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

[Riiser-Larsen]

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.

Here's the fact, you always need to design a document with the minimum number of exceptions possible. If your document continues to accumulate more exceptions, you need to rewrite the document. Except no one is trying to rewrite the constitution, they just keep adding exceptions. Either rewrite the Constitution, or stop making exceptions for the core laws of a document our entire legal system is based on.

[Riiser-Larsen]

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.

The issue here is not whether it's victim-blaming, it's whether it's justified to ban an entire section of clothing for the actions of a small group of people.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Not all speech is protected speech.

Wearing an American flag shirt in a way that does not disrupt learning or harass students is protected speech. But because schools are places of learning, the people involved are minors, and they don't have a choice to be there, the bar is much lower. Hence, wearing an American flag as part of a deliberate action to harass or taunt Mexican students on Cinco de Mayo is not protected speech.

There are many reasons why speech may not be protected under the First Amendment, and it is always about context. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, because there are very real immediate consequences to falsely inciting panic. But if the theater were on fire, saying, shouting "Fire" would be protected.

Slander and libel are not protected speech, because the state has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from false and malicious defamation of their character. And in some instances even saying the same thing in two different instances might be protected in once instance but not in another. Bluth pointed out that telling someone "I'm going to kill you" over your mic in a Counterstrike match would be protected, but yelling the same thing in the same tone in the middle of a heated argument would not be protected.

The school met its burden of proof in this case. To restrict speech in schools, you have to be content neutral in your policy, not trying to advance or hinder particular viewpoints; the relevant criteria is whether or not a person's speech is disruptive to education, or falls under one of the other general exceptions to freedom of speech. The court found that the school had satisfied the legal burden placed on it, and was acting within its rights.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

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.

Still Mexican, like all other Latin American nationalities, is an ethnicity in itself (as the Mexican-American experience makes it crystal clear), and in context it indeed means that.

[Pilotto]

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.

You can amend the Constitution, but you cannot twist is words to try and match whatever you want it to say. Here's what Justice Antony Scalia has to say about the "living Constitution":

It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead.

Indeed. I like my Constitution dead.

[Mushet]

Yes. We do that all the time. For example, it's context that is the difference between saying "I'm going to kill you!" in the context of a game of Counterstrike being protected speech, versus the same phrase in the context of a heated argument being an illegal threat. How is this difficult?

Ah, so now now wearing a spangly t-shirt is tantamount to threatening someone with physical harm. Nice fallacy.

What part of "racism is structural and performative" do you not understand, exactly?

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.

Do you actually understand what the hell is going on here?

Yes. 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.

No, that is not the case at all, it isn't really even a foreign holiday, it's way more celebrated in the US than anywhere else, they didn't ban American flag apparel for this holiday for white kids or Mexican American kids, they put aside some students that were wearing this clothing to antagonize the Mexican American student population and sent a couple home for refusing to turn the shirts inside out after they were already being disruptive to the learning environment for a while.

I'm sure if a Xenophobic Mexican American kid wore the same shirt to antagonize the other ones he would likley have the same thing happen to him.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

The issue here is not whether it's victim-blaming, it's whether it's justified to ban an entire section of clothing for the actions of a small group of people.

Most other students probably don't give a shit.

Seriously, what students want is not to be physically punished, to not wake up 4 in the morning, to not use sex-segregated uniform, to be served tasty, healthy food and to not be bullied. Freedom of speech isn't secondary, it's unnecessary. I didn't have the right to say or do to my own clothes and body whatever I wanted to in school. Why should you?

[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.

Not all speech is protected speech.

Wearing an American flag shirt in a way that does not disrupt learning or harass students is protected speech. But because schools are places of learning, the people involved are minors, and they don't have a choice to be there, the bar is much lower. Hence, wearing an American flag as part of a deliberate action to harass or taunt Mexican students on Cinco de Mayo is not protected speech.

There are many reasons why speech may not be protected under the First Amendment, and it is always about context. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, because there are very real immediate consequences to falsely inciting panic. But if the theater were on fire, saying, shouting "Fire" would be protected.

Slander and libel are not protected speech, because the state has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from false and malicious defamation of their character. And in some instances even saying the same thing in two different instances might be protected in once instance but not in another. Bluth pointed out that telling someone "I'm going to kill you" over your mic in a Counterstrike match would be protected, but yelling the same thing in the same tone in the middle of a heated argument would not be protected.

The school met its burden of proof in this case. To restrict speech in schools, you have to be content neutral in your policy, not trying to advance or hinder particular viewpoints; the relevant criteria is whether or not a person's speech is disruptive to education, or falls under one of the other general exceptions to freedom of speech. The court found that the school had satisfied the legal burden placed on it, and was acting within its rights.

