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

[Riiser-Larsen]

Or you just think it's ridiculous that a shirt with the American flag on it got banned because some hyper-sensitive people found it offensive? And before you say anything, no. I wouldn't really care if someone started walking around my neighborhood with a Nazi shirt on. I just plain wouldn't care.

Also, but there are other ways to combat racial tension besides banning everything that someone finds offensive.

It's a matter of time and place.

American flag shirt on any given day: tacky, but not a problem. But if you're wearing that same shirt to admittedly taunt Mexican students on Cinco de Mayo, not just as an individual but as part of a organized campaign, that's a problem. And that's why the school said "Fuck no, don't do that," when they caught wind of it. And punished people when they went and did it anyway.

Well here's a miraculous idea: the courts of the United States are required to enforce the constitution when making decisions. Especially in the case of a government organization, it is a violation of the Right to Freedom of Expression to force people to not wear clothing. Regardless of why they were wearing it, you can't ban something just because any particular group might be offended. Seriously, you should read Fahrenheit 451.

Also, who the hell wears an American Flag?

[Frisivisia]

It's a matter of time and place.

American flag shirt on any given day: tacky, but not a problem. But if you're wearing that same shirt to admittedly taunt Mexican students on Cinco de Mayo, not just as an individual but as part of a organized campaign, that's a problem. And that's why the school said "Fuck no, don't do that," when they caught wind of it. And punished people when they went and did it anyway.

Well here's a miraculous idea: the courts of the United States are required to enforce the constitution when making decisions. Especially in the case of a government organization, it is a violation of the Right to Freedom of Expression to force people to not wear clothing. Regardless of why they were wearing it, you can't ban something just because any particular group might be offended. Seriously, you should read Fahrenheit 451.

Also, who the hell wears an American Flag?

Someone just read Fahrenheit 451 in class and doesn't understand that freedom of expression does not apply to harassment or schools.

[Trotskylvania]

It's a matter of time and place.

American flag shirt on any given day: tacky, but not a problem. But if you're wearing that same shirt to admittedly taunt Mexican students on Cinco de Mayo, not just as an individual but as part of a organized campaign, that's a problem. And that's why the school said "Fuck no, don't do that," when they caught wind of it. And punished people when they went and did it anyway.

But that doesn't solve anything. It just tells the students that they need to go find other ways to offend their Mexican brothers. The problem with you libs is that you don't seem to realize that banning everything that people find offensive doesn't solve anything.

A better way to combat this would have been to open Mexican culture classes in the school and to organize all the more tolerant students and get them to wear shirts with the Mexican flag on it as a way of passively responding to this.

We're not trying to solve anything with this. We're trying to ensure that the school is an environment that is conducive to learning. Punishing people who inflame ethnic tensions in the school is all part and parcel to that. It's also vital to ensuring that minority students are safe and can learn free of harassment.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

White students are barred from wearing patriotic apparel in a certain school in California on the date of a foreign holiday because other white students used it as an opportunity to be disruptive and overly nationalistic in the past, and were attacked for it. The school's response is to ban patriotic apparel on this foreign holiday for one specific ethnic group (caucasians) in order to prevent anticipate violence, rather than punishing disruptive and violent students as individuals, like they should.

Wait, you misconstrued it again after pages of discussion that showed it was used for ethnic nationalist means, and you also think that people REALLY should punish THE MEXICANS because they react as any other human being would because they are being HARASSED.

I'm appalled. Dude, we don't live in the early 20th century anymore. No one will tolerate your bullshit just because of made-up discourses in order to hide the arses of people in the wrong in a system where they de jure or de facto have more rights than everybody else.

[Viritica]

But that doesn't solve anything. It just tells the students that they need to go find other ways to offend their Mexican brothers. The problem with you libs is that you don't seem to realize that banning everything that people find offensive doesn't solve anything.

A better way to combat this would have been to open Mexican culture classes in the school and to organize all the more tolerant students and get them to wear shirts with the Mexican flag on it as a way of passively responding to this.

