Appeals court says school had right to ban U.S. flag T-shirt

[Mushet]

If it's an American school, and they're there legally, they're American.

The government can only have it one way, either the U.S. is a melting pot, and thus the flag can't offend them, as it's their flag, or it isn't a melting pot, in which case the flag could offend them.

False dilemma fallacy for the win!

[Viritica]

ITT, nothing but a bunch of jingoistic outrage from people who are grossly misinformed about the facts of the case and the law.

FACT: The Constitution doesn't grant students unrestricted license to free speech, per Tinker: speech that is disruptive to the school's educational mission can be curtailed.
FACT: Some kids decided to wear American flag t-shirts in a deliberate ploy to disrupt Cinco de Mayo celebration. This finding is is key to the court's decision.
FACT: Promoting ethnic conflict is contrary to a school's educational mission, as well as downright indecent in any society that pretends to be civilized.

The only reason why there is any attention given to this at all is the racism of a large sector of the American population, which is beautifully on display in this thread.

Right, if anyone disagrees with you then call them a racist. A classic liberal policy.

[Flau Byeregenie]

ITT, nothing but a bunch of jingoistic outrage from people who are grossly misinformed about the facts of the case and the law.

FACT: The Constitution doesn't grant students unrestricted license to free speech, per Tinker: speech that is disruptive to the school's educational mission can be curtailed.
FACT: Some kids decided to wear American flag t-shirts in a deliberate ploy to disrupt Cinco de Mayo celebration. This finding is is key to the court's decision.
FACT: Promoting ethnic conflict is contrary to a school's educational mission, as well as downright indecent in any society that pretends to be civilized.

The only reason why there is any attention given to this at all is the racism of a large sector of the American population, which is beautifully on display in this thread.

Right, if anyone disagrees with you then call them a racist.

No, but if someone is in fact being a racist, one should indeed point that out.

A classic liberal policy.

Trotskylvania's hardly a "liberal." "Liberal" is not a blanket-term for the entire left, given that many of us explicitly reject that descriptor because it is completely inapplicable. Your using it as such is merely an indicator that you don't actually understand the entire breadth of leftist thought except in the most laughably superficial way.

[Pilotto]

ITT, nothing but a bunch of jingoistic outrage from people who are grossly misinformed about the facts of the case and the law.

FACT: The Constitution doesn't grant students unrestricted license to free speech, per Tinker: speech that is disruptive to the school's educational mission can be curtailed.
FACT: Some kids decided to wear American flag t-shirts in a deliberate ploy to disrupt Cinco de Mayo celebration. This finding is is key to the court's decision.
FACT: Promoting ethnic conflict is contrary to a school's educational mission, as well as downright indecent in any society that pretends to be civilized.

The only reason why there is any attention given to this at all is the racism of a large sector of the American population, which is beautifully on display in this thread.

The completely awesome thing about reading this thread is the most ardent and relentless of the defenders has repeatedly conceded the point, that being disruptive and not the flag itself is an issue, and yet somehow has continued to dogmatically insist it was about the flag. It has been a wonder to behold, truly. It's like watching Robocop trying to shoot an Omnicorp board member, he knows he should, but it just goes against his programing.

I am not, nor have I ever, defended a student's right to disrupt class. Wearing a t-shirt does not disrupt class. White students should be allowed to wear American flag t-shirts whenever they please, Hispanic students should be allowed to wear Mexican flag t-shirts whenever they please, white students should be allowed to wear Mexican flag t-shirts whenever they please, and Hispanic students should be allowed to wear American flag t-shirts whenever they please. It's basic freedom of speech. That is not tantamount to allowing students to be disruptive or harass other students. Students that are guilty of disruption or harassment should be punished as individuals. Not as a group.

[Pilotto]

Right, if anyone disagrees with you then call them a racist.

No, but if someone is in fact being a racist, one should indeed point that out.

A classic liberal policy.

Trotskylvania's hardly a "liberal." "Liberal" is not a blanket-term for the entire left, given that many of us explicitly reject that descriptor because it is completely inapplicable. Your using it as such is merely an indicator that you don't actually understand the entire breadth of leftist thought except in the most laughably superficial way.

You can reject the term "liberal" all you want, it doesn't make it any less true.

[Flau Byeregenie]

The completely awesome thing about reading this thread is the most ardent and relentless of the defenders has repeatedly conceded the point, that being disruptive and not the flag itself is an issue, and yet somehow has continued to dogmatically insist it was about the flag. It has been a wonder to behold, truly. It's like watching Robocop trying to shoot an Omnicorp board member, he knows he should, but it just goes against his programing.

I am not, nor have I ever, defended a student's right to disrupt class. Wearing a t-shirt does not disrupt class.

