Our Flag: Shrouded

[PoliticalChic]

Last week, a three-judge panel said it was peachy-keen for a school to forbid students to wear shirts with the image.....ready?........

...of the American flag.




When I read that, I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….
Legal expert Jonathan Turley explores the issue:

1. "An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values

2. ... the ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over a ban at a California high school of students wearing tee-shirts....

......students who came to Live Oak High School outside San Jose were rounded up by teachers for engaging in offensive speech.

The speech? They had American flags on their T-shirts, something the school viewed as insulting to Hispanics. Administrators insisted that only the Mexican flag could be shown on campus that day.....not shirts with American flags during the Mexican heritage celebration Cinco de Mayo.




3. .... — a ruling that would allow flags and other patriotic symbols to be banned like profanity or hate speech.




4 ... the ruling is not a sign of contempt for the flag but a sign of contempt for the rights of students. The fact that this speech concerns the flag itself (the very symbol of civil liberties) captures how far the courts have gone in abandoning core First Amendment rights for students.

5.. .... Live Oak High was concerned about prior disruptions and saw the American flag as “incendiary” and disrespectful. Accordingly, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez ordered students to change their shirts or turn them inside out to hide the flag.





6. Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit ruled, “Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence.” What they did is second-guess the First Amendment and the precautions put in place to protect it.

7.... the Ninth Circuit decision was handed down days from the anniversary of the 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the court supported the free speech rights of students who were wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, a highly divisive issue that had resulted in violent clashes around the country. Then, the court insisted that students did not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate.”

a. Since Tinker, however, the federal courts have not only stripped students of their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate, they also have done so at their bedroom doors. Federal courts have upheld a series of cases where school officials have punished students for statements that they make outside school on social media. The current members of the Supreme Court have fueled this rollback in their own controversial decisions.





8.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.




9. Live Oak High is teaching students that it is the speech, not those who threaten the speakers, that is the problem. Citizens shaped in such an environment are likely to view speech as a discretionary privilege allowed by our government rather than an individual right guaranteed in our Constitution.

10. ... the flag is the very symbol of a nation of differing faiths, cultures and races bound by liberty. Perhaps the school was right: If you are going to deny free speech, it is the last thing you want to see."
An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values | JONATHAN TURLEY



Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech.

Imagine.....there are actually adults who bought the lie that this President is some sort of 'constitutional scholar.'


Quite the opposite.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It's a clear and obvious breech of the 1st Amendment. Doing so out of an overabundance of caution is the wrong thing to do. It could snowball into such a rationale in other instances and because this one worked, it'll act as the precedent.

What if a student/child wanted to wear a pro-religion shirt? If there's the possibility of violent retaliation, do we restrict the student's right to express their faith? What about religious symbols like a cross or yarmulke? That's already gotten kdis beaten up in public schools for generations. Do we then forbid itbecause it might lead to violence? Where do we draw the line? Is it not better to not draw the line in the first place and instead try to ensure violence doesn't come about, or if it does it can be handled competantly?

 

[NoNukes]

Last week, a three-judge panel said it was peachy-keen for a school to forbid students to wear shirts with the image.....ready?........

...of the American flag.




When I read that, I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….
Legal expert Jonathan Turley explores the issue:

1. "An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values

2. ... the ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over a ban at a California high school of students wearing tee-shirts....

......students who came to Live Oak High School outside San Jose were rounded up by teachers for engaging in offensive speech.

The speech? They had American flags on their T-shirts, something the school viewed as insulting to Hispanics. Administrators insisted that only the Mexican flag could be shown on campus that day.....not shirts with American flags during the Mexican heritage celebration Cinco de Mayo.




3. .... — a ruling that would allow flags and other patriotic symbols to be banned like profanity or hate speech.




4 ... the ruling is not a sign of contempt for the flag but a sign of contempt for the rights of students. The fact that this speech concerns the flag itself (the very symbol of civil liberties) captures how far the courts have gone in abandoning core First Amendment rights for students.

5.. .... Live Oak High was concerned about prior disruptions and saw the American flag as “incendiary” and disrespectful. Accordingly, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez ordered students to change their shirts or turn them inside out to hide the flag.





6. Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit ruled, “Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence.” What they did is second-guess the First Amendment and the precautions put in place to protect it.

