The district seems to believe it has the ethical high ground here in that the administration felt that it had the latitude to protect these Mexican-American students from harassment and potential harm.
As well they should, I didn't mean to imply that the school was in the wrong.
I am lamenting that this and similar topics actually spark debate.
Absolutely nothing but a passing thought, conveniently and ironically afforded to me by the same legal rights that allowed these kids to do what they did and give other people the gall to even question their punishment.
Interesting. Thank you for the history there. That does add perspective that the article didn't have (and therefore, I was unaware of).
That being said, the reaction still does seem a bit much. Did the school administration do anything to promote some sensitivity among the students, or even proactively warn students and parents that this was a concern for Cinco de Mayo? It seems to me that leading up to Cinco de Mayo (or some other "trouble" day) may have been a good opportunity to promote some respect between students with different backgrounds. As opposed to simply reacting to something after the fact.
That much isn't clear. All the articles I've read deal specifically with the incidents themselves and the reactions to it, not any preventative measures the school may or may not have taken. You're right that this would have been a great opportunity for promotion of cultural and racial sensitivity and understanding. Perhaps the administration felt that last year was an isolated incident and its actions then would dissuade similar outbursts in the future and that additional steps (such as sensitivity training) weren't necessary. Or the funding/support simply wasn't there for the implementation. We don't really know.
What, that some people might think freedom of speech even extends to unpopular speech?
Though, as we've concluded many times over, free speech does have limits. One of which is that it can't be used in such a way as to create situations that may lead to a lapse in safety (the infamous "fire!" in a crowded theater cliche).
The question here is that is this a case where free speech exceeded those limits and raised the potential for students to not be safe from harm? I honestly don't think so. There's nothing in the stories I've read to suggest this was going to escalate beyond bullying and intimidation, though I think the school was right to be better safe than sorry. Preventing from violence before it's an issue is a good thing.
Absolutely nothing but a passing thought, conveniently and ironically afforded to me by the same legal rights that allowed these kids to do what they did and give other people the gall to even question their punishment.
Fair enough. I'd question what exactly you know about me to even make such a comment, but that's your perogative I guess.
Yeah, I suppose that's my take on it. If what the kids did was meant to be offensive/intimidating, then I think that it's a shame that they did that. Because it is ignorant. Even if what they did was simply being insensitive, it's still a shame, because there is an opportunity lost there to perhaps broaden people's perspectives and promote some understanding.
Hell, at least when Cinco de Mayo was becoming more "popular" and recognized, I read up on the holiday. As opposed to just using it as an excuse to go to a Mexican restaurant and drink tequila and Coronas. Because, IMO, doing that is far more insulting.
Here's what you want to do: Argue that a school administration is not fully bound by the First Amendment, and can make some compromises in the name of discipline.
Here's what you don't want to do: Imply that speech made with the intent to offend is not protected by the First Amendment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Care to explain why voting for Bush twice is a bad thing? I'm sorry that the entire country doesn't agree with your politics, but I don't see how thats relevant.
Because the first time you voted for him, maybe, just maybe you were drunk or high or something. But the 2ND time you voted for him, well your drunk excuse isn't going to cut it. You had 4 years to plan to be sober for 1 DAY!?!! I mean come on! The guy left office with a lower approval rating than Spider Man 3!
Troll infraction.
I just think it's ironic (yes I know this is probably another debate) how people love to protect free speech when its speech they agree with. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has made a career out of protecting free speech and do you have any idea of how much crud they get from conservatives??
Again, nothing in the article shows they had a past of harrassing latinos or any other minorities, they were just having lunch by themselves and there's no indication that anyone was offended by their shirt prior to the principal talking to them and making a big deal out of this.
If there was the slightest indication the students intended to offend, then yes the administration would have been in their right to send them home. Lacking this, they overstepped their bounds.
And since I don't think anyone mentionned it I'll go ahead and clear the elephant in the room : If a group of mexican-americans wore mexican flag shirts on an american holiday and the principal sent them home, there'd be an angry mob outside the school, activist and other figures protesting vehemently.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
Fair enough. I'd question what exactly you know about me to even make such a comment, but that's your perogative I guess.
I know nothing about you, but I can rightfully infer from this:
Quote from epeeguy »
I'm not even sure that would be a reasonable line to draw. Because in my mind there's an implicit question of whether such a "prohibition" would be reinforcing certain negative behaviors and prejudices.
that you're lacking a critical amount of what I would define as common sense, which admittedly does not chum with legal systems, which tend to work in absolutes.
Here's what you want to do: Argue that a school administration is not fully bound by the First Amendment, and can make some compromises in the name of discipline.
Here's what you don't want to do: Imply that speech made with the intent to offend is not protected by the First Amendment.