We're not trying to solve anything with this. We're trying to ensure that the school is an environment that is conducive to learning. Punishing people who inflame ethnic tensions in the school is all part and parcel to that. It's also vital to ensuring that minority students are safe and can learn free of harassment.

If you don't solve the problem then it's just going to happen again and again. And then it will eventually escalate to the point of violence if it hasn't already.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Well here's a miraculous idea: the courts of the United States are required to enforce the constitution when making decisions. Especially in the case of a government organization, it is a violation of the Right to Freedom of Expression to force people to not wear clothing. Regardless of why they were wearing it, you can't ban something just because any particular group might be offended. Seriously, you should read Fahrenheit 451.

Also, who the hell wears an American Flag?

Someone just read Fahrenheit 451 in class and doesn't understand that freedom of expression does not apply to harassment or schools.

The constitutional amendments apply to all government organizations. Either they apply to schools, or they don't apply at all, but you can't say that they apply to some and not to others. If people are inciting riots with their clothing, then you deal with the riots, but you do not ban the clothing. Regardless of what you think "We should do" the courts of the United States are required to enforce those conditions. I don't agree with all constitutional amendments, but the ones referring to Freedom of Expression and such are incredibly important for our operation as a society.

[Pilotto]

Well here's a miraculous idea: the courts of the United States are required to enforce the constitution when making decisions. Especially in the case of a government organization, it is a violation of the Right to Freedom of Expression to force people to not wear clothing. Regardless of why they were wearing it, you can't ban something just because any particular group might be offended. Seriously, you should read Fahrenheit 451.

Also, who the hell wears an American Flag?

Someone just read Fahrenheit 451 in class and doesn't understand that freedom of expression does not apply to harassment or schools.

ha·rass·ment
həˈrasm(ə)nt,ˈharəsm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: harassment; plural noun: harassments
1.
aggressive pressure or intimidation.

Wearing the flag is a passive form of protest, not an active or aggressive one.

[Frisivisia]

Someone just read Fahrenheit 451 in class and doesn't understand that freedom of expression does not apply to harassment or schools.

The constitutional amendments apply to all government organizations. Either they apply to schools, or they don't apply at all, but you can't say that they apply to some and not to others. If people are inciting riots with their clothing, then you deal with the riots, but you do not ban the clothing. Regardless of what you think "We should do" the courts of the United States are required to enforce those conditions. I don't agree with all constitutional amendments, but the ones referring to Freedom of Expression and such are incredibly important for our operation as a society.

No, you don't have all your rights in school.

We also don't wait for violence to happen to act in schools.

[Riiser-Larsen]

But that doesn't solve anything. It just tells the students that they need to go find other ways to offend their Mexican brothers. The problem with you libs is that you don't seem to realize that banning everything that people find offensive doesn't solve anything.

A better way to combat this would have been to open Mexican culture classes in the school and to organize all the more tolerant students and get them to wear shirts with the Mexican flag on it as a way of passively responding to this.

We're not trying to solve anything with this. We're trying to ensure that the school is an environment that is conducive to learning. Punishing people who inflame ethnic tensions in the school is all part and parcel to that. It's also vital to ensuring that minority students are safe and can learn free of harassment.

Well here's something to acknowledge, and I'm saying this "liberal" to liberal: Just saying that something isn't okay doesn't mean people won't do it. Viritica is right, just banning things tells students to find other ways.

[Frisivisia]

Someone just read Fahrenheit 451 in class and doesn't understand that freedom of expression does not apply to harassment or schools.

ha·rass·ment
həˈrasm(ə)nt,ˈharəsm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: harassment; plural noun: harassments
1.
aggressive pressure or intimidation.

Wearing the flag is a passive form of protest, not an active or aggressive one.

Nope. This was obviously used as a way to incite and inflame conflict and is thus aggressive.

