Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

Ah, so in other words, they simply wore a shirt with a US flag pattern.

No, I very clearly explained that they did not simply wear a shirt. Again it seems you aren't understanding what's being written.

 

[Earthstrike]

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.)

It was one of those "which political party's platform supported which ruling" kind of things. Terms like "judicially liberal/conservative" don't really mean a whole lot to me. The way I see the court, it feels like an institution whose partisanship is aligned with whichever side appointed the most judges. So simply by evaluating the agreed upon "wrong decisions" in this manner should suffice.

 

[massoluk]

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.

Uh. Yes. They did. That's why it has come to this.

 

[Tertullian]

Students do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate.

But unfortunately, they leave a lot of their most important protections at the gate. Consider New Jersey v T.L.O., which ruled that searches of students and their possessions are not subject to the relatively high probable cause standard, but rather a much lower, largely useless reasonableness standard akin to reasonable suspicion.

The decision to not even hear this appeal seems to be similar. I doubt SCOTUS would tell adults that they couldn't wear American flag paraphernalia around a public Cinco de Mayo event, even if the wearing were a precursor to starting trouble. But they'll tell children the same. Gotta get those kids used to the erosion of the Bill of Rights early!

 

[TS-08]

But unfortunately, they leave a lot of their most important protections at the gate. Consider New Jersey v T.L.O., which ruled that searches of students and their possessions are not subject to the relatively high probable cause standard, but rather a much lower, largely useless reasonableness standard akin to reasonable suspicion.

The decision to not even hear this appeal seems to be similar. I doubt SCOTUS would tell adults that they couldn't wear American flag paraphernalia around a public Cinco de Mayo event, even if the wearing were a precursor to starting trouble. But they'll tell children the same. Gotta get those kids used to the erosion of the Bill of Rights early!

I doubt they would tell these same kids they couldn't in your public event scenario. These decisions tend to have less to do with the ages of the students (although that can be a factor) and more to do with the unique and delicate circumstances of public schooling. It's hard to imagine telling a school administrator who is responsible for hundreds - if not thousands - of young people from diverse backgrounds, gathered in some sense against their will and in a closed campus, that he or she has to play by the same rules as the cop in the town square.

 

[Two Words]

Uh. Yes. They did. That's why it has come to this.

Why is wearing an American flag shirt inciting them?

 

[KHarvey16]

Why is wearing an American flag shirt inciting them?

You would know the answer if you cared to read any of the background regarding the case and the decision. Or read any of the thread.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

Why is wearing an American flag shirt inciting them?

You're being incredibly reductive in trying to make some sort of point regarding this decision. given the context, it's clear that they were acting in a provocative manner and the shirts were just one way of getting their xenophobic message across.

 

[Two Words]

You guys really don't see how the precedent of "Innocuous thing is offending us so much that we're willing to fight over it, so ban it" is bad? It doesn't matter if the person wearing the shirt is intending to offend people. The First Amendment is useless if you aren't going to defend material that is deemed offensive.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

You guys really don't see how the precedent of "Innocuous thing is offending us so much that we're willing to fight over it, so ban it" is bad? It doesn't matter if the person wearing the shirt is intending to offend people. The First Amendment is useless if you aren't going to defend material that is deemed offensive.

First off, there's precedent that establishes that the first amendment can and is more restrictive in school settings.

Second, regard hate speech and similar exceptions to the first amendment:

Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

in many ways, this case shouldn't have even come to the SC. There's nothing there that couldn't be waived off with precedents. If this decision bothers YOU then it's unfortunate given that it's been the way of things for quite some time now

 

[KHarvey16]

You guys really don't see how the precedent of "Innocuous thing is offending us so much that we're willing to fight over it, so ban it" is bad? It doesn't matter if the person wearing the shirt is intending to offend people. The First Amendment is useless if you aren't going to defend material that is deemed offensive.

It's a restriction on wearing a specific piece of clothing for a specific reason in a specific place on a specific day. There is no slippery slope, this isn't a dangerous precedent and the lower court ruling is not overly broad or vague. It's absolutely fine and makes perfect sense given all of the facts.