No, here's what I want to do, conveniently defined by me so as to avoid the confusion presented when you assume my stance: Imply that the First Ammendment is wrong in protecting intently offensive speech.
Here's what I don't want to do (and consequently am not doing): Imply that it would be right to completely abolish intently offensive speech. Because, again, we run into the Hitler dilemma.
I have a question: Zachary74 was just punished with a troll infraction, why? And I don't mean to ask why the nature of his post warranted a troll infraction, but rather why it was beneficial to do so.
Again, nothing in the article shows they had a past of harrassing latinos or any other minorities, they were just having lunch by themselves and there's no indication that anyone was offended by their shirt prior to the principal talking to them and making a big deal out of this.
A group of 50-60 Latino students walked out of classes at Morgan Hill's Live Oak High early Thursday, marching to city hall and rallying to show their support for a school official.
That unidentified assistant principal had ordered the students who wore t-shirts with American flags on Cinco de Mayo to either go home or turn the shirts inside out.
Among the demonstrators was sophomore Justina Piedra. “We could have ignored it, but the fact that they did it to us last year -- see that is disrespect toward us,” she said of the students. “And they want to do it again and plan it out, they plan it out. They think it’s funny. It hurts us. We are just as equal as they are.”
Fellow student Lizbeth Ruiz also said she felt disrespected. “There is no right for them to be putting us down,” she said of the t-shirt wearers. “All that proves that America isn’t what it should be.”
I know nothing about you, but I can rightfully infer from this:
that you're lacking a critical amount of what I would define as common sense, which admittedly does not chum with legal systems, which tend to work in absolutes.
No, here's what I want to do, conveniently defined by me so as to avoid the confusion presented when you assume my stance: Imply that the First Ammendment is wrong in protecting intently offensive speech.
Here's what I don't want to do (and consequently am not doing): Imply that it would be right to completely abolish intently offensive speech. Because, again, we run into the Hitler dilemma.
I have a question: Zachary74 was just punished with a troll infraction, why? And I don't mean to ask why the nature of his post warranted a troll infraction, but rather why it was beneficial to do so.
Private actor Vs. Public actor You have no first amendment rights on these boards as they are a private forum run by a private actor.
..,that you're lacking a critical amount of what I would define as common sense...
What's wrong with saying that I'm uncertain of where one could reasonably draw a line on "offensive speech"? Because that's all I suggested. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to take issue with my example, that's fine. It may not have been the best example. But I don't think warrants a statement about me.
Here's what you want to do: Argue that a school administration is not fully bound by the First Amendment, and can make some compromises in the name of discipline.
Here's what you don't want to do: Imply that speech made with the intent to offend is not protected by the First Amendment.
Students are restricted by loco parentis on multiple First Amendment rights. For example, a student's "First Amendment rights" with a school news paper are limited, because the administration has a right to censor the paper.
Tinker vs Des Moines Independent Community School District
Quote from wikipedia »
Tinker remains a viable and frequently-cited Court precedent, though subsequent Court decisions have determined limitations on the scope of student free speech rights. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, a 1986 case, the Supreme Court held that a high school student's sexual innuendo–laden speech during a student assembly was not constitutionally protected. Fraser qualified Tinker in making an exception for "indecent" speech. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, where the court ruled that schools have the right to regulate, for legitimate educational reasons, the content of non-forum, school-sponsored newspapers, also limits Tinker's application. The Court in Hazelwood clarified that both Fraser and Hazelwood were decided under the doctrine of Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association. Such a distinction keeps undisturbed the Material Disruption doctrine of Tinker, while deciding certain student free speech cases under the Nonpublic Forum doctrine of Perry. In Morse v. Frederick, the Court held that schools may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school-sponsored event, even those events occurring off school grounds, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. Mary Beth Tinker continued to support freedom of speech and demonstrated in front of the Supreme Court during Morse v. Frederick.
Thus, for Judge Kleinfeld, "the question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school-authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly 'No.'"[11] To reach this determination, the Court inquired whether Frederick's constitutional rights were violated.[nb 6]. The Court, in holding (contra the District Court) that Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District provided the controlling analysis, distinguished Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.
