South Carolina school dislikes America

[The Two Jerseys]

It's not the same thing.

When the school opened a parking lot, they gave implied permission for vehicles to park there. Skateboards are not vehicles, so this implied permission does not extend to them.

And then they explicitly removed permission for certain classes of vehicles to park there.

They can only do so by posting approved signs.

And that still doesn't give them authority to remove the flags from the truck.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

If Southerners really were as patriotic as you say, why did they tear down the flag?

"Shoot if you must at this old gray head, but spare your country's flag." she said.


Are you seriously attributing the actions of a single person to the entire south?

Are you seriously that naive, clueless, and possibly even immature?

You do realize that the south commits more to our armed forces than any other national region per capita, right?

Indeed, many patriotic veterans protested against tearing down the Flag. But they were ignored by the naive, clueless, and possibly even immature bureaucrats.

Are you seriously attributing the actions of a single person to the entire south?
NOT a single person, the whole bureaucracy supported tearing down the Flag.

Dixie-crats claim the Flag was waaay too big and a danger to traffic. If that were true, then how come the student didn't crash on the way to school?

[Imperial Esplanade]

If Southerners really were as patriotic as you say, why did they tear down the flag?

"Shoot if you must at this old gray head, but spare your country's flag." she said.


Are you seriously attributing the actions of a single person to the entire south?

Are you seriously that naive, clueless, and possibly even immature?

You do realize that the south commits more to our armed forces than any other national region per capita, right?

Indeed, many patriotic veterans protested against tearing down the Flag. But they were ignored by the naive, clueless, and possibly even immature bureaucrats.

Are you seriously attributing the actions of a single person to the entire south?
NOT a single person, the whole bureaucracy supported tearing down the Flag.

Dixie-crats claim the Flag was waaay too big and a danger to traffic. If that were true, then how come the student didn't crash on the way to school?

Still, that's a very select few. That very small minority does not, in any way, reflect southerners.

Also, just becomes there is a danger of something of happening doesn't mean it will happen, it means there is a probable chance of it happening. Nonetheless, I still think he had a right to have a flag and what the school did was outrageous.

[Nierra]

This sort of nationalism is starting to frighten me.

It's not nationalism, it's patriotism and American Exceptionalism. These people aren't devoted to a Government, they're devoted to a way of life and the American flag is a symbol of what it cost us to preserve that way of life.

Nationalism is devotion to a Government, and typically involves collectivism over individualism which is literally in direct opposition to American culture.

[Nierra]

Forcing someone to take down a flag should be illegal unless it causes an immediate threat. Which obviously it did not in this scenario.

It's a direct violation of freedom of speech.

[Llamalandia]

Does South Carolina law forbid flying a flag from a vehicle even a full sized one ?

And even if it is why is the school enforcing something that is the job of the police to enforce ?

1: They should.
2: Schools are allowed to have their own standards of what is acceptable on their grounds.

Private ones maybe. I'm pretty sure this was a govt school though, and hence is bound by the law and the constitution. They don't have the latititude to contravene either of those. If it was a pricate school then sure, they can do whatever their paying customers (ie parents) will tolerate (and even still they are limited by some but not all laws).

[Llamalandia]

but then theirs there's other links I listed so your still wrong

Nope, I'm not. I suggest you try actually reading some of the other links posted.

Actually should not it technically be there are? After all there's is short for there is, though I could be wrong. But at some point you have stop dismissing sources. I mean, pointing out bias is one thing, totally ignoring them is another. If you have a competing source that contradicts the claims of the daily mail (or daily fail as u put it) then please share them.

[Salandriagado]

Yup. Of course, I would be worried as a parent that having a large flag flapping and blocking portions of my child's ability to view the road behind/beside him would cause an accident. Better a smaller one that clips to the door/window frame and is above the driver's view.

Since the risk of such an accident is almost entirely off campus, the schools regulation is attempting to target off campus behavior, that should be between this young man and his parents or this young man and the local law enforcement. Technocrats at schools should not substitute themselves for the elected government of South Carolina.

And more so between him and law enforcement since he is 18 (though the parents likely own the truck).