 

[Two Words]

Giving a specific case to ban the flag doesn't really help, I already understood the specifics for the ban. And I do not believe the American flag fits that bolded description of hate-speech.

Restricting rights in schools also shouldn't be so quickly waived off. When I was in high school, we were subjected to random frisks. That was a breach of our rights. It shouldn't matter that we weren't 18 or on school property.

 

[GhaleonEB]

You guys really don't see how the precedent of "Innocuous thing is offending us so much that we're willing to fight over it, so ban it" is bad? It doesn't matter if the person wearing the shirt is intending to offend people. The First Amendment is useless if you aren't going to defend material that is deemed offensive.

The ruling is more about whether schools have the leeway to manage attire in the school.

For example, when I was in high school, our rival school across town was called West High School. (We were City High School.) The annual City-West football game was a very big deal, as such rivalries are everywhere. Each year the student body would put out fundraising t-shirts for the event. This year, the shirt said Wuck Fest. Specifically, with different colored letters:

Wuck
Fest

It was hilarious, but the school judged that inappropriate and students had to either turn them inside out or go home. The worry was it was A) inappropriate for a high school and B) needlessly inflammatory toward West High. Did they violate anyone's free speech rights? No.

This situation is similar. On a specific day, some students wore a specific pattern on their shirt, knowing it was inflammatory and would potentially cause conflicts, because of racial tensions and what was being celebrated on that day. The SCOTUS said the school has the right to make judgment calls about whether that's appropriate. From what I can tell from the article, that's it.

Flags are not going to start getting banned in other contexts as a result of this ruling, because the ruling wasn't setting a precedent about banning flags in general. What might have happened had the ruling gone the other way is, schools would lose some leeway to mange such situations, would I don't think would be a good turn of events. The scope here is very narrow. That is what you do not understand, and what everyone has been trying to tell you.

 

[SilentRacoon]

You're being incredibly reductive in trying to make some sort of point regarding this decision. given the context, it's clear that they were acting in a provocative manner and the shirts were just one way of getting their xenophobic message across.

So if a group of people use any sort of symbol be it religious, nationalistic or ideological for their own hateful purposes we should just outright ban them, even if it does transgress the right of those who genuinely use it for their original intents and purposes? Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[Two Words]

The ruling seems to be more about whether schools have the leeway to manage attire in the school.

For example, when I was in high school, our rival school across town was called West High School. (We were City High School.) The annual City-West football game was a very big deal, as such rivalries are everywhere. Each year the student body would put out fundraising t-shirts for the event. This year, the shirt said Wuck Fest. Specifically, with different colored letters:

Wuck
Fest

It was hilarious, but the school judged that inappropriate and students had to either turn them inside out or go home. The worry was it was A) inappropriate for a high school and B) needlessly inflammatory toward West High. Did they violate anyone's free speech rights? No.

This situation is similar. On a specific day, some students wore a specific pattern on their shirt, knowing it was inflammatory and would potentially cause conflicts, because of racial tensions and what was being celebrated on that day. The SCOTUS said the school has the right to make judgment calls about whether that's appropriate. From what I can tell from the article, that's it.

Flags are not going to start getting banned in other contexts as a result of this ruling, because the ruling wasn't setting a precedent about banning flags in general. What might have happened had the ruling gone the other way is, schools would lose some leeway to mange such situations, would I don't think would be a good turn of events. The scope here is very narrow.

How do you determine who is wearing an article of clothing with innocuous material with benign intent and those who wear it with malicious intent? What if somebody has an American flag backpack or journal. Is that banned too on Cinco de Mayo? Banning doesn't even fixes the problem. It just tried to reduce the outward appearance that there is a problem.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

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.

The ACLU's point is that addressing the clothing is just a symptom of a much larger problem. Sure, you've solved one day of potential race riots by selectively banning American-themed apparel, but you still have a school full of white and hispanic students who hate each other. More specifically, you have a population of students who are citizens of this country who find the flag a distasteful symbol when displayed alongside their own heritage. School administrators are poorly equipped to deal with real problems with any subtlety, which is why we have idiotic zero tolerance rules.