If someone wore a t-shirt that said, "I will kill all you motherfuckers watch your back!" would that be disruptive?

[United Marxist Nations]

Wearing the flag shirt is in violation of the US Flag code, which, as a government building, the school is supposed to follow.

[Cannot think of a name]

The completely awesome thing about reading this thread is the most ardent and relentless of the defenders has repeatedly conceded the point, that being disruptive and not the flag itself is an issue, and yet somehow has continued to dogmatically insist it was about the flag. It has been a wonder to behold, truly. It's like watching Robocop trying to shoot an Omnicorp board member, he knows he should, but it just goes against his programing.

I am not, nor have I ever, defended a student's right to disrupt class.

Wait for it...

Wearing a t-shirt does not disrupt class. White students should be allowed to wear American flag t-shirts whenever they please, Hispanic students should be allowed to wear Mexican flag t-shirts whenever they please, white students should be allowed to wear Mexican flag t-shirts whenever they please, and Hispanic students should be allowed to wear American flag t-shirts whenever they please. It's basic freedom of speech. That is not tantamount to allowing students to be disruptive or harass other students. Students that are guilty of disruption or harassment should be punished as individuals.

It's like Cirque de Solei, I could watch this shit all day.

[United Marxist Nations]

No, but if someone is in fact being a racist, one should indeed point that out.


Trotskylvania's hardly a "liberal." "Liberal" is not a blanket-term for the entire left, given that many of us explicitly reject that descriptor because it is completely inapplicable. Your using it as such is merely an indicator that you don't actually understand the entire breadth of leftist thought except in the most laughably superficial way.

You can reject the term "liberal" all you want, it doesn't make it any less true.

It's not the term that's rejected, it's liberalism that's rejected. My ideology is very opposed to liberalism, so the descriptor would not be applicable to anyone of my ideology, though it is very far-left.

[Talonis]

If someone wore a t-shirt that said, "I will kill all you motherfuckers watch your back!" would that be disruptive?

Yes. Because you require some manner of punctuation atwixt "motherfuckers" and "watch". Might I suggest a comma? Mayhaps a hyphen?

[The Black Forrest]

ITT, nothing but a bunch of jingoistic outrage from people who are grossly misinformed about the facts of the case and the law.

FACT: The Constitution doesn't grant students unrestricted license to free speech, per Tinker: speech that is disruptive to the school's educational mission can be curtailed.
FACT: Some kids decided to wear American flag t-shirts in a deliberate ploy to disrupt Cinco de Mayo celebration. This finding is is key to the court's decision.
FACT: Promoting ethnic conflict is contrary to a school's educational mission, as well as downright indecent in any society that pretends to be civilized.

The only reason why there is any attention given to this at all is the racism of a large sector of the American population, which is beautifully on display in this thread.

Right, if anyone disagrees with you then call them a racist. A classic liberal policy.

So you don't have a counter argument?

[Pilotto]

I am not, nor have I ever, defended a student's right to disrupt class. Wearing a t-shirt does not disrupt class.

If someone wore a t-shirt that said, "I will kill all you motherfuckers watch your back!" would that be disruptive?

Yes. I do not like repeating myself over and over again. Read some of the thread next time.

Because it is not a t-shirt that says "DEPORT ALL MEXICANS!!" or "HISPANICS SUCK LOL!!!". It was not a t-shirt that is racially offensive in any way. If is a t-shirt with the goddamn American flag on it. A student decided to wear it on a foreign holiday. It may make him an asshole. But you know what? He wasn't disturbing class in any way. He affected nobody's ability to learn. In fact, if his fellow students of Mexican descent are US citizens, then they are just as much Americans as this kid is.

[Flau Byeregenie]

No, but if someone is in fact being a racist, one should indeed point that out.


Trotskylvania's hardly a "liberal." "Liberal" is not a blanket-term for the entire left, given that many of us explicitly reject that descriptor because it is completely inapplicable. Your using it as such is merely an indicator that you don't actually understand the entire breadth of leftist thought except in the most laughably superficial way.

You can reject the term "liberal" all you want, it doesn't make it any less true.

It's not at all true. The radical left is not liberal. Only someone with, yes, the most laughably superficial understanding of leftist thought would insist that it is.

[The Black Forrest]

If someone wore a t-shirt that said, "I will kill all you motherfuckers watch your back!" would that be disruptive?

Yes. I do not like repeating myself over and over again. Read some of the thread next time.

Because it is not a t-shirt that says "DEPORT ALL MEXICANS!!" or "HISPANICS SUCK LOL!!!". It was not a t-shirt that is racially offensive in any way. If is a t-shirt with the goddamn American flag on it. A student decided to wear it on a foreign holiday. It may make him an asshole. But you know what? He wasn't disturbing class in any way. He affected nobody's ability to learn. In fact, if his fellow students of Mexican descent are US citizens, then they are just as much Americans as this kid is.

