According to the article below, the threats of violence weren't coming from the American-flag wearers. They were coming exclusively from the Cinco-de-mayo crowd.
We have here the astonishing spectacle of one group threatening violence against another, and the authorities sanctioning the group that is being threatened while doing nothing to the group doing the threatening.
We do not yet know whether these "authorities" (and their sycophants on this forum) would also say that a raped woman deserved it, and would punish her by forcing her to wear all-concealing clothing, such as a habib, while doing nothing to punish the rapist.
But these people have moved a long way in that direction. If they wouldn't reach such a conclusion today about that woman, it's probably just a matter of time.
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...isplay-american-flag-in-american-high-school/
Not safe to display American flag in American high school
by Eugene Volokh
February 27 at 2:35 pm
The court points out that the rights of students in public high schools are limited — under the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. School Dist. (1969), student speech could be restricted if “school authorities [can reasonably] forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” stemming from the speech. And on the facts of this case, the court concludes, there was reason to think that the wearing of the T-shirts would lead to disruption.
There had been threats of racial violence aimed at students who wore such shirts the year before....
(snip)
This is a classic “heckler’s veto” — thugs threatening to attack the speaker, and government officials suppressing the speech to prevent such violence. “Heckler’s vetoes” are generally not allowed under First Amendment law; the government should generally protect the speaker and threaten to arrest the thugs, not suppress the speaker’s speech. But under Tinker‘s “forecast substantial disruption” test, such a heckler’s veto is indeed allowed.
The 9th Circuit decision may thus be a faithful application of Tinker, and it might be that Tinker sets forth the correct constitutional rule here. Schools have special responsibilities to educate their students and to protect them both against violence and against disruption of their educations. A school might thus have the discretion to decide that it will prevent disruption even at the cost of letting thugs suppress speech.
Yet even if the judges are right, the situation in the school seems very bad. Somehow, we’ve reached the point that students can’t safely display the American flag in an American school, because of a fear that other students will attack them for it — and the school feels unable to prevent such attacks (by punishing the threateners and the attackers, and by teaching students tolerance for other students’ speech). Something is badly wrong, whether such an incident happens on May 5 or any other day.
And this is especially so because behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. The school taught its students a simple lesson: If you dislike speech and want it suppressed, then you can get what you want by threatening violence against the speakers. The school will cave in, the speakers will be shut up, and you and your ideology will win. When thuggery pays, the result is more thuggery. Is that the education we want our students to be getting?