Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees

[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.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

The intent is irrelevent. This is America. They are Americans. They chose to wear pictures of the American flag to school. If the administration believes demonstrating a visible symbol for your nation can pose a threat then they need to get a fucking grip on their school.


Would it also be reasonable for this inept school administrator to tell a female student, "Young lady, you are wearing a skirt so I assume you have a vagina. You need to go home and lock your doors because your ownership of a vagina might cause someone else to behave in a dangerous manner. Now get along home little lady"?

You don't have the right to curb my rights because someone else might choose to be an asshole. If some mexican kid starts a fight, then you deal with the kid who can't deal with the idea of supporting his country. Last I checked Cinco de Mayo isn't an official US holiday anyway.

[lookout123]

What was the relationship between these students and the Mexican American student population before May 5th?

Irrelevent.

Did these students purposely wear the American flag to make a statement against Cinco de Mayo?

Irrelevent.

How would the Mexican American students react against these students wearing the American Flag on May 5th?

Irrelevent.

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 those who reacted violently should be dealt with as violent offenders in accordance with their actions.

Are you seriously obtuse enough to think it would be acceptable for a white administrator to send a mexican kid home if he wore a shirt with a mexican flag on it on the 4th of July? (yeah, I know there's no school in July, but you get the point)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Are you seriously obtuse enough to think it would be acceptable for a white administrator to send a mexican kid home if he wore a shirt with a mexican flag on it on the 4th of July? (yeah, I know there's no school in July, but you get the point)

Who'd a thunk it. Great Idea. Then we can hear about the liberal outcry of oppression.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Are you seriously obtuse enough to think it would be acceptable for a white administrator to send a mexican kid home if he wore a shirt with a mexican flag on it on the 4th of July? (yeah, I know there's no school in July, but you get the point)

You are missing my entire point. It is not about being respectful to other cultures. It is about a school district attempting to prevent violence breaking out in their school.

If there is solid evidence that a symbol will cause a violent reaction in a school, I believe there are grounds to ban that symbol. I back that no matter which ethnicity, religion, or whatever stupid divider is on each side.

You are just basing your views on strong ideals. If you ran that school, what would you do to stop the violence? Telling them to get a grip on their school doesn't say much. I just assume you mean cultural sensitivity training.

Ideally I don't agree with it either, but that is how the world works.


You missed the point too Merc, or are you just looking for a reaction?

Originally Posted by Jinx

These are your words and I was responding to them as I read them.

Okay.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

or are you just looking for a reaction?

Absolutely not. My point has been made. The students had a right to wear the shirts. The schools failed and should be punished.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You are just basing your views on strong ideals. If you ran that school, what would you do to stop the violence? Telling them to get a grip on their school doesn't say much. I just assume you mean cultural sensitivity training.

Sensitivity training? Hell no. The proper response is to quit worrying about everyone's fucking feelings and start working in the world of actions.

White kid attacks a mexican kid for wearing a mexican flag shirt? Press charges on the white kid.

Mexican kid attacks a white kid for wearing an american flag shirt?
Press charges against the mexican kid.

A purple kid attacks a polk a dot kid for having the wrong color dots?
Press charges against the aggressor.

If the school administration has such a weak grasp on keeping the school safe for people to learn then the entire fucking administration should be shown the door so someone competent can be brought in to deal with assholes who break the law regardless of their heritage.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Sensitivity training? Hell no. The proper response is to quit worrying about everyone's fucking feelings and start working in the world of actions.

White kid attacks a mexican kid for wearing a mexican flag shirt? Press charges on the white kid.

Mexican kid attacks a white kid for wearing an american flag shirt?
Press charges against the mexican kid.

A purple kid attacks a polk a dot kid for having the wrong color dots?
Press charges against the aggressor.

If the school administration has such a weak grasp on keeping the school safe for people to learn then the entire fucking administration should be shown the door so someone competent can be brought in to deal with assholes who break the law regardless of their heritage.

I agree...return to the world of actions.

Lets start by banning salsa from all school cafeterias and returning to the Reagan days when ketchup counted as a vegetable on school menus.

Hell...not just the schools. Multi-culturalism has invaded kitchens across American. It must be stopped!

Boycott salsa! Restore ketchup to its patriotic place as America's number one condiment.

Originally Posted by lookout123

The intent is irrelevent. This is America. They are Americans. They chose to wear pictures of the American flag to school. If the administration believes demonstrating a visible symbol for your nation can pose a threat then they need to get a fucking grip on their school.


Would it also be reasonable for this inept school administrator to tell a female student, "Young lady, you are wearing a skirt so I assume you have a vagina. You need to go home and lock your doors because your ownership of a vagina might cause someone else to behave in a dangerous manner. Now get along home little lady"?

You don't have the right to curb my rights because someone else might choose to be an asshole. If some mexican kid starts a fight, then you deal with the kid who can't deal with the idea of supporting his country. Last I checked Cinco de Mayo isn't an official US holiday anyway.

The courts have ruled that schools can impose dress codes that may limit the students' right of expression to wear whatever the hell they want.

Not that the young lady is wearing a skirt and has a vagina....but perhaps because the skirt is too short.

And the intent does matter because the courts use intent as one measure to determine the right to wear particular clothes.

If the intent is to promote a potentially adverse response (which is purely subjective), a particular style of dress may be prohibited.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

And the intent does matter because the courts use intent as one measure to determine the right to wear particular clothes.

Intent is to difficult to prove as a yardstick. In this specific case the students who wore American Flags should sue the hell out of the school district. The burden of proof is on them.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Intent is to difficult to prove as a yardstick. In this specific case the students who wore American Flags should sue the hell out of the school district. The burden of proof is on them.

In a civil case, the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff.

That is, the kids (through their parents) would have to prove the school violated their rights.. not the other way around.

If they want to pursue it, I would suggest calling the ACLU...you know, the guys you criticize for standing up for constitutional rights.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

In a civil case, the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff.

That is, the kids (through their parents) would have to prove the school violated their rights.. not the other way around.

If they want to pursue it, I would suggest calling your friends the ACLU.

An easy win. Fuck the ACLU. I would just hire a good lawyer.

I bet they are already pissing in their pants for the national attention they are getting.

My friends ?