No they aren't. He's free to put the flag on as soon as he leaves campus.

[Salandriagado]

And then they explicitly removed permission for certain classes of vehicles to park there.

They can only do so by posting approved signs.

Where on earth did you get that idea? Organisations can regulate what happens on their property however they damned well like, providing they don't explicitly break any laws in doing so.

And that still doesn't give them authority to remove the flags from the truck.

I've never claimed that it did, and they didn't remove the flag: they just told him that he wasn't allowed on campus with it there.

[Llamalandia]

Well their vision statement does show a troubling lack of murrican patriotism. Seriously though it does mention good global citizenship which is fine, provided US citizenship is also mention and given clear precedence.
Having perused the handbook, I'm not seeing anything in the rules that would prohibit the kid flying flags on his truck.
here's the link if anyone else is interested. PDF.
http://www.york.k12.sc.us/files/user/322/file/StudentHandbook2014.pdf
Also I like how the district talks about making an exception to it's "policy of flags not being allowed on student vehicles" and then doesn't provide a link to any written policy. I'm pretty sure they mean, we made this up and now we are making an exception to our made up rules bc "we're patriots too".

[Llamalandia]

at least I'm not gullible to believe the schools excuse for this unlike you

And yet you accept the student's word without question.

Not necessarily, I mean at least don't. I give both the student and the school the benefit of doubt here and just assume, they were miscommunicating. But look at the evidence here if you want to be strict about it. The school was in the wrong, they admit it and reversed course, the kid as far as we know hasn't done anything wrong. So all else equal I would say the kid has slightly more credibility. But like I said, it seems like a good faith mistake and misunderstanding on both sides.

[Llamalandia]

They can only do so by posting approved signs.

Where on earth did you get that idea? Organisations can regulate what happens on their property however they damned well like, providing they don't explicitly break any laws in doing so.

And that still doesn't give them authority to remove the flags from the truck.

I've never claimed that it did, and they didn't remove the flag: they just told him that he wasn't allowed on campus with it there.

Do you have a source saying the school didn't remove the flags? I mean, they didn't seize them but they did unmount them and place them in the bed of the truck if I recall correctly from the sources I've seen.

[Salandriagado]

Where on earth did you get that idea? Organisations can regulate what happens on their property however they damned well like, providing they don't explicitly break any laws in doing so.



I've never claimed that it did, and they didn't remove the flag: they just told him that he wasn't allowed on campus with it there.

Do you have a source saying the school didn't remove the flags? I mean, they didn't seize them but they did unmount them and place them in the bed of the truck if I recall correctly from the sources I've seen.

His original instagram post, linked earlier in this thread. His story changed after that, which is why I'm rather doubtful as to his credibility.

[Llamalandia]

It's a publicly-accessible parking lot for vehicles driven on public roads. An 80-year old truck with no seatbelts, no rear bumper, one taillight, and one mirror can legally park there and the owner can't do jack shit about it because it's a street-legal vehicle.

It's not like a closed racetrack with no public right of access where the owners can set their own rules about what equipment a vehicle can have.

Where the fuck do you live where that would be legal? Somalia?
Also, the excerpt you provided does not support your claim.

The failed state of Canada( specifically Ontario) seems to at least agree on the no seatbelt thing for classic vehicles. The no rear bumper and single mirror seems plausible to me but I haven't searched for any explicit confirmation yet. being allowed to drive with a broken tail light seems hard to believe though. Maybe without any taillights if it is an especially old vehicle maybe but even that sounds dubious.

[The Two Jerseys]

They can only do so by posting approved signs.

Where on earth did you get that idea? Organisations can regulate what happens on their property however they damned well like, providing they don't explicitly break any laws in doing so.

They have the right to do things like ban trucks over 5 tons GVWR from the parking lot, as there are legal provisions for that. However, they can't enforce that ban unless there are "No Trucks Over 5 Tons GVWR" signs posted.

They don't have the right to do things like ban cars with legal aftermarket accessories from the lot, as it's a public lot. It's not a gated area with no public right of access where they can pick and choose who enters the lot.