Quote from Court Ruling}
Fraser holds that high school students"s rights to free speech in school are not coextensive with adults"s rights, and "pervasive sexual innuendo" that is "plainly offensive . . . to any mature person" can be marked off as impermissible incivility within the school context. 12 Fraser focuses upon the sexual nature of the offensiveness in the in-school speech that can be punished, as contrasted with the "political viewpoint" of the speech protected in Tinker. 13 Our case differs from Fraser in that Frederick"s speech was not sexual (sexual speech can be expected to stimulate disorder among those new to adult hormones), and did not disrupt a school assembly. Also, it is not so easy to distinguish speech about marijuana from political speech in the context of a state where referenda regarding marijuana legalization repeatedly occur and a controversial state court decision on the topic had recently issued. 14 The phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" may be funny, stupid, or insulting, depending on one"s point of view, but it is not "plainly offensive" in the way sexual innuendo is.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier is similarly distinguishable. In Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court held that high school students did not have a First Amendment right to publish articles on pregnancy and divorce in a school newspaper over the principal"s objection, where the newspaper was produced in a class on journalism, edited by the journalism teacher as part of the teaching of the class, and paid for with school money. 16 The Court distinguished Tinker on the ground that "the question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech -- the question that we addressed in Tinker -- is different from the question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech." 17 This student newspaper was "part of the school curriculum." 18 Exclusion of any First Amendment duty to "promote" a student viewpoint [**14 »
means that a school necessarily retains authority to refuse to "sponsor" speech such as Frederick's, which arguably promotes drug use. 19 Kuhlmeier does not control the case at bar, however, because Frederick's pro-drug banner was not sponsored or endorsed by the school, nor was it part of the curriculum, nor did it take place as part of an official school activity. Kuhlmeier might apply had Frederick insisted on making his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner in art class, but that is not what the record shows. His display [*1120] took place out of school while students were released so that they could watch a Coca-Cola and Olympics activity.[12]
The thing comes down to: Children are controlled by the government from the time they're at the bus stop to the time they are off of the bus stop. Also, if you are 18 years old you still fall under these laws and do not have the same rights to freedom while in school. You are still under loco parentis, and therefore become a "demi adult" from bus stop to bus stop. By what I mean for "demi adult" is that your rights are restricted while in school, but you are still able to be charged as an adult even though you are restricted by loco parentis while in the school. The same goes for people that are upwards of 21 years old and still in high school, which is the limit for special needs students to get their high school diploma.
So yea, this is why the last few years schools have been pressing more control over students in certain districts because of these rulings. The most famous of these were the lab top cameras being rigged to potentially watch students "in case of theft." The only violation really was that their loco parentis rights
only go to the bus stop, after the bus stop they are out of the school's custody. So the spy cams were a violation of school limitations.
I am not offended when I see somene wear the Mexican flag on 4th of July (yes I have seen it), so why are these people offended by someone wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo?
"These" people are probably offended because other students who don't share their same Mexican heritage felt the need to disrespect their celebration by wearing clothing on that specific day which pulled directly away from the Mexican holiday celebration (run-on sentence?). Did they "regularly" dress up like an American flag? If so, it would explain why there is no mention of their girlfriends (don't infract me bro!).
All I'm saying is this. If you want to defend them through "freedom of speech" then you need to defend Muslims burning the American flag on US soil. If you can do that, I will stand corrected.
What's wrong with saying that I'm uncertain of where one could reasonably draw a line on "offensive speech"? Because that's all I suggested. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, in fact what you suggested and what prompted by comment was that you are unable to make a firm decision on the apprehension of five hypothetical Muslims wearing airplane t-shirts in the Freedom Tower with the intent to offend/alarm/terrorize people. Specifically. That you are uncertain of where to drawn the line on free and/or offensive speech is entirely understandable; I'm unable to do it myself.
Quote from epeeguy »
If you want to take issue with my example, that's fine. It may not have been the best example. But I don't think warrants a statement about me.
If my opinion matters to you to an extent, you're always welcome to change yours; and if it doesn't, I'm not sure why you're concerned. An opinion is all it amounts to, after all.
"These" people are probably offended because other students who don't share their same Mexican heritage felt the need to disrespect their celebration by wearing clothing on that specific day which pulled directly away from the Mexican holiday celebration (run-on sentence?). Did they "regularly" dress up like an American flag?
First: why is "these" in quotes?
Second: how is what you described in any way different from what the person you were responding to described?
If so, it would explain why there is no mention of their girlfriends (don't infract me bro!).
All I'm saying is this. If you want to defend them through "freedom of speech" then you need to defend Muslims burning the American flag on US soil. If you can do that, I will stand corrected.
Then stand corrected. The flag is not sacrosanct. As long as its not a physical hazard (or violate reasonable TPM rules) flag burnings can occur legally in the US.
Some people have said that if it was coincidental, then it's an overreaction, but if it was intentional, the school acted legitimately.
But even if it were intentional (as it seems to be from mikeyG's post), isn't the first rule of dealing with trolls "Don't feed the troll"? Or is it everyone else that should ignore them and then the school is the "moderator" that needs to "infract" them?
No, here's what I want to do, conveniently defined by me so as to avoid the confusion presented when you assume my stance: Imply that the First Ammendment is wrong in protecting intently offensive speech.
Here's what I don't want to do (and consequently am not doing): Imply that it would be right to completely abolish intently offensive speech. Because, again, we run into the Hitler dilemma.
