Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (N.D. Cal.), decided the day before yesterday, upholds a California high school’s decision to forbid students from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. (See here and here for more on this case.)
The decision might well be correct under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (1969), which allows a “heckler’s veto” in K-12 school: Schools may indeed restrict student speech when it’s likely to cause substantial disruption, even when the disruption stems from other students’ hostility to the speech. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think the speech restriction violates a California statute that gives students extra protection, but that claim wasn’t raised in this federal lawsuit.
Yet while the judge might have been right in his decision, the situation in the school seems very bad. When we’re at 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 — on May 5 or on any other day — 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. Here’s an excerpt from the court opinion describing the facts that led the court to uphold the restriction:
On Cinco de Mayo in 2009, a verbal exchange and altercation arose between a group of predominantly white and a group of Mexican students. This altercation involved an exchange of profanities and threats were made. A makeshift American flag was put on one of the trees on campus. A group of Caucasian students began clapping and chanting “USA” as this flag went up. This was in response to a group of Mexican students walking around with the Mexican flag. One Mexican student shouted “fuck them white boys, fuck them white boys.” Vice–Principal Rodriguez directed the minor to stop using such profanity. The minor responded by saying “But Rodriguez, they are racist. They are being racist. Fuck them white boys. Let’s fuck them up.” Vice–Principal Rodriguez removed the minor from the area….
When Plaintiff M.D. wore an American flag shirt to school on Cinco de Mayo 2009, he was approached by a male student who shoved a Mexican flag at him and said something in Spanish expressing anger at Plaintiffs’ clothing….
On the morning of Cinco de Mayo 2010, a female student approached Plaintiff M.D., motioned to his shirt, and said “why are you wearing that, do you not like Mexicans?” Plaintiffs D.G. and D.M. were also confronted about their clothing by female students before [brunch] break….
Defendant Rodriguez was leaving his office before brunch break on May 5, 2010, a Caucasian student approached him and said, “You may want to go out to the quad area. There might be some — there might be some issues.”
During brunch break on May 5, 2010, another student called Vice–Principal Rodriguez over to a group of Mexican students and said that she was concerned about a group of students wearing the American flag and said that “there might be problems.” Vice–Principal Rodriguez took her statement to mean that there might be some sort of physical altercation. A group of Mexican students also asked Defendant Rodriguez “why do they get to wear their flag when we don’t get to wear our flag?” …
While meeting with Plaintiffs about their attire, Defendant Rodriguez explained that he was concerned for their safety. Plaintiffs did not dispute that their attire put them at risk of violence. Plaintiff D.M. stated that he was “willing to take on that responsibility” in order to continue wearing his shirt….
Following Plaintiffs’ departure from school they received numerous threats from other students. Plaintiff D.G. received a threat of violence via text message on May 6th. He received another threatening call from a male saying he was outside of D.G.’s home that same night. Plaintiffs D.M. and M.D. also were threatened with violence. A student at Live Oak overheard a group of male students saying that some gang members would come down from San Jose to “take care of” Plaintiffs. Based on these threats, Plaintiffs did not go to school on May 7….
Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed evidence shows that they were treated differently than students wearing the colors of the Mexican flag, and that this distinction was based on the unpopularity of their viewpoint. Defendants respond that Plaintiffs have offered no evidence demonstrating that students wearing the colors of the Mexican flag were likely to be targeted for violence, and that officials treated all students for whose safety they feared in the same manner.
When the government infringes upon protected speech in a discriminatory manner, such conduct may constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as well as the First Amendment. See Police Dept. of the City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972). “[U]nder the Equal Protection Clause, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny it those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views.”
Here, for the reasons discussed above, Defendants have provided a non-discriminatory basis for asking Plaintiffs to remove their American flag attire. Defendants have put forth significant evidence demonstrating that Plaintiffs were asked to change clothes in order to protect their own safety. Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence demonstrating that students wearing the colors of the Mexican flag were targeted for violence. To the contrary, the undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiffs were the only students on campus whose safety was threatened that day, at least to the knowledge of Defendants. In addition, Defendant Rodriguez has testified that he did not see any students wearing the Mexican flag on their clothing during the day. He also testified that he did not see any students with Mexican flags displayed on their person until he saw photos in the newspaper in the days following Cinco de Mayo.