And that still doesn't give them authority to remove the flags from the truck.

I've never claimed that it did, and they didn't remove the flag: they just told him that he wasn't allowed on campus with it there.

From the article:

An overzealous administrator decided to take the flag down after telling the high school student he needed to remove it.

The school official unscrewed bolts securing the flag, laying it down in the bed of the truck. Peyton was not present at the time.

The kid sure as hell didn't take them down, and they didn't magically take themselves off.

[Syrixia]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3083005/Outrage-South-Carolina-high-school-students-told-teachers-remove-flag-trucks-offensive.html

Synopsis: The short story is a 18 year old senior at a South Carolina high school was asked to remove his American flag off his truck after school officials told him it was offensive and had complaints. they later said it was a "driving" hazard preventing others from seeing but no one has complained about before. But it seems that in this particular city or town school administers can just go ahead with out your permission or you even being at your truck to take it down. yep a school official took it upon himself to unbolt the teens flag from his truck and lay down in the trucks bed. but the school did an about face and let the kid keep his flag after people backed the kid and more then 70 trucks and cars flying flags came to the school while be saluted by veterans and others along the road near the school

if that were me I would have punched the guy not because of the flag but because he removed something from my vehicle when he didn't have permission to do so in the first place.

Now if a Confederate flag were on that truck the South Carolinians would've nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Llamalandia]

Do you have a source saying the school didn't remove the flags? I mean, they didn't seize them but they did unmount them and place them in the bed of the truck if I recall correctly from the sources I've seen.

His original instagram post, linked earlier in this thread. His story changed after that, which is why I'm rather doubtful as to his credibility.

Hmm haven't seen the Instagram post of course, he may have just omitted certain details initially though, that doesn't sound so unreasonable.

[Salandriagado]

Where on earth did you get that idea? Organisations can regulate what happens on their property however they damned well like, providing they don't explicitly break any laws in doing so.

They have the right to do things like ban trucks over 5 tons GVWR from the parking lot, as there are legal provisions for that. However, they can't enforce that ban unless there are "No Trucks Over 5 Tons GVWR" signs posted.

They don't have the right to do things like ban cars with legal aftermarket accessories from the lot, as it's a public lot. It's not a gated area with no public right of access where they can pick and choose who enters the lot.

I've never claimed that it did, and they didn't remove the flag: they just told him that he wasn't allowed on campus with it there.

From the article:

An overzealous administrator decided to take the flag down after telling the high school student he needed to remove it.

The school official unscrewed bolts securing the flag, laying it down in the bed of the truck. Peyton was not present at the time.

The kid sure as hell didn't take them down, and they didn't magically take themselves off.

His original instagram post, linked earlier in this thread. His story changed after that, which is why I'm rather doubtful as to his credibility.

Hmm haven't seen the Instagram post of course, he may have just omitted certain details initially though, that doesn't sound so unreasonable.

His original instagram post:

"I've been told by 2 administrators at my school this morning that I can't have an American Flag on my truck because other people have complained about it. Well let me tell you something, I have every right to fly an American flag. It will not be coming off of my truck. This really pisses me off. I ask that everyone that sees this post that attends York Comprehinsive flys an American flag of some sort on whatever they may drive to school tomorrow to prove a point. I will not let this go down without a fight. "#America #fightforourright

Everything else was added in after the story blew up, and is therefore suspicious.

[Llamalandia]

They have the right to do things like ban trucks over 5 tons GVWR from the parking lot, as there are legal provisions for that. However, they can't enforce that ban unless there are "No Trucks Over 5 Tons GVWR" signs posted.

They don't have the right to do things like ban cars with legal aftermarket accessories from the lot, as it's a public lot. It's not a gated area with no public right of access where they can pick and choose who enters the lot.

From the article:

The kid sure as hell didn't take them down, and they didn't magically take themselves off.

Hmm haven't seen the Instagram post of course, he may have just omitted certain details initially though, that doesn't sound so unreasonable.