Now the question is whether banning an entire group of clothing is the proper response to a small group of people taking an action against a certain group. It's not an issue of whether it's okay to reprimand the students for their actions (of course it is, it's inciting violence), it's whether it's okay to restrict the actions of everyone in that school because a couple of idiotic white boys wanted to piss off an ethnic group.

[Trotskylvania]

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

You can amend the Constitution, but you cannot twist is words to try and match whatever you want it to say. Here's what Justic Antony Scalia has to say about the "living Constitution":

It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead.

Indeed. I like my Constitution dead.

That's entirely irrelevant, because the distinction between protected and unprotected speech is older than the Constitution, and the First Amendment was never intended to be, nor was it written as, providing an absolute freedom of speech.

[Riiser-Larsen]

The issue here is not whether it's victim-blaming, it's whether it's justified to ban an entire section of clothing for the actions of a small group of people.

Most other students probably don't give a shit.

Seriously, what students want is not to be physically punished, to not wake up 4 in the morning, to not use sex-segregated uniform, to be served tasty, healthy food and to not be bullied. Freedom of speech isn't secondary, it's unnecessary. I didn't have the right to say or do to my own clothes and body whatever I wanted to in school. Why should you?

It doesn't matter whether they care about it, it matters whether it's justified. Politics is not about taking all the actions that people don't care about, it's about finding the most justified solution.

[Riiser-Larsen]

You can amend the Constitution, but you cannot twist is words to try and match whatever you want it to say. Here's what Justic Antony Scalia has to say about the "living Constitution":

Indeed. I like my Constitution dead.

That's entirely irrelevant, because the distinction between protected and unprotected speech is older than the Constitution, and the First Amendment was never intended to be, nor was it written as, providing an absolute freedom of speech.

Prove it.

[Trotskylvania]

Not all speech is protected speech.

Wearing an American flag shirt in a way that does not disrupt learning or harass students is protected speech. But because schools are places of learning, the people involved are minors, and they don't have a choice to be there, the bar is much lower. Hence, wearing an American flag as part of a deliberate action to harass or taunt Mexican students on Cinco de Mayo is not protected speech.

There are many reasons why speech may not be protected under the First Amendment, and it is always about context. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, because there are very real immediate consequences to falsely inciting panic. But if the theater were on fire, saying, shouting "Fire" would be protected.

Slander and libel are not protected speech, because the state has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from false and malicious defamation of their character. And in some instances even saying the same thing in two different instances might be protected in once instance but not in another. Bluth pointed out that telling someone "I'm going to kill you" over your mic in a Counterstrike match would be protected, but yelling the same thing in the same tone in the middle of a heated argument would not be protected.

The school met its burden of proof in this case. To restrict speech in schools, you have to be content neutral in your policy, not trying to advance or hinder particular viewpoints; the relevant criteria is whether or not a person's speech is disruptive to education, or falls under one of the other general exceptions to freedom of speech. The court found that the school had satisfied the legal burden placed on it, and was acting within its rights.

Now the question is whether banning an entire group of clothing is the proper response to a small group of people taking an action against a certain group. It's not an issue of whether it's okay to reprimand the students for their actions (of course it is, it's inciting violence), it's whether it's okay to restrict the actions of everyone in that school because a couple of idiotic white boys wanted to piss off an ethnic group.

But they aren't making a broad restriction. They told these people that they would either turn their shirts inside out and knock it off, or they'd be suspended. The kids refused, and thus the kids were suspended. They sued, trying to challenge this on First Amendment grounds. They lost.

There is no blanket ban on wearing American flags, at this school or any school.

[Flau Byeregenie]

Not all speech is protected speech.

Wearing an American flag shirt in a way that does not disrupt learning or harass students is protected speech. But because schools are places of learning, the people involved are minors, and they don't have a choice to be there, the bar is much lower. Hence, wearing an American flag as part of a deliberate action to harass or taunt Mexican students on Cinco de Mayo is not protected speech.

There are many reasons why speech may not be protected under the First Amendment, and it is always about context. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, because there are very real immediate consequences to falsely inciting panic. But if the theater were on fire, saying, shouting "Fire" would be protected.

Slander and libel are not protected speech, because the state has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from false and malicious defamation of their character. And in some instances even saying the same thing in two different instances might be protected in once instance but not in another. Bluth pointed out that telling someone "I'm going to kill you" over your mic in a Counterstrike match would be protected, but yelling the same thing in the same tone in the middle of a heated argument would not be protected.