Okay, I understand now. But where do you get off claiming that the First Amendment is not just wrong but so obviously wrong that there ought not even to be a debate about it, and insulting the intelligence of people who disagree with you?
Consider this a warning for the "insulting" part, by the way.
I have a question: Zachary74 was just punished with a troll infraction, why? And I don't mean to ask why the nature of his post warranted a troll infraction, but rather why it was beneficial to do so.
Clear and present risk of a flame war, as evinced by his previous Bush-related comment already having successfully trolled bLatch (sorry for making an example of you, bLatch). As I've said from the beginning, and mikey has recently reiterated, if the school can demonstrate clear and present danger, then the First Amendment does not apply. But to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't; these kids were just wearing shirts. Whatever the kids' intent was in wearing those shirts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First: why is "these" in quotes?
Second: how is what you described in any way different from what the person you were responding to described?
1. I quoted "these" to make sure "you guys" knew I was referring to the original post.
2. He was asking why "these" people were offended. I was just trying to give him my opinion on why they were.
Then stand corrected. The flag is not sacrosanct. As long as its not a physical hazard (or violate reasonable TPM rules) flag burnings can occur legally in the US.
I stand corrected. Howevery I'd be interested in seeing data showing what percentage of people would protect "the students" (its fun to put quotes btw) freedom of speech but would not protect "muslims" freedom of speech to burn American flags.
There's no indication that they were attempting to incite any kind of violence.
This:
But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.
Is a problem. You can't wear American colors on America? If you're offended by American colors in America, that's fine, but that absolutely should not determine policy in a school.
Sometimes I hate the fact that people like you run the country, but then I get to thinking about Hitler, and in the end I just wind up frustrated at the contradiction that people aren't meant to rule each other.
And in this is an indication that there's a problem on your end.
And yet violence is not the end-all-be-all of crises. That people took offense to the group was incident enough,
No it wasn't.
If you take offense at an American flag in America, that's fine, but you absolutely do not have the right to prohibit anyone from showing it. That is absolutely an infringement of freedom of speech.
not to mention that this is far from the first time Mexicans have had problems with jackass patriots on Cinco de Mayo.
So any problem any Mexican has on Cinco de Mayo automatically is ruled on the side of the Mexican because he's Mexican, because we want to minimize racism?
Also, as I said, the staff was avoiding potential crises, the idea being to quell violence before it is even suggested.
I'm sure many things are done to avoid potential problems. I'm sure that school that installed security cameras did so to avoid potential theft. Motivation does not make the action irrelevant.
What worries me even more is their parents. I wonder if they bought those shirts for their kids. I mean seriously, I would of never wasted $20 on a stupid flag shirt when I was 16. My guess is their parents are bigots too. Just sad.
See, it's funny, because I owned a flag shirt at 16. It's just something you naturally have, because it's a symbol printed everywhere in this country.
And it's posts like these that prove a point, because you're just going to make a knee-jerk reaction of equating a flag with bigotry?
A year ago, students at that school harassed Mexican-American students on Cinco de Mayo by loudly waving American flags in their faces. As a result, the school becomes less inclined to tolerate racially-motivated intimidation on that level. A year later, five students decked out in full American flag clothing sit together during Cinco de Mayo and the principal reacts strongly. And when he comes under fire, many students (including a large number of Hispanic students) march in support of him saying that he only acted because they were being bullied.
See, the SECOND they start doing that, then you have all right to tell them to go home. This I will agree with.
But you do not have the right to tell them to do so if all they're doing is going about their day. To connect that to racism is not just an inference on your part, it's an inference on the part of everyone, students and faculty, who took issue with this, and it is an unfair inference to make. And any action taken on it is wrong. If you're going to make the knee-jerk reaction, the default assumption on Cinco de Mayo that any expression of patriotism towards this country, the country we live in, is wrong, then you've banned the national symbol of this country in that school, and that is NEVER acceptable.
Well they were last year, I guess the administration was hedging its bets that they'd be offended this year, too.
Again, that's irrelevant. If violence were started over this, it would be the fault of whoever began the violence. You do not have the freedom to not be offended, that's the WHOLE POINT of the First Amendment.
If there was the slightest indication the students intended to offend, then yes the administration would have been in their right to send them home. Lacking this, they overstepped their bounds.
This.
And since I don't think anyone mentionned it I'll go ahead and clear the elephant in the room : If a group of mexican-americans wore mexican flag shirts on an american holiday and the principal sent them home, there'd be an angry mob outside the school, activist and other figures protesting vehemently.
This too. To say there isn't a racial double-standard here is problematic.
No, here's what I want to do, conveniently defined by me so as to avoid the confusion presented when you assume my stance: Imply that the First Ammendment is wrong in protecting intently offensive speech.
Here's what I don't want to do (and consequently am not doing): Imply that it would be right to completely abolish intently offensive speech. Because, again, we run into the Hitler dilemma.
So you want to say one thing, but you don't want to say the obvious logical conclusion of that thing? Seems you don't know what you want to say then.
Well, actually you do, you want the First Amendment to function only in the way you want it to. Not unusual, in fact, it's what everyone else wants as well. That's exactly why we have it the way it is.
No, in fact what you suggested and what prompted by comment was that you are unable to make a firm decision on the apprehension of five hypothetical Muslims wearing airplane t-shirts in the Freedom Tower with the intent to offend/alarm/terrorize people. Specifically.
Ah, I see your point. Then why not just ask about the difficulty in such a decision?
To address that point: Arresting someone for actually attempting to incite a riot is certainly reasonable. There are certainly laws against that kind of behavior. And I could certainly see how your hypothetical situation could lead to a potential riot. So, in such situation, it may have to come to that. (I would still set a high enough standard that requires some form of violence to actually be in the process of happening, rather than just quelch the "speech" from the get go.)
Of course, if the same group is protesting about being unfairly prejudiced against by a pilot's union or some airline industry, then is that problematic behavior? I'd certainly recognize that they have the right to protest against behavior that is unfair to them. Just not in that particular manner. (Example: A nearby family planning clinic occassionally has protests from right-to-life groups. They sometimes show pictures involving aborted fetuses. That's not exactly helpful, especially when school buses do pass that spot.)
But, I don't know that potentially offensive speech is the same. I may be offended by something, and disagree with it, but does that mean it is reasonable to prohibit? As it relates to the original situation, while what the five students did may be offensive to some, does that make it reasonable to prohibit? I don't think so. Especially if it passes up on the opportunity to address the deeper issues of understanding and respect for other cultures. Ban the behavior, and to me, you'll just get knee-jerk responses that reinforces people's wanted to be disrespectful and offensive.
If my opinion matters to you to an extent, you're always welcome to change yours; and if it doesn't, I'm not sure why you're concerned. An opinion is all it amounts to, after all.
Your opinion matters inasmuch as its a discussion of the issue at hand, not an observation about the person making it (especially as I can see no basis for such an observation). Whether or not I agree with your opinion, I still at least value it as it may lead me to change mine, or reconsider things in a different light.
first: kudos, captain, for posting all the legalese before i had a chance to.
i actually got into a heated argument about this because some of my less intellectual friends couldn't be bothered with settled law; instead, i was repeatedly told, "ZOMG you should never censor an american flag, and if you agree with its censoring, you're unamerican!" (note: i have less "less intellectual" friends today than i did last week; one of them was so upset with me having facts on my side that she libeled me repeatedly on facebook in such a way as to try to destroy my career.)
The thing comes down to: Children are controlled by the government from the time they're at the bus stop to the time they are off of the bus stop.
i think the words "controlled" and "government" here are a bit harsh. generally, a school's "control" of students is limited by, essentially, their ability to censor whatever the school deems inappropriate or provocative. (this case falls under "provocative.") as far as "government," well, that gives the illusion that decisions fall to a large bureaucracy, where, really, each school handles its own business based on its own needs. with a large mexican population, and the prior cinco de mayo's flag-waving incident, the school has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its students, faculty, administration and other staff.
but otherwise you're spot on in analysis.
some people argue, "just send the kids home instead." that is only an option when no concealing option is available (jeans ripped in conspicuous places, too-short clothing, etc.), as sending a child home is a) basically a suspension, b) a gift to the student, and c) a problem for parents if none are home.
this situation is NOT equal to situations in other public places, specifically because loco parentis only applies to children in school. in any public place outside of a school, freedom of speech is only bounded by the "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater" types of limitations.
@ zachary: the real irony of the ACLU v. conservatives is that the ACLU has defended conservatives when THEIR civil liberties are violated.
EDITS:
@ highroller: the problem with what you are saying is that it requires the school to wait around and see if an incident occurs. had the school done this, and a student was injured in the resulting whatever, the lawsuits would hit the fan, and then we'd REALLY have a situation. with a past incident the year before where the flag-wearing students were belligerent, the school felt it necessary to be proactive. the displaying of an american flag is fine; the provocative intent of the display was not.
@ BS: if only people knew about the flag code, and if only it was enforced. i dislike seeing the flag turned into shirts, ties, boxers, scarves, etc. it's funny, but the same flag-wavers who called me unamerican have NO IDEA about the code - or, at best, dismiss it.
The district seems to believe it has the ethical high ground here in that the administration felt that it had the latitude to protect these Mexican-American students from harassment and potential harm.
They were sitting at a lunch table. They were not getting into people's faces. They were not screaming insults...
"OH NOES SOMEONE IS WEARING AN AMERICAN FLAG AND SITTING AT A LUNCH TABLE. I AM SO INTIMIDATED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT THREATENED ME!"
Really, what is there to be intimidated about?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
They were sitting at a lunch table. They were not getting into people's faces. They were not screaming insults...
... yet. and that, sir, is the point. there were incidents the year before, and the administration decided it was better to quash it early, BEFORE the situation could escalate to one where someone gets hurt.
also, the fact that there was a previous incident would lead me to believe that racial tensions around the school aren't just high on cinco de mayo, et al., but all year round (at best, for the past year). if that is truly the case, then there is no question the school needed to defuse the situation before a serious incident occurred.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
As well they should, I didn't mean to imply that the school was in the wrong.
I am lamenting that this and similar topics actually spark debate.
Absolutely nothing but a passing thought, conveniently and ironically afforded to me by the same legal rights that allowed these kids to do what they did and give other people the gall to even question their punishment.
What, that some people might think freedom of speech even extends to unpopular speech?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That much isn't clear. All the articles I've read deal specifically with the incidents themselves and the reactions to it, not any preventative measures the school may or may not have taken. You're right that this would have been a great opportunity for promotion of cultural and racial sensitivity and understanding. Perhaps the administration felt that last year was an isolated incident and its actions then would dissuade similar outbursts in the future and that additional steps (such as sensitivity training) weren't necessary. Or the funding/support simply wasn't there for the implementation. We don't really know.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
You almost had it.
Though, as we've concluded many times over, free speech does have limits. One of which is that it can't be used in such a way as to create situations that may lead to a lapse in safety (the infamous "fire!" in a crowded theater cliche).
The question here is that is this a case where free speech exceeded those limits and raised the potential for students to not be safe from harm? I honestly don't think so. There's nothing in the stories I've read to suggest this was going to escalate beyond bullying and intimidation, though I think the school was right to be better safe than sorry. Preventing from violence before it's an issue is a good thing.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Fair enough. I'd question what exactly you know about me to even make such a comment, but that's your perogative I guess.
Yeah, I suppose that's my take on it. If what the kids did was meant to be offensive/intimidating, then I think that it's a shame that they did that. Because it is ignorant. Even if what they did was simply being insensitive, it's still a shame, because there is an opportunity lost there to perhaps broaden people's perspectives and promote some understanding.
Hell, at least when Cinco de Mayo was becoming more "popular" and recognized, I read up on the holiday. As opposed to just using it as an excuse to go to a Mexican restaurant and drink tequila and Coronas. Because, IMO, doing that is far more insulting.
My point stands.
Here's what you want to do: Argue that a school administration is not fully bound by the First Amendment, and can make some compromises in the name of discipline.
Here's what you don't want to do: Imply that speech made with the intent to offend is not protected by the First Amendment.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because the first time you voted for him, maybe, just maybe you were drunk or high or something. But the 2ND time you voted for him, well your drunk excuse isn't going to cut it. You had 4 years to plan to be sober for 1 DAY!?!! I mean come on! The guy left office with a lower approval rating than Spider Man 3!
Troll infraction.
I just think it's ironic (yes I know this is probably another debate) how people love to protect free speech when its speech they agree with. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has made a career out of protecting free speech and do you have any idea of how much crud they get from conservatives??
Do tell how they were intended to offend?
Again, nothing in the article shows they had a past of harrassing latinos or any other minorities, they were just having lunch by themselves and there's no indication that anyone was offended by their shirt prior to the principal talking to them and making a big deal out of this.
If there was the slightest indication the students intended to offend, then yes the administration would have been in their right to send them home. Lacking this, they overstepped their bounds.
And since I don't think anyone mentionned it I'll go ahead and clear the elephant in the room : If a group of mexican-americans wore mexican flag shirts on an american holiday and the principal sent them home, there'd be an angry mob outside the school, activist and other figures protesting vehemently.
I know nothing about you, but I can rightfully infer from this:
that you're lacking a critical amount of what I would define as common sense, which admittedly does not chum with legal systems, which tend to work in absolutes.
No, here's what I want to do, conveniently defined by me so as to avoid the confusion presented when you assume my stance: Imply that the First Ammendment is wrong in protecting intently offensive speech.
Here's what I don't want to do (and consequently am not doing): Imply that it would be right to completely abolish intently offensive speech. Because, again, we run into the Hitler dilemma.
I have a question: Zachary74 was just punished with a troll infraction, why? And I don't mean to ask why the nature of his post warranted a troll infraction, but rather why it was beneficial to do so.
Source
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Private actor Vs. Public actor You have no first amendment rights on these boards as they are a private forum run by a private actor.
What's wrong with saying that I'm uncertain of where one could reasonably draw a line on "offensive speech"? Because that's all I suggested. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to take issue with my example, that's fine. It may not have been the best example. But I don't think warrants a statement about me.