His original instagram post:

"I've been told by 2 administrators at my school this morning that I can't have an American Flag on my truck because other people have complained about it. Well let me tell you something, I have every right to fly an American flag. It will not be coming off of my truck. This really pisses me off. I ask that everyone that sees this post that attends York Comprehinsive flys an American flag of some sort on whatever they may drive to school tomorrow to prove a point. I will not let this go down without a fight. "#America #fightforourright

Everything else was added in after the story blew up, and is therefore suspicious.

Wait, doesn't his original post back him then? I thought you meant he came out with the complaint issue after the post. It is the school that is more suspicious. I mean, it sounds like the school might have changed its story to safety after his post. Plus it depends on the timeline of when the flags were removed. He says he was told in the morning he could have the flags and then later in the day told they'd been removed. Either way the school officials don't deny removing the flags as far as I'm aware. The whole issue is not about whether or not they were taken down but rather why they were taken down.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And, to quote my Southern grandfather, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground when he hops.



The Union didn't abolish slavery before the war. The Union had taken practically no action on slavery one way or the other, except in the guise of compromises that only delayed the inevitable. Slavery was the chief cause of the war. This has been established. If you want to start another goddamned Civil War thread, then I'll give you plenty of sources to back that basic historical fact.



It's called a Civil War because it fits the definition of a civil war.



I don't have any issue with some regional pride, though I think that it can be a bit silly. The issue is with the symbol that you chose, which was first used by people who were killing their fellow countrymen in order to maintain their right to keep slaves (Yes, what they were trying to do was to establish their independence. They wished to do so out of fear that the political makeup in the United States had shifted to an anti-slave position, and that their "peculiar institution" would be outlawed). If you want to show German pride, don't fly a swastika, and if you want to show Southern pride, don't fly a Confederate flag.



If you're proud to be Americans, don't fly a flag that was originally a symbol of people who were trying to kill as many Americans as possible so that they could enslave people. It's a stupid symbol to use, and I suspect that it alienates any number of people who would otherwise either be sympathetic or not care.

"And, to quote my Southern grandfather, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground when he hops."

I have absolutely no idea what you're attempting saying that in regards to.

"The Union didn't abolish slavery before the war. The Union had taken practically no action on slavery one way or the other, except in the guise of compromises that only delayed the inevitable. Slavery was the chief cause of the war. This has been established. If you want to start another goddamned Civil War thread, then I'll give you plenty of sources to back that basic historical fact."

Are you kidding me? Slavery was abolished everywhere but the border-states and below in the Union. Read up on your basic US history. Elementary schoolchildren know this to be true.

And yes slavery was a chief cause... did I deny that anywhere? No, but the reasons run deeper than that. For decades prior, the south had felt relatively more and more isolated (which includes more reasons than just slavery) which only spurred a growing sense of nationalism. This was more than just a war to keep their slaves, it was a war to split from the US and start a new nation.
http://personal.tcu.edu/swoodworth/Craven.htm

One of many scholarly reports who agree with the belief that the civil war wasn't just regulated strictly to slavery. That's quite a naive point to hold onto.

"It's called a Civil War because it fits the definition of a civil war."

Nowhere, in that definition, does it account for secessionist movements, which was exactly what the confederacy was. They weren't fighting to keep their slaves and remain a part of the United States, THEY WANTED TO BECOME AN INDEPENDENT NATION. That is not a civil war, that is a war of independence. Again, this is something that elementary school children know.

"I don't have any issue with some regional pride, though I think that it can be a bit silly. The issue is with the symbol that you chose, which was first used by people who were killing their fellow countrymen in order to maintain their right to keep slaves (Yes, what they were trying to do was to establish their independence. They wished to do so out of fear that the political makeup in the United States had shifted to an anti-slave position, and that their "peculiar institution" would be outlawed). If you want to show German pride, don't fly a swastika, and if you want to show Southern pride, don't fly a Confederate flag."

That's fine and all, just understand that it's your opinion and I respect that. I have to respectfully disagree though, because the swastika wasn't the flag of Germany, it was the flag of the Nazi political party and the defacto flag of the tyranny that Adolf Hitler instilled afterward. The Dixie Flag was the dejure flag of the Confederacy of the United States, and is not directly related to slavery or even institutional racism. It's just simply the flag of a failed aspiring state. Apples and oranges. Not only that, but people don't use the Dixie Flag due to its' historical significance, or even in support of the confederacy or any of its' practices, so that's actually entirely irrelevant.