The school met its burden of proof in this case. To restrict speech in schools, you have to be content neutral in your policy, not trying to advance or hinder particular viewpoints; the relevant criteria is whether or not a person's speech is disruptive to education, or falls under one of the other general exceptions to freedom of speech. The court found that the school had satisfied the legal burden placed on it, and was acting within its rights.

Now the question is whether banning an entire group of clothing is the proper response to a small group of people taking an action against a certain group

That's.

Not.

What's.

Going.

On.

Are you trying to not know what the actual situation is?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Most other students probably don't give a shit.

Seriously, what students want is not to be physically punished, to not wake up 4 in the morning, to not use sex-segregated uniform, to be served tasty, healthy food and to not be bullied. Freedom of speech isn't secondary, it's unnecessary. I didn't have the right to say or do to my own clothes and body whatever I wanted to in school. Why should you?

It doesn't matter whether they care about it, it matters whether it's justified. Politics is not about taking all the actions that people don't care about, it's about finding the most justified solution.

I can't see for the sweetness of Jesus why banning the American flag from being used in said fashion is any bad.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Now the question is whether banning an entire group of clothing is the proper response to a small group of people taking an action against a certain group

That's.

Not.

What's.

Going.

On.

Are you trying to not know what the actual situation is?

I'm sorry, but "Appeals court says school had right to ban U.S. flag T-shirt" does not exactly specify that the school was just telling these kids to f*** off.

[Pilotto]

Now the question is whether banning an entire group of clothing is the proper response to a small group of people taking an action against a certain group. It's not an issue of whether it's okay to reprimand the students for their actions (of course it is, it's inciting violence), it's whether it's okay to restrict the actions of everyone in that school because a couple of idiotic white boys wanted to piss off an ethnic group.

But they aren't making a broad restriction. They told these people that they would either turn their shirts inside out and knock it off, or they'd be suspended. The kids refused, and thus the kids were suspended. They sued, trying to challenge this on First Amendment grounds. They lost.

There is no blanket ban on wearing American flags, at this school or any school.

The 9th circuit court of appeals is the most insane liberal court in America. This clear breach of the Constitution will not survive the Supreme Court.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

That's entirely irrelevant, because the distinction between protected and unprotected speech is older than the Constitution, and the First Amendment was never intended to be, nor was it written as, providing an absolute freedom of speech.

Prove it.

Cops can arrest you depending on the tone you talk to them as a civil?

[Riiser-Larsen]

Prove it.

Cops can arrest you depending on the tone you talk to them as a civil?

That doesn't prove that the document was written with that meaning, just that people assume it is.

[Flau Byeregenie]

That's.

Not.

What's.

Going.

On.

Are you trying to not know what the actual situation is?

I'm sorry, but "Appeals court says school had right to ban U.S. flag T-shirt" does not exactly specify that the school was just telling these kids to f*** off.

They had the right to do it in this particular situation.

Again, context: you'll be a better person for incorporating it into your worldview.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

The 9th circuit court of appeals is the most insane liberal court in America. This clear breach of the Constitution will not survive the Supreme Court.

Constitution this, Constitution that.

It has become a mantra.

People inside schools sign up for whatever discipline they might get, just like in the military.

[Riiser-Larsen]

I'm sorry, but "Appeals court says school had right to ban U.S. flag T-shirt" does not exactly specify that the school was just telling these kids to f*** off.

They had the right to do it in this particular situation.

Again, context: you'll be a better person for incorporating it into your worldview.

I wasn't disagreeing anymore...

[Viritica]

The 9th circuit court of appeals is the most insane liberal court in America. This clear breach of the Constitution will not survive the Supreme Court.

Constitution this, Constitution that.

It has become a mantra.

People inside schools sign up for whatever discipline they might get, just like in the military.

So we just disregard the constitution?

[Pilotto]

I'm sorry, but "Appeals court says school had right to ban U.S. flag T-shirt" does not exactly specify that the school was just telling these kids to f*** off.

They had the right to do it in this particular situation.

Again, context: you'll be a better person for incorporating it into your worldview.

Ah, but you see, laws and government mandates operate on absolutes, not on context. Otherwise, how would anyone be expected to know what the law is at any given context?

[Riiser-Larsen]

The 9th circuit court of appeals is the most insane liberal court in America. This clear breach of the Constitution will not survive the Supreme Court.

Constitution this, Constitution that.

It has become a mantra.

People inside schools sign up for whatever discipline they might get, just like in the military.

Well, the 1st amendment is probably one of the only areas of the constitution that isn't awful, so in this case it's not that ridiculous to invoke it

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Cops can arrest you depending on the tone you talk to them as a civil?

That doesn't prove that the document was written with that meaning, just that people assume it is.

I think it's relevant enough to assume that if it was unconstitutional, it would've already been shut down.