 

[YoungHav]

Great decision. If I were principal I'd ask those jackasses to go find another school.

 

[GhaleonEB]

How do you determine who is wearing an article of clothing with innocuous material with benign intent and those who wear it with malicious intent? What if somebody has an American flag backpack or journal. Is that banned too on Cinco de Mayo? Banning doesn't even fixes the problem. It just tried to reduce the outward appearance that there is a problem.

Context, is how. If one student is wearing it without intending to incite, a simple explanation of the context is all that's needed. Most reasonable people would say, oh, Sure, no problem, lemme flip it around for the day. No big deal, it's a freaking t-shirt, and I don't want to inadvertently cause problems. These students were not being reasonable: they were intentionally trying to antagonize others in a situation where such antagonism had been causing problems.

The specific pattern on their shirt is incidental to the discussion.

 

[diffusionx]

How is that not a violation of free speech?

It seems consistent with early SCOTUS rulings. I don't remember the name but the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.

Basically, students have limited free speech rights at school or school related functions. I don't necessarily agree with that, but this is in line.

 

[Two Words]

Context, is how. If one student is wearing it without intending to incite, a simple explanation of the context is all that's needed. Most reasonable people would say, oh, Sure, no problem, lemme flip it around for the day. No big deal, it's a freaking t-shirt, and I don't want to inadvertently cause problems. These students were not being reasonable: they were intentionally trying to antagonize others in a situation where such antagonism had been causing problems.

The specific pattern on their shirt is incidental to the discussion.

So, they should waive their right or else what? What if they feel they have every right to wear it and they had no intention to offend, but they do not wish to waive their right?

And I don't think we can call it an incidental pattern. It's not offensive to people because of it being 13 stripes and 50 stars in a particular pattern. It's offensive to them because it is a flag of a particular nation.

 

[jimwhat]

The ACLU's point is that addressing the clothing is just a symptom of a much larger problem. Sure, you've solved one day of potential race riots by selectively banning American-themed apparel, but you still have a school full of white and hispanic students who hate each other. More specifically, you have a population of students who are citizens of this country who find the flag a distasteful symbol when displayed alongside their own heritage. School administrators are poorly equipped to deal with real problems with any subtlety, which is why we have idiotic zero tolerance rules.

Interesting perspective.

 

[massoluk]

Seriously question, do you not care that some kids are using US Flag as some beacon against hispanics community/event?

 

[Corronchilejano]

So, they should waive their right or else what? What if they feel they have every right to wear it and they had no intention to offend, but they do not wish to waive their right?

Why wear it the specific date where the flag has been used as part of a campaign to harass students celebrating their mexican roots? Are you telling me all students chose to wear the shirt with the flag the exact same date the previous year the harrasement occured and they're all ignorant about the context?

Or are you saying the context here doesn't matter?

 

[Two Words]

Seriously questions, do you not care that some kids are using US Flag as some beacon against hispanics.

You can address that issue through other means than banning flags. This is like if you have 2 sons and they decide to use words close to curse words to try and hurt each other's feelings, like "Fudge You!", and you as the parent decide "Nobody can say Fudge anymore!" That isn't fixing the problem. You should be trying to resolve the issue of your kids fighting.

Why wear it the specific date where the flag has been used as part of a campaign to harass students celebrating their mexican roots? Are you telling me all students chose to wear the shirt with the flag the exact same date the previous year the harrasement occured and they're all ignorant about the context?

Or are you saying the context here doesn't matter?

No, I'm asking how do you determine who is trying to invite riots and who is just wearing it for innocuous reasons. The answer I got was to explain to those wearing it for innocuous reasons and ask them to hide it. My question is then, what if they refuse?

 

[massoluk]

You can address that issue through other means than banning flags. This is like if you have 2 sons and they decide to use words close to curse words to try and hurt each other's feelings, like "Fudge You!", and you as the parent decide "Nobody can say Fudge anymore!" That isn't fixing the problem. You should be trying to resolve the issue of your kids fighting.

The way I see it, they aren't banning US Flag, they are banning inappropriate use of US Flag

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

So if a group of people use any sort of symbol be it religious, nationalistic or ideological for their own hateful purposes we should just outright ban them, even if it does transgress the right of those who genuinely use it for their original intents and purposes? Does that sound reasonable to you?

i haven't said anything at all that would lead a sensible person to think that that's what i'm condoning.

 

[Two Words]

The way I see it, they aren't banning US Flag, they are banning inappropriate use of US Flag

You can burn the American flag. How is this more inappropriate than that?

 

[GhaleonEB]

So, they should waive their right or else what? What if they feel they have every right to wear it and they had no intention to offend, but they do not wish to waive their right?

And I don't think we can call it an incidental pattern. It's not offensive to people because of it being 13 stripes and 50 stars in a particular pattern. It's offensive to them because it is a flag of a particular nation.

First, wearing whatever you want to school is not a right to begin with. This is not a minor point, it's central to your argument. No rights were violated since there is not a right that says "I get to wear whatever I want to school". You don't. The consequence to the kids is, they don't get admitted to school that day, as several of them discovered. Second, again, context matters. You do understand the context, right?

The school had been experiencing gang-related tensions and racially charged altercations between white and Hispanic students at the time. School officials said they feared the imposition of American patriotic imagery by some students at an event where other students were celebrating their pride in their Mexican heritage would incite fights between the two groups.

The kids wore the shirts specifically to cause problems with other kids on that specific day. Again, the pattern is incidental. Were it a different shirt causing a different problem, does the school have the leeway to decide what is okay in the school? Every school does this. (As I noted in my example, the central point of which you have ignored.)

Why do you feel schools must only deal with the fallout from students inciting others, rather than prevent the incitement?

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

You can address that issue through other means than banning flags. This is like if you have 2 sons and they decide to use words close to curse words to try and hurt each other's feelings, like "Fudge You!", and you as the parent decide "Nobody can say Fudge anymore!" That isn't fixing the problem. You should be trying to resolve the issue of your kids fighting.

You know what step one towards resolving that issue is? Stopping the actual fighting so you have space to address the issue.

Trying to fix the problem while people are brawling in the gymnasium damn sure won't work.

 

[Corronchilejano]

The answer I got was to explain to those wearing it for innocuous reasons and ask them to hide it. My question is then, what if they refuse?

The way I see it, they aren't banning US Flag, they are banning inappropriate use of US Flag

If they choose to refuse, they can just avoid school that day. That, I believe, is worse than just not using the shirt, but its the students (parents) call.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

You can burn the American flag. How is this more inappropriate than that?

i'm starting to think you're just a troll bro, but whatever. That's not part of this discussion since it's specifically about one's freedom of expression while in school. You can't keep bringing things up about expression while ignoring the context behind the events from which this decision was made upon.

 

[Two Words]

First, wearing whatever you want to school is not a right to begin with. This is not a minor point, it's central to your argument. No rights were violated since there is not a right that says "I get to wear whatever I want to school". You don't. The consequence to the kids is, they don't get admitted to school that day, as several of them discovered. Second, again, context matters. You do understand the context, right?


The kids wore the shirts specifically to cause problems with other kids on that specific day. Again, the pattern is incidental. Were it a different shirt causing a different problem, does the school have the leeway to decide what is okay in the school? Every school does this. (As I noted in my example, the central point of which you have ignored.)

Why do you feel schools must only deal with the fallout from students inciting others, rather than prevent the incitement?

As I said before, I think schools don't give students enough Bill of Rights protection. I gave an example earlier from my own experience. At our high school, we were randomly subjected to body frisks from police officers. It was put forward to us that we did not have a choice in the matter. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about that issue? Do you feel that was a violation of the student's 4th Amendment rights?

I'm not saying a school should not ever be allowed to tell a student they cannot wear something, but I think there is a bad precedent to allowing innocuous material to suddenly be deemed inappropriate so easily. What do they do if the students start to wear American flag shirts on May 4th and May 6th, for example?

 

[Corronchilejano]

What do they do if the students start to wear American flag shirts on May 4th and May 6th, for example?