For a spin effort, it's a little rough. Needs a little more work but you have a good start.

[United Marxist Nations]

If someone wore a t-shirt that said, "I will kill all you motherfuckers watch your back!" would that be disruptive?

Yes. I do not like repeating myself over and over again. Read some of the thread next time.

Because it is not a t-shirt that says "DEPORT ALL MEXICANS!!" or "HISPANICS SUCK LOL!!!". It was not a t-shirt that is racially offensive in any way. If is a t-shirt with the goddamn American flag on it. A student decided to wear it on a foreign holiday. It may make him an asshole. But you know what? He wasn't disturbing class in any way. He affected nobody's ability to learn. In fact, if his fellow students of Mexican descent are US citizens, then they are just as much Americans as this kid is.

It is; however, against US Flag code, which the school is legally supposed to comply with.

[Farnhamia]

Yes. I do not like repeating myself over and over again. Read some of the thread next time.

It is; however, against US Flag code, which the school is legally supposed to comply with.

True, though nobody observes the Code, really. Those kids were trolling, they were wearing the flag with the intent to provoke an angry response.

[Pilotto]

You can reject the term "liberal" all you want, it doesn't make it any less true.

It's not at all true. The radical left is not liberal. Only someone with, yes, the most laughably superficial understanding of leftist thought would insist that it is.

Like I said, you can reject the label all you want, that doesn't make it any less true.

[United Marxist Nations]

It is; however, against US Flag code, which the school is legally supposed to comply with.

True, though nobody observes the Code, really. Those kids were trolling, they were wearing the flag with the intent to provoke an angry response.

Yeah, but I also like pointing out that it is impossible to attempt to defend something like this as "patriotism", because it is actually very disrespectful.

[MERIZoC]

Meh. I think people are making too much of an issue out of this. If a school wants to ban a piece of clothing for a particular legitimate reason, that's fine. That said, there really is no point in giving them a reason to ban it. The flag isn't offensive, just as long as people aren't being inflammatory and shoving it in other people's faces.

[United Marxist Nations]

It's not at all true. The radical left is not liberal. Only someone with, yes, the most laughably superficial understanding of leftist thought would insist that it is.

Like I said, you can reject the label all you want, that doesn't make it any less true.

It's not the label that's rejected, it's liberalism that's rejected. Am I going to have to break out Combat Liberalism (1938)?

[Flau Byeregenie]

It's not at all true. The radical left is not liberal. Only someone with, yes, the most laughably superficial understanding of leftist thought would insist that it is.

Like I said, you can reject the label all you want, that doesn't make it any less true.

Strictly speaking, you're right--it's not the fact that I reject it that makes it untrue.

Instead, it's the fact that the radical left, for the most part, explicitly rejects a number of the fundamental precepts of liberalism, that makes it untrue.

[Pilotto]

Yes. I do not like repeating myself over and over again. Read some of the thread next time.

It is; however, against US Flag code, which the school is legally supposed to comply with.

The flag code is a law without any penalty for violating it (since doing so would in turn violate the 1st amendment). So basically it's an official guideline to proper flag etiquette, not a law that anyone has to obey.

[United Marxist Nations]

Like I said, you can reject the label all you want, that doesn't make it any less true.

It's not the label that's rejected, it's liberalism that's rejected. Am I going to have to break out Combat Liberalism (1938)?

I could also break out an excerpt from Lenin's essay "A Liberal Professor on Equality", where he attacks liberalism as the petty-bourgeois ideology that it is, or, of course, Engels's Anti-Duhring.

[United Marxist Nations]

It is; however, against US Flag code, which the school is legally supposed to comply with.

The flag code is a law without any penalty for violating it (since doing so would in turn violate the 1st amendment). So basically it's an official guideline to proper flag etiquette, not a law that anyone has to obey.

That's why I said "supposed to". Still, it destroys the argument that such behavior is "patriotic."

[Pilotto]

Like I said, you can reject the label all you want, that doesn't make it any less true.

Strictly speaking, you're right--it's not the fact that I reject it that makes it untrue.

Instead, it's the fact that the radical left, for the most part, explicitly rejects a number of the fundamental precepts of liberalism, that makes it untrue.

Fine. What label do you prefer? Progressive?

It's not the label that's rejected, it's liberalism that's rejected. Am I going to have to break out Combat Liberalism (1938)?

I could also break out an excerpt from Lenin's essay "A Liberal Professor on Equality", where he attacks liberalism as the petty-bourgeois ideology that it is, or, of course, Engels's Anti-Duhring.

I never called you a liberal. You're a Marxist, which is several degrees beyond liberalism.