7.... the Ninth Circuit decision was handed down days from the anniversary of the 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the court supported the free speech rights of students who were wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, a highly divisive issue that had resulted in violent clashes around the country. Then, the court insisted that students did not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate.”

a. Since Tinker, however, the federal courts have not only stripped students of their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate, they also have done so at their bedroom doors. Federal courts have upheld a series of cases where school officials have punished students for statements that they make outside school on social media. The current members of the Supreme Court have fueled this rollback in their own controversial decisions.





8.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.




9. Live Oak High is teaching students that it is the speech, not those who threaten the speakers, that is the problem. Citizens shaped in such an environment are likely to view speech as a discretionary privilege allowed by our government rather than an individual right guaranteed in our Constitution.

10. ... the flag is the very symbol of a nation of differing faiths, cultures and races bound by liberty. Perhaps the school was right: If you are going to deny free speech, it is the last thing you want to see."
An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values | JONATHAN TURLEY



Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech.

Imagine.....there are actually adults who bought the lie that this President is some sort of 'constitutional scholar.'


Quite the opposite.

I agree that it was a bad decision. Exactly how is it Obama's fault though?

 

[Spiderman]

The flag is nothing but a bit of brightly colored cloth imbued with arbitrary meaning.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Here is how North Korea solved the problem...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Or perhaps Iran is better....

 

[Spoonman]

if i was a student i'd be wearing a flag t shirt every day

 

[PoliticalChic]

Last week, a three-judge panel said it was peachy-keen for a school to forbid students to wear shirts with the image.....ready?........

...of the American flag.




When I read that, I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….
Legal expert Jonathan Turley explores the issue:

1. "An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values

2. ... the ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over a ban at a California high school of students wearing tee-shirts....

......students who came to Live Oak High School outside San Jose were rounded up by teachers for engaging in offensive speech.

The speech? They had American flags on their T-shirts, something the school viewed as insulting to Hispanics. Administrators insisted that only the Mexican flag could be shown on campus that day.....not shirts with American flags during the Mexican heritage celebration Cinco de Mayo.




3. .... — a ruling that would allow flags and other patriotic symbols to be banned like profanity or hate speech.




4 ... the ruling is not a sign of contempt for the flag but a sign of contempt for the rights of students. The fact that this speech concerns the flag itself (the very symbol of civil liberties) captures how far the courts have gone in abandoning core First Amendment rights for students.

5.. .... Live Oak High was concerned about prior disruptions and saw the American flag as “incendiary” and disrespectful. Accordingly, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez ordered students to change their shirts or turn them inside out to hide the flag.





6. Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit ruled, “Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence.” What they did is second-guess the First Amendment and the precautions put in place to protect it.

7.... the Ninth Circuit decision was handed down days from the anniversary of the 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the court supported the free speech rights of students who were wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, a highly divisive issue that had resulted in violent clashes around the country. Then, the court insisted that students did not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate.”

a. Since Tinker, however, the federal courts have not only stripped students of their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate, they also have done so at their bedroom doors. Federal courts have upheld a series of cases where school officials have punished students for statements that they make outside school on social media. The current members of the Supreme Court have fueled this rollback in their own controversial decisions.





8.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.




9. Live Oak High is teaching students that it is the speech, not those who threaten the speakers, that is the problem. Citizens shaped in such an environment are likely to view speech as a discretionary privilege allowed by our government rather than an individual right guaranteed in our Constitution.

10. ... the flag is the very symbol of a nation of differing faiths, cultures and races bound by liberty. Perhaps the school was right: If you are going to deny free speech, it is the last thing you want to see."
An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values | JONATHAN TURLEY



Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech.

Imagine.....there are actually adults who bought the lie that this President is some sort of 'constitutional scholar.'


Quite the opposite.

I agree that it was a bad decision. Exactly how is it Obama's fault though?

"Exactly how is it Obama's fault though?"


As you are marginally intelligent, I can see that 'Obama's fault ' was probably based on this, from the OP:
"Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech."







Let's see if I can help you connect those dots.

"....Anita Dunn, then the White House communications director, sounded off against Fox News on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.” She said Fox News was “not a news network at this point...”
Anita Dunn stands by past criticism of Fox News [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

The White House asked citizens to report any other folks who spoke out against Obama's plans: "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation."
White House disables e-tip box - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights | CNS News







And....for the purposes of this thread:

11. "In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
The Daley Gator | Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?




Do you know who nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court?


