understand something, therefore it's wrong." (Again, I'm not calling anyone out in this thread, since I haven't read it fully, but just in general.) Most people are rational, most organizations do things for a purpose, most court decisions are based on precedence.
On what spectrum of liberal/conservative did you use? A judicially liberal decision can be politically conservative and vice versa. For example, Schenck v. United States was a politically conservative decision that was wildly judicially liberal and is generally seen to be awful by all sides today (although everyone uses the "fire in a crowded theater" quote from it to justify limiting free speech.)
I'll never make it in Republican elected circles because I flat out love the ACLU and despise that George Bush used Dukakis' membership in it against him. It certainly gives me pause to go against them on a free speech issue. But here's what they say about school speech in general:
The 9th Circuit opinion states that when some students wore the American flag on Cinco de Mayo on previously occasions, there were incidents. While I agree with the ACLU's statement on this incident that, "it's likely the school has underlying racial and cultural tensions that need attention," until it is able to address those tensions, the school has a compelling interest to minimally restrict some speech.ACLU said:
They chose to wear specific shirts in a context in which they knew it would stir up trouble, and clearly did it specifically for that reason. Problems existed between these groups and altercations had occurred at the previous cinco de mayo event. They didn't just randomly pick the flag shirts out of their wardrobe, they did so knowingly and deliberately.
EatinOlives
Member
I think what some people are not understanding is that anything in just the wrong context can offend people. What's most important is the context in which the situation is playing out.
"Good luck!" and "Good luck..." can mean entirely different things based on context. Same words, different tone, different intent. You can do this with anything. A sentence, an idea, an object, a song, and yes, a specific piece of fabric.
That this fabric happens to be US flag doesn't mean context just magically flies out the window. "It's the US flag! It just can't EVER be offensive!" isn't a valid axiom. In this context, this specific fabric pattern was worn in this specific day as a "fuck you" to people who were celebrating their heritage of a different nation. Problems had already escalated in the previous year, and in this instance the US flag was being worn with the express purpose to offend.
Students in schools have no protected speech. Their clothing is already actively limited for specific reasons.
"Good luck!" and "Good luck..." can mean entirely different things based on context. Same words, different tone, different intent. You can do this with anything. A sentence, an idea, an object, a song, and yes, a specific piece of fabric.
That this fabric happens to be US flag doesn't mean context just magically flies out the window. "It's the US flag! It just can't EVER be offensive!" isn't a valid axiom. In this context, this specific fabric pattern was worn in this specific day as a "fuck you" to people who were celebrating their heritage of a different nation. Problems had already escalated in the previous year, and in this instance the US flag was being worn with the express purpose to offend.
Students in schools have no protected speech. Their clothing is already actively limited for specific reasons.
No. It's an appeal to humility. Boy wasn't engaging with anything the courts actually said here. Why even have a conversation with a guy who doesn't realize all his clever observations *have already been anticipated and addressed* by the Court? He was engaging in bad faith or at best in laziness.
Meanwhile, authority does exist. It's clear on its face that justices of the 9th Circuit are better-qualified to issue legal judgments than some anonymous internet guy. If you have trivial access to an expert's opinion, you owe it to yourself to take some time to try and understand their opinion before rejecting their premise out of hand. An "appeal to authority" is only a problem if you take the authority's word as unimpeachable and irrefutable.
My claim is not "they are the Court and therefore they must be right", but rather "they are the Court and they *are* thoroughly qualified experts therefore look to the opinion they've freely published instead of looking at a couple excerpts from a news story you saw on a video game website and thinking you're sufficiently informed."
EDIT I missed Squirrel Killer's post. You're a quality human, Squirrel Killer. I appreciate your posts for their substance. I also appreciate your posts for their style, especially in your deployment of the Title field.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Exactly, which is why hate speech laws are so troublesome.
Um... no. Students do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate.
Maybe you are just engaging in hyperbole, but this is patently false. Their free speech rights are more limited in school than most places, but they have them, and that extends to things they wear.
I really dont want to hear "appeal to humility" while you call him/her "boy".
The fact is, we don't need to evaluate the people making the decision. Simply evaluating the decision will do. The people who make these kinds of decisions should constantly be looked at carefully and absolutely no assumptive credit should be given due to their status. He is better off not selling himself short in order to think having a political view requires a degree or decades served in a courtroom.
You do realize that this is a case dealing with children, right? All this shows is that the Supreme Court won't go to bat for kids.
We're pretty far down a quote chain at this point so the thing is muddied. Yeah, we should evaluate the decision. I'm saying exactly that. That's what the poster I was engaged with *wasn't doing*. He didn't understand even the first couple paragraphs of the 9th Circuit's decision and wasn't making any effort to do so.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Yes, we absolutely should evaluate decisions. When doing so, we should consider the current state of law, previous decisions, that the district court summarily dismissed the plaintiff's case, that the circuit court unanimously affirmed the decision, and that the SCOTUS denied cert. All of which point to the idea that this case was decided in line with the current state of law.
But the court has gone to bat for kids. They just recognize that the state has a compelling interest to see that a school remains primarily a place for education.
timetokill
Banned
Ah, so in other words, they simply wore a shirt with a US flag pattern. They didn't go and shove some kids or curse at them or specifically incite them, they simply wore the shirt. Their ACTION was literally just to wear the shirt. They didn't engage in a fight, cursing, namecalling or anything else.
Unless the US flag is inherently hateful I don't agree with disallowing them.
Laieon
Member
I agree with this.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked