Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why would you prevent minors from having the same rights as illegal aliens?

This is not a First Amendment issue. You can find school policies and practices in any school in the country that limit the "rights" of students.

Minors do not have an absolute right to freedom of expression. They cant legally express themselves by smoking, driving, etc.......

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

This is not a First Amendment issue. You can find school policies and practices in any school in the country that limit the "rights" of students.

Minors do not have an absolute right to freedom of expression. They cant legally smoke, drive, etc.......

Oh God that is just rich.

BS.

It depends on the state law.

You have been exposed.

You are willing to support Illegal Aliens over legal US Citizens.

Keep digging.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Oh God that is just rich.

BS.

It depends on the state law.

You have been exposed.

You are willing to support Illegal Aliens over legal US Citizens.

Keep digging.

This from the guy who insisted that the Constitution was only for citizens.

When you have a cite that shows that minors, particularly in school settings, have absolute First Amendment rights......please post it.

This might, or might not, have been a bad policy decision by the school. That is a matter of opinion.

It is not a First Amendment issue.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

This from the guy who insisted that the Constitution was only for citizens.

When you have a cite that shows that minors have absolute First Amendment rights......please post it.

Yea, minors are citizens...

Fuck off.

Anyone who is willing to support the rights of Illegals over US Citizens loses in my book.

Have a great day socialist scumbag.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, minors are citizens...

Fuck off.

Anyone who is willing to support the rights of Illegals over US Citizens loses in my book.

Have a great day socialist scumbag.

Name calling doesnt change the facts.

When you have a cite that shows that minors have absolute First Amendment rights, particularly in a school setting......please post it.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

SO a minor gets arrested. Does he have a right to not answer questions and incriminate himself?

SO a thug 16 yr old has no right to Lawyer up?

Neither one are first amendment issues....nor do they apply to rights of expression in a school setting.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

When you have a cite that shows that minors have absolute First Amendment rights, particularly in a school setting......please post it.
Neither one are first amendment issues....nor do they apply to rights of expression in a school setting.

The point is that you hold the "rights" of non-US citzens higher than those of people who are legal citizens.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The point is that you hold the "rights" of non-US citzens higher than those of people who are legal citizens.

Of course, you cant find a cite that shows that minors have absolute First Amendment rights..so its now a different argument.

I favor illegals over citizens.

Nice try, but ignorant of the facts.

The point is that I understand the Constitution and you dont...as has been made evident now in several discussions.

The Constitution is NOT just for citizens as you insisted....and, minors do NOT have absolute First Amendment rights.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

When you have a cite that shows that minors, particularly in school settings, have absolute First Amendment rights......please post it.


It is not a First Amendment issue.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by pierce

there are schools where this would be a legitimate safety issue

Let's say they were sent home for their own safety, and the safety of others who might be caught up in the fray, when they were attacked in a public school for wearing their country's flag. You're good with this solution?

A day after five Morgan Hill students were sent home for wearing American flag T-shirts, the controversy erupted ten-fold.

Ya. Huge surprise there.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by jinx

Let's say they were sent home for their own safety, and the safety of others who might be caught up in the fray, when they were attacked in a public school for wearing their country's flag. You're good with this solution?

Why should I answer that question if you are going to word it that way. Here is a breakdown of your argument.

You say, "Let's say they were sent home for their own safety, and the safety of others who might be caught up in the fray". I don't know where this comes from. The issue was not that people have to be sent home for protection. The issue is that, for safety reasons, certain clothing should not be worn in schools. And if someone decides to wear that particular clothing, they either have to change or be sent home.

You say, "when they were attacked in a public school for wearing their country's flag." You make this seem innocent. There is reason to believe this is not true. If it was just someone innocently wearing an American flag, then I would agree with your point.


There are a few questions that we do not know that could drastically change the situation.

What was the relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population before May 5th?
Did these students purposely wear the American flag to make a statement against Cinco de Mayo?
How would the Mexican American students react against these students wearing the American Flag on May 5th?

If there was a good relationship or non-existent relationship between these student and the Mexican American student population, the students innocently wore the American flag, and the Mexican American students would not react badly (besides getting offended), then I think the decision was wrong by the school district.

If there was a bad relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population, the students purposely wore the American flag as a fuck you to Cinco de Mayo, and the Mexican American students would react violently to the shirts, then I agree with the school districts decision. Then the fault lies on both the students who wore the clothes and the people who will react violently. They both created this possible violent situation and the school district is attempting to defuse the situation in the easiest way possible.

For me, there is a lot of gray depending on the answers but I do agree that the fault does not solely with the students wearing the clothing no matter the situation. There is a lot of fault if people react violently to something like this. But I do not find fault in a school district that tries to defuse a situation like that. Because if they do not, they will be attacked for not defusing the situation after something possibly happens.

But, there is a clear difference between showing American pride by wearing an American T-shirt and saying fuck you to another culture by wearing an American T-shirt. I agree that it is sad that I have to say that last sentence but that, unfortunately, is how our world works.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If it was just someone innocently wearing an American flag, then I would agree with your point.

Can you describe the difference between "innocent wearing" and "malicious wearing" and how you can scientifically tell the difference? And...does the subject matter, or WHAT you are wearing have no bearing? I find the fundamental substance of your argument to be patently ridiculous.

[squirell nutkin]

Originally Posted by Redux

This is not a First Amendment issue. You can find school policies and practices in any school in the country that limit the "rights" of students.

Minors do not have an absolute right to freedom of expression. They cant legally express themselves by smoking, driving, etc.......

You should actually read up on what your first amendment rights are.

First, Minors do have 1st amendment rights. Second, if the school is a public school or receives funding from the government then your speech is protected. Where speech is protected is defined as a "public forum" How that forum is defined is complex. In certain circumstances a public school may not be a public forum, but I couldn't say what those might be.
Illegal speech or expression is not protected speech.
There are a number of exclusions to one's freedom of expression and hate speech or inciting to riot or exhorting someone to break the law are all unprotected speech.
Here is a pretty good summary of the First Amendment.

It's been about 15 years since I studied the topic in school, so I am a little foggy on details. Maybe I'll read the link myself.

You might make the argument that wearing the flag tshirts was inflammatory speech (therefore not protected) It is a bit ironic that wearing clothing made from or depicting the US flag, during the Viet Nam war would be grounds for a summary ass whipping while the cops made sure no one broke up the fight.

Times, they are a changin'

Expressive Conduct

In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943), Justice robert h. jackson wrote that symbols are "a short cut from mind to mind." Expressive conduct or Symbolic Speech involves communicative conduct that is the behavioral equivalent of speech. The conduct itself is the idea or message. Some expressive conduct is the equivalent of speech and is protected by the First Amendment.

In tinker v. des moines independent community school district, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to suspend high-school students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, because their conduct was "akin to pure speech" and did not interfere with the work of the school or the rights of other students.

In Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 2093, 150 L. Ed.2d 151 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a private Christian organization could not be denied use of the public school space for after-school activities. The Court emphasized that the Establishment Clause could not serve as a barrier to the organization's exercise of its free speech rights. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his majority opinion, addressed the freedom-of-speech argument. He noted that the school was a limited public forum and that the state therefore was not required to permit persons "to engage in every type of speech." However, the state's ability to restrict speech was not unlimited. In addition, the state could not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint. Justice Thomas wrote that the school district decision had unlawfully imposed this requirement. He pointed to recent Court decisions that had forbidden states to prevent religious groups from using public facilities or to receive funding for an undergraduate organization.

Statutes that prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag have been found to restrict free expression unconstitutionally. In texas v. johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989), the Court overturned Gregory L. Johnson's conviction for burning a U.S. flag during a demonstration. Johnson's actions were communicative conduct that warranted First Amendment protection, even though they were repugnant to many people. Similarly, in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 110 S. Ct. 2404, 110 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1990), the Court struck down the federal Flag Protection Act of 1989, 103 Stat. 777, 18 U.S.C.A. § 700, stating that the government's interest in passing the act had been a desire to suppress free expression and the content of the message that the act of flag burning conveys.

Originally Posted by squirell nutkin

You should actually read up on what your first amendment rights are.

First, Minors do have 1st amendment rights. Second, if the school is a public school or receives funding from the government then your speech is protected. Where speech is protected is defined as a "public forum" How that forum is defined is complex. In certain circumstances a public school may not be a public forum, but I couldn't say what those might be.
Illegal speech or expression is not protected speech.
There are a number of exclusions to one's freedom of expression and hate speech or inciting to riot or exhorting someone to break the law are all unprotected speech.
Here is a pretty good summary of the First Amendment.

It's been about 15 years since I studied the topic in school, so I am a little foggy on details. Maybe I'll read the link myself.

You might make the argument that wearing the flag tshirts was inflammatory speech (therefore not protected) It is a bit ironic that wearing clothing made from or depicting the US flag, during the Viet Nam war would be grounds for a summary ass whipping while the cops made sure no one broke up the fight.

Times, they are a changin'

My point was that students first amendment rights are not absolute.

Probably the most recent case regarding student first amendment rights.....Morse v Frederick.

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) was a school speech case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, at a school-supervised event, that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.[1]

IMO, this is not a first amendment issue....and, none of us know the intent of the students.

Was it to express patriotism and freedom or was to be provocative (to the point that the administrator thought it might pose a danger) given the recent focus on illegal immigration.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

My point was that students first amendment rights are not absolute.

No, the point is you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, the point is you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

Putting words in my mouth again?

I never said that illegals or detainees should have the same rights as citizens.

And you did say that Constitution only applies rights to citizens.

You cant delete the facts as posted.

And you can run away from your own posts as much as you want....no sweat off my ass.