Still puzzled about this?
"Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is how North Korea solved the problem...

And exactly what problem is that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How can anyone imagine the Constitution without the first amendment, the enumerated powers, or property rights?
Well....Progressives could.



12. Early 20th-century Progressives, inspired by European social democracies, rejected the Constitution's plan for limited government, advocating social engineering schemes instead. Rule by government experts was the order of the day. As people and politicians succumbed to those ideas, especially in the states, courts would often block the schemes in the name of constitutional liberty.

When Progressives later took their agenda to the federal level, however, and the Supreme Court continued to block it, President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled his infamous plan to pack the court with six new members.

The threat cowed the court, which in a pair of 1937 decisions (Helvering v. Davis and NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp) essentially gave Congress the power to redistribute and regulate at will, eviscerating the very foundation of the Constitution: the doctrine of enumerated powers. A year later, in U.S. v. Carolene Products, the court reduced property rights and economic liberty to second-class status under the Constitution. And in National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. (1943), it allowed Congress to delegate ever more of its vastly expanded legislative powers to administrative agencies in the quickly expanding executive branch.
Roger Pilon: Congress Rediscovers the Constitution - WSJ.com



All the while maintaining the illusion that we are living under the Constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Last week, a three-judge panel said it was peachy-keen for a school to forbid students to wear shirts with the image.....ready?........

...of the American flag.




When I read that, I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….
Legal expert Jonathan Turley explores the issue:

1. "An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values

2. ... the ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over a ban at a California high school of students wearing tee-shirts....

......students who came to Live Oak High School outside San Jose were rounded up by teachers for engaging in offensive speech.

The speech? They had American flags on their T-shirts, something the school viewed as insulting to Hispanics. Administrators insisted that only the Mexican flag could be shown on campus that day.....not shirts with American flags during the Mexican heritage celebration Cinco de Mayo.




3. .... — a ruling that would allow flags and other patriotic symbols to be banned like profanity or hate speech.




4 ... the ruling is not a sign of contempt for the flag but a sign of contempt for the rights of students. The fact that this speech concerns the flag itself (the very symbol of civil liberties) captures how far the courts have gone in abandoning core First Amendment rights for students.

5.. .... Live Oak High was concerned about prior disruptions and saw the American flag as “incendiary” and disrespectful. Accordingly, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez ordered students to change their shirts or turn them inside out to hide the flag.





6. Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit ruled, “Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence.” What they did is second-guess the First Amendment and the precautions put in place to protect it.

7.... the Ninth Circuit decision was handed down days from the anniversary of the 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the court supported the free speech rights of students who were wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, a highly divisive issue that had resulted in violent clashes around the country. Then, the court insisted that students did not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate.”

a. Since Tinker, however, the federal courts have not only stripped students of their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate, they also have done so at their bedroom doors. Federal courts have upheld a series of cases where school officials have punished students for statements that they make outside school on social media. The current members of the Supreme Court have fueled this rollback in their own controversial decisions.





8.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.




9. Live Oak High is teaching students that it is the speech, not those who threaten the speakers, that is the problem. Citizens shaped in such an environment are likely to view speech as a discretionary privilege allowed by our government rather than an individual right guaranteed in our Constitution.

10. ... the flag is the very symbol of a nation of differing faiths, cultures and races bound by liberty. Perhaps the school was right: If you are going to deny free speech, it is the last thing you want to see."
An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values | JONATHAN TURLEY



Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech.

Imagine.....there are actually adults who bought the lie that this President is some sort of 'constitutional scholar.'


Quite the opposite.

You're lunatic. The first responsibility of a school administrator should be the protection of the kids. Any sane and responsible adult understands the intent was not to curtail free speech or expression, but to prevent violence.

No doubt right wing children of right wing parents would have worn our flag not as a simple of liberty or freedom, but as a weapon to attack the heritage of others. Stupid kids don't need to be encouraged by stupid adults, stupid parents or cavil adults like PC.

 

[Spoonman]

Last week, a three-judge panel said it was peachy-keen for a school to forbid students to wear shirts with the image.....ready?........

...of the American flag.




When I read that, I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….
Legal expert Jonathan Turley explores the issue:

1. "An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values

2. ... the ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over a ban at a California high school of students wearing tee-shirts....

......students who came to Live Oak High School outside San Jose were rounded up by teachers for engaging in offensive speech.