Students are restricted by loco parentis on multiple First Amendment rights. For example, a student's "First Amendment rights" with a school news paper are limited, because the administration has a right to censor the paper.
Tinker vs Des Moines Independent Community School District
Morse v. Frederick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
The thing comes down to: Children are controlled by the government from the time they're at the bus stop to the time they are off of the bus stop. Also, if you are 18 years old you still fall under these laws and do not have the same rights to freedom while in school. You are still under loco parentis, and therefore become a "demi adult" from bus stop to bus stop. By what I mean for "demi adult" is that your rights are restricted while in school, but you are still able to be charged as an adult even though you are restricted by loco parentis while in the school. The same goes for people that are upwards of 21 years old and still in high school, which is the limit for special needs students to get their high school diploma.
So yea, this is why the last few years schools have been pressing more control over students in certain districts because of these rulings. The most famous of these were the lab top cameras being rigged to potentially watch students "in case of theft." The only violation really was that their loco parentis rights
only go to the bus stop, after the bus stop they are out of the school's custody. So the spy cams were a violation of school limitations.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
My attempt at humor failed, sorry.
And to answer the original question/comment
"These" people are probably offended because other students who don't share their same Mexican heritage felt the need to disrespect their celebration by wearing clothing on that specific day which pulled directly away from the Mexican holiday celebration (run-on sentence?). Did they "regularly" dress up like an American flag? If so, it would explain why there is no mention of their girlfriends (don't infract me bro!).
All I'm saying is this. If you want to defend them through "freedom of speech" then you need to defend Muslims burning the American flag on US soil. If you can do that, I will stand corrected.
Relevance? That's not what I asked at all.
No, in fact what you suggested and what prompted by comment was that you are unable to make a firm decision on the apprehension of five hypothetical Muslims wearing airplane t-shirts in the Freedom Tower with the intent to offend/alarm/terrorize people. Specifically. That you are uncertain of where to drawn the line on free and/or offensive speech is entirely understandable; I'm unable to do it myself.
If my opinion matters to you to an extent, you're always welcome to change yours; and if it doesn't, I'm not sure why you're concerned. An opinion is all it amounts to, after all.
First: why is "these" in quotes?
Second: how is what you described in any way different from what the person you were responding to described?
Then stand corrected. The flag is not sacrosanct. As long as its not a physical hazard (or violate reasonable TPM rules) flag burnings can occur legally in the US.
But even if it were intentional (as it seems to be from mikeyG's post), isn't the first rule of dealing with trolls "Don't feed the troll"? Or is it everyone else that should ignore them and then the school is the "moderator" that needs to "infract" them?
Okay, I understand now. But where do you get off claiming that the First Amendment is not just wrong but so obviously wrong that there ought not even to be a debate about it, and insulting the intelligence of people who disagree with you?
Consider this a warning for the "insulting" part, by the way.
Clear and present risk of a flame war, as evinced by his previous Bush-related comment already having successfully trolled bLatch (sorry for making an example of you, bLatch). As I've said from the beginning, and mikey has recently reiterated, if the school can demonstrate clear and present danger, then the First Amendment does not apply. But to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't; these kids were just wearing shirts. Whatever the kids' intent was in wearing those shirts.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
1. I quoted "these" to make sure "you guys" knew I was referring to the original post.
2. He was asking why "these" people were offended. I was just trying to give him my opinion on why they were.
I stand corrected. Howevery I'd be interested in seeing data showing what percentage of people would protect "the students" (its fun to put quotes btw) freedom of speech but would not protect "muslims" freedom of speech to burn American flags.
This:
Is a problem. You can't wear American colors on America? If you're offended by American colors in America, that's fine, but that absolutely should not determine policy in a school.
And again, so what?
If that actually sparks violence, then the fault is not with the kids.
And in this is an indication that there's a problem on your end.
No it wasn't.
If you take offense at an American flag in America, that's fine, but you absolutely do not have the right to prohibit anyone from showing it. That is absolutely an infringement of freedom of speech.
So any problem any Mexican has on Cinco de Mayo automatically is ruled on the side of the Mexican because he's Mexican, because we want to minimize racism?
This makes sense.
I'm sure many things are done to avoid potential problems. I'm sure that school that installed security cameras did so to avoid potential theft. Motivation does not make the action irrelevant.
See, it's funny, because I owned a flag shirt at 16. It's just something you naturally have, because it's a symbol printed everywhere in this country.
And it's posts like these that prove a point, because you're just going to make a knee-jerk reaction of equating a flag with bigotry?
See, the SECOND they start doing that, then you have all right to tell them to go home. This I will agree with.
But you do not have the right to tell them to do so if all they're doing is going about their day. To connect that to racism is not just an inference on your part, it's an inference on the part of everyone, students and faculty, who took issue with this, and it is an unfair inference to make. And any action taken on it is wrong. If you're going to make the knee-jerk reaction, the default assumption on Cinco de Mayo that any expression of patriotism towards this country, the country we live in, is wrong, then you've banned the national symbol of this country in that school, and that is NEVER acceptable.
