Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees

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]

So a 17 yo can't refuse a consent to a search or questioning without a Lawyer present?

[lookout123]

If a kid can wear a shirt with a mexican flag to school then a kid can also wear a shirt with an american flag on it. It doesn't matter why they wore it because then you are talking about thoughts, not actions.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

I still say they should sue the fuck out of that school, just to make a point.

My money is that they would eventually settle out of court because they know they screwed up.

[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

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.

You are the same guy who wants to support Constitutional Rights to suspected Terrorists and Enemy Combatants. You fail big time.....

To date the Courts have only allowed LIMITED rights to illegals, Terrorists and Enemy Combatants, the same people you support.

Minors have Rights.

[TheMercenary]

No really. I want to hear why you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

Your chance to shine. GO!

Sorry, folks, for the distraction.

But I dont intend to let personal attacks and false allegations go unanswered.

Merc...anytime you want to have a moderated discussion on the Constitution, just let me know.....no name calling, no "fails"...

Just you and me...and a moderator (UT) to keep it civil and focused.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No really. I want to hear why you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

Your chance to shine. GO!

I agree with the Supreme Court decisions affirming limited rights for illegals (and detainees)....I have never suggested they should have absolute and unlimited rights

Please link any post of mine where I said anything other than the above about "rights" for illegals or detainees.

You were the one who said they had NO rights....that the Constitution was ONLY for citizens.

I also agree with court decisions affirming that the Constitutional rights of minors are not absolute and can be restricted or limited in a manner that would not apply to adult citizens.

[TheMercenary]

Another epic Fail...

[SamIam]

Gosh, am I the only one who remembers those wild days when students (white) would wear flags embroidered on their ass and various other anatomical parts. Where I went to school, a girl had the bright idea to make a bikini out of the flag. They arrested the flag burners, but I don't know what they did to the wearers. I also rented an apartment for a while where the previous residents painted a large flag on the kitchen wall and stenciled a marijuana leaf over the top of the flag. For anyone who remembers history, the current hoopla is really nothing much.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Another epic Fail...

The facts and the posts ( link and link) are there for all to see.

I said illegals should not have the same rights as citizens...you said the Constitution is only for citizens.

Who failed?

Let the people...or just the citizens decide.

[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.