The speech? They had American flags on their T-shirts, something the school viewed as insulting to Hispanics. Administrators insisted that only the Mexican flag could be shown on campus that day.....not shirts with American flags during the Mexican heritage celebration Cinco de Mayo.




3. .... — a ruling that would allow flags and other patriotic symbols to be banned like profanity or hate speech.




4 ... the ruling is not a sign of contempt for the flag but a sign of contempt for the rights of students. The fact that this speech concerns the flag itself (the very symbol of civil liberties) captures how far the courts have gone in abandoning core First Amendment rights for students.

5.. .... Live Oak High was concerned about prior disruptions and saw the American flag as “incendiary” and disrespectful. Accordingly, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez ordered students to change their shirts or turn them inside out to hide the flag.





6. Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit ruled, “Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence.” What they did is second-guess the First Amendment and the precautions put in place to protect it.

7.... the Ninth Circuit decision was handed down days from the anniversary of the 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the court supported the free speech rights of students who were wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, a highly divisive issue that had resulted in violent clashes around the country. Then, the court insisted that students did not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate.”

a. Since Tinker, however, the federal courts have not only stripped students of their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate, they also have done so at their bedroom doors. Federal courts have upheld a series of cases where school officials have punished students for statements that they make outside school on social media. The current members of the Supreme Court have fueled this rollback in their own controversial decisions.





8.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.




9. Live Oak High is teaching students that it is the speech, not those who threaten the speakers, that is the problem. Citizens shaped in such an environment are likely to view speech as a discretionary privilege allowed by our government rather than an individual right guaranteed in our Constitution.

10. ... the flag is the very symbol of a nation of differing faiths, cultures and races bound by liberty. Perhaps the school was right: If you are going to deny free speech, it is the last thing you want to see."
An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values | JONATHAN TURLEY



Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech.

Imagine.....there are actually adults who bought the lie that this President is some sort of 'constitutional scholar.'


Quite the opposite.

You're lunatic. The first responsibility of a school administrator should be the protection of the kids. Any sane and responsible adult understands the intent was not to curtail free speech or expression, but to prevent violence.

No doubt right wing children of right wing parents would have worn our flag not as a simple of liberty or freedom, but as a weapon to attack the heritage of others. Stupid kids don't need to be encouraged by stupid adults, stupid parents or cavil adults like PC.

wow, so to prevent violence we have to give up our rights? man you liberals have really fucked america beyond recognition. don't pray in school - someone might get offended = good

don't allow pride in america in an american school because it might offend some foriegner practicing their foriegn custom in school. WTF?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Last week, a three-judge panel said it was peachy-keen for a school to forbid students to wear shirts with the image.....ready?........

...of the American flag.




When I read that, I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….
Legal expert Jonathan Turley explores the issue:

1. "An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values

2. ... the ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over a ban at a California high school of students wearing tee-shirts....

......students who came to Live Oak High School outside San Jose were rounded up by teachers for engaging in offensive speech.

The speech? They had American flags on their T-shirts, something the school viewed as insulting to Hispanics. Administrators insisted that only the Mexican flag could be shown on campus that day.....not shirts with American flags during the Mexican heritage celebration Cinco de Mayo.




3. .... — a ruling that would allow flags and other patriotic symbols to be banned like profanity or hate speech.




4 ... the ruling is not a sign of contempt for the flag but a sign of contempt for the rights of students. The fact that this speech concerns the flag itself (the very symbol of civil liberties) captures how far the courts have gone in abandoning core First Amendment rights for students.

5.. .... Live Oak High was concerned about prior disruptions and saw the American flag as “incendiary” and disrespectful. Accordingly, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez ordered students to change their shirts or turn them inside out to hide the flag.





6. Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit ruled, “Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence.” What they did is second-guess the First Amendment and the precautions put in place to protect it.

7.... the Ninth Circuit decision was handed down days from the anniversary of the 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the court supported the free speech rights of students who were wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, a highly divisive issue that had resulted in violent clashes around the country. Then, the court insisted that students did not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate.”

a. Since Tinker, however, the federal courts have not only stripped students of their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate, they also have done so at their bedroom doors. Federal courts have upheld a series of cases where school officials have punished students for statements that they make outside school on social media. The current members of the Supreme Court have fueled this rollback in their own controversial decisions.





8.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.