[Flau Byeregenie]

The constitutional amendments apply to all government organizations. Either they apply to schools, or they don't apply at all, but you can't say that they apply to some and not to others. If people are inciting riots with their clothing, then you deal with the riots, but you do not ban the clothing. Regardless of what you think "We should do" the courts of the United States are required to enforce those conditions. I don't agree with all constitutional amendments, but the ones referring to Freedom of Expression and such are incredibly important for our operation as a society.

No, you don't have all your rights in school.

We also don't wait for violence to happen to act in schools.

Ehh...unfortunately, that's not true--in fact, even after violence happens we often don't act, thanks to the pernicious and oppressive influence of the gun-loving freedom-hating fascists.

[Frisivisia]

We're not trying to solve anything with this. We're trying to ensure that the school is an environment that is conducive to learning. Punishing people who inflame ethnic tensions in the school is all part and parcel to that. It's also vital to ensuring that minority students are safe and can learn free of harassment.

Well here's something to acknowledge, and I'm saying this "liberal" to liberal: Just saying that something isn't okay doesn't mean people won't do it. Viritica is right, just banning things tells students to find other ways.

So because people violate the law, we shouldn't have laws?

That's fucking stupid.

[Frisivisia]

No, you don't have all your rights in school.

We also don't wait for violence to happen to act in schools.

Ehh...unfortunately, that's not true--in fact, even after violence happens we often don't act, thanks to the pernicious and oppressive influence of the gun-loving freedom-hating fascists.

What I was saying is that we shouldn't wait until violence happens to punish kids for inciting conflict.

[Pilotto]

ha·rass·ment
həˈrasm(ə)nt,ˈharəsm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: harassment; plural noun: harassments
1.
aggressive pressure or intimidation.

Wearing the flag is a passive form of protest, not an active or aggressive one.

Nope. This was obviously used as a way to incite and inflame conflict and is thus aggressive.

If others feel the need to respond aggressively to passive protest, then they are the ones inciting violence.

[Riiser-Larsen]

The constitutional amendments apply to all government organizations. Either they apply to schools, or they don't apply at all, but you can't say that they apply to some and not to others. If people are inciting riots with their clothing, then you deal with the riots, but you do not ban the clothing. Regardless of what you think "We should do" the courts of the United States are required to enforce those conditions. I don't agree with all constitutional amendments, but the ones referring to Freedom of Expression and such are incredibly important for our operation as a society.

No, you don't have all your rights in school.

We also don't wait for violence to happen to act in schools.

I understand that, do you think that I would be making this point if I thought that was a good idea?

The fact is, you can't design a system with the condition "MUST BE ENFORCED IN ALL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS" and then other two hundred years after the document was written decide to take a Sharpie and add a little note underneath saying "Except for in schools."

[Mushet]

There's only one reason you could be upset with this ruling. It's racism.

Unless you think that Americans have the right to harass Mexicans and disrupt their learning environment and imply that they don't belong here, you can't be upset with this ruling. It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what you think and how you act. You can say you're not a racist all you want. But if you're acting in a racist manner, and getting your panties in a twist because the Courts say you can't harass Mexicans, we're not going to believe you.

Or you just think it's ridiculous that a shirt with the American flag on it got banned because some hyper-sensitive people found it offensive? And before you say anything, no. I wouldn't really care if someone started walking around my neighborhood with a Nazi shirt on. I just plain wouldn't care.

Also, but there are other ways to combat racial tension besides banning everything that someone finds offensive.

Are you serious with this? They weren't banning everything that somebody finds offensive they were stopping this kids from purposely baiting with these shirts by telling them to turn them inside out or leave, it wasn't hyper sensitivity either, this was sending a very clear negative message.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

So if a Latino were to wear a shirt with the Mexican flag on it during the 4th of July, would that be racist? Of course not, because the flag is a national symbol, not an ethnic one.

Oh, you wouldn't bitch about how it proves that the La Raza ideology of pulling a Eastern Ukraine in America is so systemic that people can't even hide anymore, and that illegal immigration is a coordinated anti-American invasion approach. Uhn-huh. I really believe you.