Again, that's irrelevant. If violence were started over this, it would be the fault of whoever began the violence. You do not have the freedom to not be offended, that's the WHOLE POINT of the First Amendment.
See, here's the thing, you might be against freedom of speech, and that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean we should be.
This.
This too. To say there isn't a racial double-standard here is problematic.
So you want to say one thing, but you don't want to say the obvious logical conclusion of that thing? Seems you don't know what you want to say then.
Well, actually you do, you want the First Amendment to function only in the way you want it to. Not unusual, in fact, it's what everyone else wants as well. That's exactly why we have it the way it is.
Ah, I see your point. Then why not just ask about the difficulty in such a decision?
To address that point: Arresting someone for actually attempting to incite a riot is certainly reasonable. There are certainly laws against that kind of behavior. And I could certainly see how your hypothetical situation could lead to a potential riot. So, in such situation, it may have to come to that. (I would still set a high enough standard that requires some form of violence to actually be in the process of happening, rather than just quelch the "speech" from the get go.)
Of course, if the same group is protesting about being unfairly prejudiced against by a pilot's union or some airline industry, then is that problematic behavior? I'd certainly recognize that they have the right to protest against behavior that is unfair to them. Just not in that particular manner. (Example: A nearby family planning clinic occassionally has protests from right-to-life groups. They sometimes show pictures involving aborted fetuses. That's not exactly helpful, especially when school buses do pass that spot.)
But, I don't know that potentially offensive speech is the same. I may be offended by something, and disagree with it, but does that mean it is reasonable to prohibit? As it relates to the original situation, while what the five students did may be offensive to some, does that make it reasonable to prohibit? I don't think so. Especially if it passes up on the opportunity to address the deeper issues of understanding and respect for other cultures. Ban the behavior, and to me, you'll just get knee-jerk responses that reinforces people's wanted to be disrespectful and offensive.
Your opinion matters inasmuch as its a discussion of the issue at hand, not an observation about the person making it (especially as I can see no basis for such an observation). Whether or not I agree with your opinion, I still at least value it as it may lead me to change mine, or reconsider things in a different light.
i actually got into a heated argument about this because some of my less intellectual friends couldn't be bothered with settled law; instead, i was repeatedly told, "ZOMG you should never censor an american flag, and if you agree with its censoring, you're unamerican!" (note: i have less "less intellectual" friends today than i did last week; one of them was so upset with me having facts on my side that she libeled me repeatedly on facebook in such a way as to try to destroy my career.)
i think the words "controlled" and "government" here are a bit harsh. generally, a school's "control" of students is limited by, essentially, their ability to censor whatever the school deems inappropriate or provocative. (this case falls under "provocative.") as far as "government," well, that gives the illusion that decisions fall to a large bureaucracy, where, really, each school handles its own business based on its own needs. with a large mexican population, and the prior cinco de mayo's flag-waving incident, the school has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its students, faculty, administration and other staff.
but otherwise you're spot on in analysis.
some people argue, "just send the kids home instead." that is only an option when no concealing option is available (jeans ripped in conspicuous places, too-short clothing, etc.), as sending a child home is a) basically a suspension, b) a gift to the student, and c) a problem for parents if none are home.
this situation is NOT equal to situations in other public places, specifically because loco parentis only applies to children in school. in any public place outside of a school, freedom of speech is only bounded by the "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater" types of limitations.
@ zachary: the real irony of the ACLU v. conservatives is that the ACLU has defended conservatives when THEIR civil liberties are violated.
EDITS:
@ highroller: the problem with what you are saying is that it requires the school to wait around and see if an incident occurs. had the school done this, and a student was injured in the resulting whatever, the lawsuits would hit the fan, and then we'd REALLY have a situation. with a past incident the year before where the flag-wearing students were belligerent, the school felt it necessary to be proactive. the displaying of an american flag is fine; the provocative intent of the display was not.
@ BS: if only people knew about the flag code, and if only it was enforced. i dislike seeing the flag turned into shirts, ties, boxers, scarves, etc. it's funny, but the same flag-wavers who called me unamerican have NO IDEA about the code - or, at best, dismiss it.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
"OH NOES SOMEONE IS WEARING AN AMERICAN FLAG AND SITTING AT A LUNCH TABLE. I AM SO INTIMIDATED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT THREATENED ME!"
Really, what is there to be intimidated about?
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
also, the fact that there was a previous incident would lead me to believe that racial tensions around the school aren't just high on cinco de mayo, et al., but all year round (at best, for the past year). if that is truly the case, then there is no question the school needed to defuse the situation before a serious incident occurred.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...