9. Live Oak High is teaching students that it is the speech, not those who threaten the speakers, that is the problem. Citizens shaped in such an environment are likely to view speech as a discretionary privilege allowed by our government rather than an individual right guaranteed in our Constitution.

10. ... the flag is the very symbol of a nation of differing faiths, cultures and races bound by liberty. Perhaps the school was right: If you are going to deny free speech, it is the last thing you want to see."
An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values | JONATHAN TURLEY



Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech.

Imagine.....there are actually adults who bought the lie that this President is some sort of 'constitutional scholar.'


Quite the opposite.

You're lunatic. The first responsibility of a school administrator should be the protection of the kids. Any sane and responsible adult understands the intent was not to curtail free speech or expression, but to prevent violence.

No doubt right wing children of right wing parents would have worn our flag not as a simple of liberty or freedom, but as a weapon to attack the heritage of others. Stupid kids don't need to be encouraged by stupid adults, stupid parents or cavil adults like PC.

wow, so to prevent violence we have to give up our rights? man you liberals have really fucked america beyond recognition. don't pray in school - someone might get offended = good

don't allow pride in america in an american school because it might offend some foriegner practicing their foriegn custom in school. WTF?

Bravo to the mental midget, Wry.....


It is so very much more valuable to have a mindless Liberal verify that his view of America is one in which principles don't matter,...
that the Constitution is simply an exercise in penmanship rather than the 'law of the land,' ....than to have me state that that is how they believe the nation should function.

His testimony is so much more valuable than my describing him.



Indeed, allow the fear of insurrection to cloud the issue.....after all, calling the police in is out of the question.
The only policeman the Leftists like is the one from 'The Village People.'




For that worm, and other Leftists, the words of John Stuart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."



I regularly post that embracing materialism rather than spirituality is the basis of the downfall of America.......

...but cowardice certainly plays a role.







"The first responsibility of a school administrator should be the protection of the kids. Any sane and responsible adult understands the intent was not to curtail free speech or expression, but to prevent violence."

Is the DNC sharia-compliant yet?

 

[NoNukes]

Last week, a three-judge panel said it was peachy-keen for a school to forbid students to wear shirts with the image.....ready?........

...of the American flag.




When I read that, I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….
Legal expert Jonathan Turley explores the issue:

1. "An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values

2. ... the ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over a ban at a California high school of students wearing tee-shirts....

......students who came to Live Oak High School outside San Jose were rounded up by teachers for engaging in offensive speech.

The speech? They had American flags on their T-shirts, something the school viewed as insulting to Hispanics. Administrators insisted that only the Mexican flag could be shown on campus that day.....not shirts with American flags during the Mexican heritage celebration Cinco de Mayo.




3. .... — a ruling that would allow flags and other patriotic symbols to be banned like profanity or hate speech.




4 ... the ruling is not a sign of contempt for the flag but a sign of contempt for the rights of students. The fact that this speech concerns the flag itself (the very symbol of civil liberties) captures how far the courts have gone in abandoning core First Amendment rights for students.

5.. .... Live Oak High was concerned about prior disruptions and saw the American flag as “incendiary” and disrespectful. Accordingly, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez ordered students to change their shirts or turn them inside out to hide the flag.





6. Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit ruled, “Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence.” What they did is second-guess the First Amendment and the precautions put in place to protect it.

7.... the Ninth Circuit decision was handed down days from the anniversary of the 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the court supported the free speech rights of students who were wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, a highly divisive issue that had resulted in violent clashes around the country. Then, the court insisted that students did not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate.”

a. Since Tinker, however, the federal courts have not only stripped students of their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate, they also have done so at their bedroom doors. Federal courts have upheld a series of cases where school officials have punished students for statements that they make outside school on social media. The current members of the Supreme Court have fueled this rollback in their own controversial decisions.





8.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.




9. Live Oak High is teaching students that it is the speech, not those who threaten the speakers, that is the problem. Citizens shaped in such an environment are likely to view speech as a discretionary privilege allowed by our government rather than an individual right guaranteed in our Constitution.

10. ... the flag is the very symbol of a nation of differing faiths, cultures and races bound by liberty. Perhaps the school was right: If you are going to deny free speech, it is the last thing you want to see."
An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values | JONATHAN TURLEY



Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech.

Imagine.....there are actually adults who bought the lie that this President is some sort of 'constitutional scholar.'


Quite the opposite.

I agree that it was a bad decision. Exactly how is it Obama's fault though?