The school has a big problem in its hands that will not be resolved simply by allowing them to continue their harassment.

 

[GhaleonEB]

As I said before, I think schools don't give students enough Bill of Rights protection. I gave an example earlier from my own experience. At our high school, we were randomly subjected to body frisks from police officers. It was put forward to us that we did not have a choice in the matter. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about that issue? Do you feel that was a violation of the student's 4th Amendment rights?

This has literally nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the thread or ruling and I am not going to contribute to a derail by furthering it.

I'm not saying a school should not ever be allowed to tell a student they cannot wear something, but I think there is a bad precedent to allowing innocuous material to suddenly be deemed inappropriate so easily. What do they do if the students start to wear American flag shirts on May 4th and May 6th, for example?

You keep bringing up examples that don't have anything to do with the situation that was ruled on. The school didn't pick a random day to ban a random thing. They picked a specific day and a specific thing for a specific (valid) reason. You keep raising slippery slope arguments - banning flags in different contexts, banning other things on different, random days - when that is not what happened here.

 

[Two Words]

I didn't say they picked a random day or a random reason or anything like that. I understand the context of this case. It isn't a difficult one. I feel like when people see that I disagree with it, it must because I simply must not understand the context. I do understand the context, and I disagree with it. Maybe it's just going to stay that way where both sides simply see it their way.

And I asked about the frisking thing because I felt it had to do with Bill of Rights in school. I wasn't asking it to derail the thread. I just wanted to know if you felt the same way about that as the first amendment. I didn't intend to steer any conversation further with it if I got an answer one way or the other. But either way, I think it's become clear to me that I'm just on a fundamentally opposing side here, so I'll just let things be here.

 

[Transhuman]

So, they should waive their right or else what? What if they feel they have every right to wear it and they had no intention to offend, but they do not wish to waive their right?

I think the Swastika looks interesting because I like shapes with rotational symmetry, but I don't presume to have the right to wear a shirt with a swastika on it while at an institution that has a vested interest in seeing me not have the shit kicked out of. The school has to keep kids safe. You say these kid's right to wear what they want, even if antagonistic, trumps any policy the school wants to put in place to protect them. That's some bad prioritisation man.

Maybe I'd feel differently if they were protesting and it was a message of inclusion and peace. But it's not that. The message they are sending with those shirts is "here's us, and here's you".

 

[Ralemont]

I'm not saying a school should not ever be allowed to tell a student they cannot wear something, but I think there is a bad precedent to allowing innocuous material to suddenly be deemed inappropriate so easily. What do they do if the students start to wear American flag shirts on May 4th and May 6th, for example?

Even if we ignore the question of to what degree the school can allow or not allow clothing content (we shouldn't ignore it but just for argument's sake), the material isn't innocuous in this context. And yes, context can change whether something is innocuous or not. If I had a t-shirt that 'Guns Don't Kill People, I kill People" there's nothing really wrong with me wearing that around. It's in bad taste but it's unlikely to start shit. But I'm not wearing that the day after a school shooting. Then it's a real problem that by definition is harmful and not-innocent.

 

[FStop7]

Yeah, this isn't the ACLU's brightest moment. Didn't bother to look at the context as to why this was being done.

How do you know this?

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.

I searched and didn't find anything newer. I take that to mean their position is unchanged.

I'm not saying one should just blindly follow whatever the ACLU says because of a single blog post, but this sort of issue is right in their wheelhouse and as far as I can tell they have a pretty cut and dry assessment of where they stand on the matter that hasn't changed in 5 years.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Interesting perspective.

Seriously question, do you not care that some kids are using US Flag as some beacon against hispanics community/event?

I find it illogical that people would use the flag to admonish people who are citizens of the nation of said flag. Racists aren't logical.

First, wearing whatever you want to school is not a right to begin with. This is not a minor point, it's central to your argument. No rights were violated since there is not a right that says "I get to wear whatever I want to school". You don't. The consequence to the kids is, they don't get admitted to school that day, as several of them discovered. Second, again, context matters. You do understand the context, right?