[Frisivisia]

Nope. This was obviously used as a way to incite and inflame conflict and is thus aggressive.

If others feel the need to respond aggressively to passive protest, then they are the ones inciting violence.

It's like you don't understand what provocation is or that there had been tensions in the past.

Victim-blaming is okay if it's the dirty wetbacks!

[Flau Byeregenie]

No, you don't have all your rights in school.

We also don't wait for violence to happen to act in schools.

I understand that, do you think that I would be making this point if I thought that was a good idea?

The fact is, you can't design a system with the condition "MUST BE ENFORCED IN ALL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS" and then other two hundred years after the document was written decide to take a Sharpie and add a little note underneath saying "Except for in schools."

Sure you can. There's no reason we should allow the tyranny of the past to prevent us from doing the right thing in the present.

Seriously, fuck the Constitution. Freedom and liberty for all are more important than what people 200+ years ago wanted.

[Frisivisia]

No, you don't have all your rights in school.

We also don't wait for violence to happen to act in schools.

I understand that, do you think that I would be making this point if I thought that was a good idea?

The fact is, you can't design a system with the condition "MUST BE ENFORCED IN ALL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS" and then other two hundred years after the document was written decide to take a Sharpie and add a little note underneath saying "Except for in schools."

Sure you can. In fact, we did. The Constitution is a living document, and well it is.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Or you just think it's ridiculous that a shirt with the American flag on it got banned because some hyper-sensitive people found it offensive? And before you say anything, no. I wouldn't really care if someone started walking around my neighborhood with a Nazi shirt on. I just plain wouldn't care.

Also, but there are other ways to combat racial tension besides banning everything that someone finds offensive.

Are you serious with this? They weren't banning everything that somebody finds offensive they were stopping this kids from purposely baiting with these shirts by telling them to turn them inside out or leave, it wasn't hyper sensitivity either, this was sending a very clear negative message.

I have no problem with a court saying that a school has, in one instance, permission to discipline students for their actions because they were specifically trying to incite violence. I have a much greater issue with a court banning an entire form of clothing simply because they believe someone might use it to incite violence. It's like banning aeroplanes because some terrorists use them as weapons.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

If others feel the need to respond aggressively to passive protest, then they are the ones inciting violence.

It's like you don't understand what provocation is or that there had been tensions in the past.

Victim-blaming is okay if it's the dirty wetbacks!

I don't want to accuse and to sound like I'm an asshole, but that's totally what I'm getting too.

[Pilotto]

So if a Latino were to wear a shirt with the Mexican flag on it during the 4th of July, would that be racist? Of course not, because the flag is a national symbol, not an ethnic one.

Oh, you wouldn't bitch about how it proves that the La Raza ideology of pulling a Eastern Ukraine in America is so systemic that people can't even hide anymore, and that illegal immigration is a coordinated anti-American invasion approach. Uhn-huh. I really believe you.

I would not give a shit. Not one shit. Now, if said Latino decided to interfere with my ability to get hammered on the 4th, then I would be pissed. Just wearing the t-shirt is his Constitutional right, and he can exercise however the he pleases.

[Flau Byeregenie]

I have a much greater issue with a court banning an entire form of clothing simply because they believe someone might use it to incite violence.

Are you now going out of your way to demonstrate that you haven't the slightest clue what's going on here?

[Viritica]

Or you just think it's ridiculous that a shirt with the American flag on it got banned because some hyper-sensitive people found it offensive? And before you say anything, no. I wouldn't really care if someone started walking around my neighborhood with a Nazi shirt on. I just plain wouldn't care.

Also, but there are other ways to combat racial tension besides banning everything that someone finds offensive.

Are you serious with this? They weren't banning everything that somebody finds offensive they were stopping this kids from purposely baiting with these shirts by telling them to turn them inside out or leave, it wasn't hyper sensitivity either, this was sending a very clear negative message.

So what if a kid comes in wearing the American flag just as a patriotic symbol?