"Exactly how is it Obama's fault though?"


As you are marginally intelligent, I can see that 'Obama's fault ' was probably based on this, from the OP:
"Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech."







Let's see if I can help you connect those dots.

"....Anita Dunn, then the White House communications director, sounded off against Fox News on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.” She said Fox News was “not a news network at this point...”
Anita Dunn stands by past criticism of Fox News [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

The White House asked citizens to report any other folks who spoke out against Obama's plans: "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation."
White House disables e-tip box - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights | CNS News







And....for the purposes of this thread:

11. "In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
The Daley Gator | Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?




Do you know who nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court?


Still puzzled about this?
"Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech."

When you begin with an insult, it is apparent that you have nothing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Last week, a three-judge panel said it was peachy-keen for a school to forbid students to wear shirts with the image.....ready?........

...of the American flag.




When I read that, I shook my head so rapidly, you could blend paint colors in my mouth….
Legal expert Jonathan Turley explores the issue:

1. "An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values

2. ... the ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over a ban at a California high school of students wearing tee-shirts....

......students who came to Live Oak High School outside San Jose were rounded up by teachers for engaging in offensive speech.

The speech? They had American flags on their T-shirts, something the school viewed as insulting to Hispanics. Administrators insisted that only the Mexican flag could be shown on campus that day.....not shirts with American flags during the Mexican heritage celebration Cinco de Mayo.




3. .... — a ruling that would allow flags and other patriotic symbols to be banned like profanity or hate speech.




4 ... the ruling is not a sign of contempt for the flag but a sign of contempt for the rights of students. The fact that this speech concerns the flag itself (the very symbol of civil liberties) captures how far the courts have gone in abandoning core First Amendment rights for students.

5.. .... Live Oak High was concerned about prior disruptions and saw the American flag as “incendiary” and disrespectful. Accordingly, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez ordered students to change their shirts or turn them inside out to hide the flag.





6. Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the Ninth Circuit ruled, “Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence.” What they did is second-guess the First Amendment and the precautions put in place to protect it.

7.... the Ninth Circuit decision was handed down days from the anniversary of the 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the court supported the free speech rights of students who were wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, a highly divisive issue that had resulted in violent clashes around the country. Then, the court insisted that students did not “shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate.”

a. Since Tinker, however, the federal courts have not only stripped students of their free speech rights at the schoolhouse gate, they also have done so at their bedroom doors. Federal courts have upheld a series of cases where school officials have punished students for statements that they make outside school on social media. The current members of the Supreme Court have fueled this rollback in their own controversial decisions.





8.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.




9. Live Oak High is teaching students that it is the speech, not those who threaten the speakers, that is the problem. Citizens shaped in such an environment are likely to view speech as a discretionary privilege allowed by our government rather than an individual right guaranteed in our Constitution.

10. ... the flag is the very symbol of a nation of differing faiths, cultures and races bound by liberty. Perhaps the school was right: If you are going to deny free speech, it is the last thing you want to see."
An Inconvenient Symbol: Why The Flag Decision Flies In The Face Of Our Core Values | JONATHAN TURLEY



Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech.

Imagine.....there are actually adults who bought the lie that this President is some sort of 'constitutional scholar.'


Quite the opposite.

You're lunatic. The first responsibility of a school administrator should be the protection of the kids. Any sane and responsible adult understands the intent was not to curtail free speech or expression, but to prevent violence.

No doubt right wing children of right wing parents would have worn our flag not as a simple of liberty or freedom, but as a weapon to attack the heritage of others. Stupid kids don't need to be encouraged by stupid adults, stupid parents or cavil adults like PC.

wow, so to prevent violence we have to give up our rights? man you liberals have really fucked america beyond recognition. don't pray in school - someone might get offended = good

don't allow pride in america in an american school because it might offend some foriegner practicing their foriegn custom in school. WTF?

Is it a violation of your rights when you can be held criminally and civilly culpable for yelling fire in a crowded theater? I know you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer - I've read your other posts - but grow up and try to think on occasion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I agree that it was a bad decision. Exactly how is it Obama's fault though?

"Exactly how is it Obama's fault though?"


As you are marginally intelligent, I can see that 'Obama's fault ' was probably based on this, from the OP:
"Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech."







Let's see if I can help you connect those dots.