"If you're proud to be Americans, don't fly a flag that was originally a symbol of people who were trying to kill as many Americans as possible so that they could enslave people. It's a stupid symbol to use, and I suspect that it alienates any number of people who would otherwise either be sympathetic or not care."

Again, entirely your opinion and I respect that. I still have to respectfully disagree though, because the confederacy wasn't 'trying to kill as many Americans as possible so that they could enslave people,' they were fighting for independence. Yes, it would be an independent state that would've most likely legalized slavery, but I suspect your tone and your view would been quite different if the confederacy had done an about-face and suddenly opposed legalized, systemic slavery. The fact is, the Confederate Flag represented the Confederate State of America during the 1860's, that's the only thing it really represented historically... culturally today, it's not ever used for its' historical representation or to support what that could've been state would have stood for, but rather solely for southern identity. Like the flag of Scotland is a source of pride for Scots, the flag of the Confederacy is a source of pride for southerners. Yes, I understand it has a tainted past... but it's not the point, it's a flag our region once united under (albeit for relatively negative reasons) and is used as a source for positive, constructive pride today... for all the same reasons the flag of Scotland is a source of positive, constructive pride to them. If anything, I think you should note how such a flag that represented a negative, toxic evil as you make it out to be (for some reason, solely attributing it to slavery) could now be used for entirely different (and now positive) reasons.

Responded to you here so as not to screech further off-topic.

[Confederate Ramenia]

yep seems like deja vu don't it

This ain't Deja Vu. At least not in South Carolina. Taking down a US flag in somewhere like MA or Cali would be deja vu, but this has got to be a first in the South.

Wat is the nullification crisis, or the secession of most southern states.

[Dyakovo]

Nope, I'm not. I suggest you try actually reading some of the other links posted.

Actually should not it technically be there are? After all there's is short for there is, though I could be wrong. But at some point you have stop dismissing sources. I mean, pointing out bias is one thing, totally ignoring them is another. If you have a competing source that contradicts the claims of the daily mail (or daily fail as u put it) then please share them.

Sources that contradict the Daily Fail have already been posted, and no, I will not stop dismissing said "news" source.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

This ain't Deja Vu. At least not in South Carolina. Taking down a US flag in somewhere like MA or Cali would be deja vu, but this has got to be a first in the South.

Wat is the nullification crisis, or the secession of most southern states.

George Bush II said "Cheese-eating-surrender-Monkeysish has no word for 'Entrepreneur'!"

'Deja vu' - seen it before in Cheesish. We have seen South Carolina tearing down the Flag before.

The feeling of deja vu is the wierdness of feeling you seen it before xpecifically when you ain't seen it before.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem is that the school's parking lot is publicly accessible, but it isn't public property. It is actually private property of whoever owns the parking lot, in this case the school.

The school is publicly owned, indeed, and it is the same as any other government agency. But, for instance, the same way you wouldn't tell a government employee in UNCIS that their building and parking lot is public property and that therefore you can park in the fire lane (because they would laugh at you) so it is with the school.

If the lot is open to the public, it is treated as a public road with regard to traffic laws.

Parking in fire lanes and handicapped spaces are governed by separate laws, the police are allowed to issue citations on private property.

Quite. But it is not considered public property, in which case a school administrator can determine you leave or whatever else they want to, really, since it is property of the school.

Being regarded as a public road or not with traffic laws doesn't make it equal to a public property. If I make a parking lot in my property that's a private parking lot, and if I make it accessible to the public it is simply accessible to the public, but I do not lose any rights over it.

[-The West Coast-]

yep seems like deja vu don't it

This ain't Deja Vu. At least not in South Carolina. Taking down a US flag in somewhere like MA or Cali would be deja vu, but this has got to be a first in the South.

A state that seceded first during the Civil War isn't the most patriotic state.