The kids wore the shirts specifically to cause problems with other kids on that specific day. Again, the pattern is incidental. Were it a different shirt causing a different problem, does the school have the leeway to decide what is okay in the school? Every school does this. (As I noted in my example, the central point of which you have ignored.)

Why do you feel schools must only deal with the fallout from students inciting others, rather than prevent the incitement?

Those problems are still going to be at the school the next day. There is still racism and racial tension, and those kids can still do the stupid USA chant at any time. You haven't even addressed the core issue if you consider this court dismissal a victory.

 

[diffusionx]

Those problems are still going to be at the school the next day. There is still racism and racial tension, and those kids can still do the stupid USA chant at any time. You haven't even addressed the core issue if you consider this court dismissal a victory.

This is true, but it's not the school's job to end racism. The school's job is (partly) to keep the peace and get the kids through the day safely. The SCOTUS has ruled that administrators can limit the speech of students in furtherance of that.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Those problems are still going to be at the school the next day. There is still racism and racial tension, and those kids can still do the stupid USA chant at any time. You haven't even addressed the core issue if you consider this court dismissal a victory.

The principal can only do so much to combat ingrained racism on his campus. His priority was to keep his school an undisrupted place for education and keeping his own students from getting assaulted.

The courts were not asked to fix racism on his campus.

People who agree with the decision aren't saying this is a victory over the racial tensions on campus, nor are they misidentifying the 'core issue.'

 

[SnakeSlashRO]

It wasn't just t-shirts. These kids came equipped with hats and other apparel all stars-n-striped out. They were looking to start shit during Cinco de Mayo.

This.

Guaranteed they never did this, or would have done this on ANY OTHER DAY. Not sure why people can't grasp this simple fact. They did it to start shit, and they got plenty of it.

 

[KHarvey16]

So let's imagine they are addressing these deep seated race issues (I don't actually think we have any knowledge they weren't)...what would you do if this situation comes up? I don't understand the idea that this decision suggests anyone thinks it's all that's needed and no other steps are important. In fact I see this decision as entirely reasonable in a context in which you are or hope to address these issues comprehensively.

 

[Armaros]

I find it illogical that people would use the flag to admonish people who are citizens of the nation of said flag. Racists aren't logical.



Those problems are still going to be at the school the next day. There is still racism and racial tension, and those kids can still do the stupid USA chant at any time. You haven't even addressed the core issue if you consider this court dismissal a victory.

So the school doesn't get to use its authority to try to maintain peace and order unless it solves racism?

 

[Madness]

Dont understand this reasoning. If you expect a fight, dont complain when you get one.

Can you imagine wearing a shirt that criticizes religion, or really anything, and then getting attacked for it and then the school tells you, you can't wear that shirt anymore because it will piss others off enough to want to fight you.

That's the issue here. We all know why the students want to wear the US flag shirts, but they're not exactly the ones that are then resorting to violence. How about telling the other students, hey, violence against others is not allowed. Then again, it is just school, seems like this is the easier decision.

 

[Armaros]

Can you imagine wearing a shirt that criticizes religion, or really anything, and then getting attacked for it and then the school tells you, you can't wear that shirt anymore because it will piss others off enough to want to fight you.

That's the issue here. We all know why the students want to wear the US flag shirts, but they're not exactly the ones that are then resorting to violence. How about telling the other students, hey, violence against others is not allowed. Then again, it is just school, seems like this is the easier decision.

Just because they don't throw the first punch doesn't mean they are not culpable.

Fighting words are not protected by the First amendment for a reason. (Which isn't being applied here)

 

[GhaleonEB]

Those problems are still going to be at the school the next day. There is still racism and racial tension, and those kids can still do the stupid USA chant at any time. You haven't even addressed the core issue if you consider this court dismissal a victory.

Of course the problems are going to be there the next day. This would be one very small step to preventing a specific confrontation, not a solution to a larger issue. It does not make sense to argue that they cannot do one without the other.

 

[Madness]

Just because they don't throw the first punch doesn't mean they are not culpable.