"....Anita Dunn, then the White House communications director, sounded off against Fox News on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.” She said Fox News was “not a news network at this point...”
Anita Dunn stands by past criticism of Fox News [VIDEO] | The Daily Caller

The White House asked citizens to report any other folks who spoke out against Obama's plans: "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation."
White House disables e-tip box - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights | CNS News







And....for the purposes of this thread:

11. "In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
The Daley Gator | Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?




Do you know who nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court?


Still puzzled about this?
"Make no mistake: any who voted for the current administration voted to empower them to curtail free speech."

When you begin with an insult, it is apparent that you have nothing.

1. "When you begin with an insult..."

You’re such a delicate child….you must wash in Woolite.



2. "... it is apparent that you have nothing."

Must I teach English as well as politics?????

ap·par·ent
əˈparənt,əˈpe(&#601r-/Submit
adjective
1.
clearly visible or understood; obvious.

I aim to be precise in my language; I would hope that you are capable of same.





As I provided 5, 6 documented and linked examples of the Obama administrations stepping on the constitutionally based rights of Americans vis-a-vis free speech......

....then, either you didn't understand that "apparent" means "clearly visible," or....

....how can I say this without damage to your fragile sensibilities.....

.....or you are stoooooopiddd.



This thread is designed to reveal the anti-American, anti-Constitution, machinations of Liberals/Progressives/DeathPanelDemocrats.



I contend that, your widdle hurt feelings notwithstanding, I have done just that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

PC's cents (I have trouble using "sense" in that context) of liberty unbounded maybe ideologically sound for the extreme but for most of us it borders on absurdity. Only an idiot or an extremist would allow a situation to proceed when the potential for violence and harm appeared likely; only an extremist would comport the actions of a school administration acting to mitigate violence as an affront to liberty. And only someone as captious as PC would make a federal case out of it.

 

[BDBoop]

"Are you ready?" Well, yeah. But that's mostly because this thread was run into the ground last week.

L2Search.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-can-ban-us-flag-shirts-on-cinco-de-mayo.html

 

[natstew]

You're lunatic. The first responsibility of a school administrator should be the protection of the kids. Any sane and responsible adult understands the intent was not to curtail free speech or expression, but to prevent violence.

No doubt right wing children of right wing parents would have worn our flag not as a simple of liberty or freedom, but as a weapon to attack the heritage of others. Stupid kids don't need to be encouraged by stupid adults, stupid parents or cavil adults like PC.

wow, so to prevent violence we have to give up our rights? man you liberals have really fucked america beyond recognition. don't pray in school - someone might get offended = good

don't allow pride in america in an american school because it might offend some foriegner practicing their foriegn custom in school. WTF?

Is it a violation of your rights when you can be held criminally and civilly culpable for yelling fire in a crowded theater? I know you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer - I've read your other posts - but grow up and try to think on occasion.

This has nothing to do with fire in a theater. This is about anti Americans (mostly illegal aliens) celebrating a racist victory in a battle they probably no next to nothing about. To them it was a victory of Mexican (brown) people over French (white) people.
Take away American's rights to placate anti-American 'wetbacks'? And yes I used 'wetbacks' intentionally.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC's cents (I have trouble using "sense" in that context) of liberty unbounded maybe ideologically sound for the extreme but for most of us it borders on absurdity. Only an idiot or an extremist would allow a situation to proceed when the potential for violence and harm appeared likely; only an extremist would comport the actions of a school administration acting to mitigate violence as an affront to liberty. And only someone as captious as PC would make a federal case out of it.

1. So....you believe that the following applies to those who would stand up for American values?

"....maybe ideologically sound for the extreme...."

"......Only an idiot or an extremist...."

".... the potential for violence and harm..."




2. I wonder how difficult it will be to find an alternative view....

Not very:

13. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy



3. The judges in the OP should immediately be disbarred.

Why?

Here's why:

"... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."
Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that upon finding the the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act unconstitutional on May 18, 1936.


Do you understand that principle?
Judges cannot find against the Constitution and be any less than criminals.


I leave it to you to soul-search why you fear violence to such an extent that you would bow to threats.



4. On the bright side, I learned a new word:

cap·tious
ˈkapSHəs/Submit
adjectiveformal
1.
(of a person) tending to find fault or raise petty objections.


Of course, you have misused it.....this is far from being 'petty.'
It is my country, and the only law that it's people have agreed to be governed by.
Too bad you don't understand that.