Fighting words are not protected by the First amendment for a reason. (Which isn't being applied here)

Actually yes, one side is committing assault and battery, the other side isn't. Being insulted is never a defense for you to commit violence.

Provocation is not really an accepted legal defense anymore. And if courts do find that provocation contributed to the act of you committing said assault and battery, it's usually only results in lesser punishment, but punishment nonetheless. The students wearing the flags are inflammatory in that they are doing it expressly to make people upset, but if they're getting attacked for it, the onus is on the school to prevent the assailants from attacking them, not telling the later victims, this is your fault, you asked for it.

It's funny how people dislike slippery slope arguments when it goes against what they want, but switch the scenario around to anything. Where I live there is a heavy pro-mainland Chinese presence. Heck, I remember just a while back, there was a bit of tension between Pro-Hong Kong and pro-Mainland China groups, now imagine if someone is celebrating Chinese New Year, or some People's Republic of China founding day, and I wear a shirt that say Free Tibet. I'm doing it expressly to make a political statement. If I get attacked, is the school going to force me to never wear the t-shirt again, or should the people who would attack me, be told to allow my right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression?

Example 2: what if someone wants to wear a rainbow flag, pro-LGBT shirt on Easter during school, or at a Catholic school and some students take offense and beat the crap out-of him. Whose side would you naturally be on then?

 

[TS-08]

How do you know this?



I searched and didn't find anything newer. I take that to mean their position is unchanged.

I'm not saying one should just blindly follow whatever the ACLU says because of a single blog post, but this sort of issue is right in their wheelhouse and as far as I can tell they have a pretty cut and dry assessment of where they stand on the matter that hasn't changed in 5 years.

I'm not all that interested in making inferences based on their silence, but if I were to do so, I'd probably reach the opposite conclusion. The ACLU cared enough about this topic that they blogged about it and sent a letter less than a week after the event in question. But now that the courts have weighed in, they have no desire to comment because their stance is unchanged? That seems incredibly unlikely to me. If the ACLU is concerned about what the principal did, they should be even more concerned that the courts have upheld the action, and that SCOTUS has declined to hear the matter. Any silence would suggest to me that they no longer see this incident as a cause worth their time

But that doesn't change my point. The blog and letter show no evidence of knowledge of the breadth of facts contained in the record before the 9th Circuit, and the reality is that they would have had practically no way of knowing said facts so soon after the incident. Their take on the law is worth considering, but as to the application of law to facts, their stance doesn't invite much deference.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

Actually yes, one side is committing assault and battery, the other side isn't. Being insulted is never a defense for you to commit violence.

Provocation is not really an accepted legal defense anymore. And if courts do find that provocation contributed to the act of you committing said assault and battery, it's usually only results in lesser punishment, but punishment nonetheless. The students wearing the flags are inflammatory in that they are doing it expressly to make people upset, but if they're getting attacked for it, the onus is on the school to prevent the assailants from attacking them, not telling the later victims, this is your fault, you asked for it.

It's funny how people dislike slippery slope arguments when it goes against what they want, but switch the scenario around to anything. Where I live there is a heavy pro-mainland Chinese presence. Heck, I remember just a while back, there was a bit of tension between Pro-Hong Kong and pro-Mainland China groups, now imagine if someone is celebrating Chinese New Year, or some People's Republic of China founding day, and I wear a shirt that say Free Tibet. I'm doing it expressly to make a political statement. If I get attacked, is the school going to force me to never wear the t-shirt again, or should the people who would attack me, be told to allow my right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression?

Example 2: what if someone wants to wear a rainbow flag, pro-LGBT shirt on Easter during school, or at a Catholic school and some students take offense and beat the crap out-of him. Whose side would you naturally be on then?

keep making up strawmen and drawing up hypotheticals that are not related to the case being discussed. first and foremost, good luck finding anyone at a school on a sunday in the states. second off, is the pro-LGBT a xenophobic asshat who is intentionally provoking people who are doing nothing wrong? and third, I don't know of any Catholic private school that allows for anything other than uniforms.

cmon now, this isn't a slippery slope decision, this decision pulls from other precedents. stop trying to make it the end of free expression.