Justin says:
Sounds like the situation in that school is really bad, but let’s not pretend that *when* the situation actually is that bad, people “display[ing] the American flag in an American school” are not just showing regular old patriotism, but sending a political message with strong racial overtones.
That doesn’t mean that high school students shouldn’t be allowed to make racially-charged political statements, or that anyone should have a heckler’s veto no matter how offensive the speech. But you’re downplaying the nature of the speech in question, which creates a much different view of what is happening.
November 10, 2011, 9:56 amMark N. says:
I tend to agree with Justin; unless the students regularly wear American flag tshirts, specifically wearing them on Cinco de Mayo seems likely to be intended (and perceived) as an act with a pretty targeted message, which isn’t a general expression of support for the United States.
Since, afaik, the American flag doesn’t get any greater protection in American schools than other countries’ flags (that wouldn’t be content-neutral), this seems consistent with the likely outcome under Tinker in various other hostile-flag-wearing scenarios. For example, in a school with large Greek and Turkish populations, if the Turkish students decided to wear Turkish-flag tshirts on Greek independence day to thumb their nose at the Greek students, the school could probably prohibit that, even if they coyly argued that they were merely expressing generalized pride in their heritage.
I can also imagine a number of scenarios where a shirt that wouldn’t attract great attention other days of the year might be interpreted provocatively if worn on 9/11.
November 10, 2011, 10:15 amSeaDrive says:
Let’s put the responsibility where it belongs. In the kind of open society that the US pretends to be, the bull has to ignore a red flag because there are red flags everywhere.
November 10, 2011, 10:18 amsbron says:
Since California is broke, how about if the Mexican government provides the funding for the Mexican high school in Morgan Hill. Perhaps Mexico can fund any high school in California with greater than say a 60% Mexican student population.
Note that it is the students protesting the American-flag wearing kids who call themselves “Mexican” rather than “American”. This is more about nationality than race. (At least one of the American flag wearing students in the original article was Hispanic.)
Lesson for libertarians — many immigrants bring their nationality and ethnic self-interest with them, and are more than a means of suppressing wages to enrich the 1%. Immigrants can bust borders and not just wages.
November 10, 2011, 10:19 amAJK says:
Is that really true? Schools seem pretty comfortable encouraging their students to pledge allegiance to the American flag without offering a comparable opportunity to pledge allegiance elsewhere.
November 10, 2011, 10:20 amJFMO says:
Wouldn’t it make more historical sense if the school banned French flags on Cinco de Mayo?
November 10, 2011, 10:24 amcampanile says:
Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light, What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Nope, not on students on certain days of the year, per administrative fiat or discretion.
Supposedly, though they lost this particular perilous fight, they could wear the broad stripes and bright stars of Algeria, Australia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Ghana, Honduras, Liberia, Antilles, New Zealand, and Senegal without causing a stir.
November 10, 2011, 10:25 amCalderon says:
Defendants respond that Plaintiffs have offered no evidence demonstrating that students wearing the colors of the Mexican flag were likely to be targeted for violence, and that officials treated all students for whose safety they feared in the same manner. … Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence demonstrating that students wearing the colors of the Mexican flag were targeted for violence.
This sort of reasoning really seems counterproductive, both as a matter of law and policy. So if students showing the Mexico flag threaten students who show the USA flag, the USA flag is banned but not the Mexican flag? Those who support the USA flag obviously will feel that they are treated unequally (because they are in fact being treated unequally), and so may themselves resort to threats of violence to even the situation. Having threats on both sides increases the chances of actual violence. In short, I’d be much more comfortable with the decision if the school simply had banned all countries’ flags.
On to a more legal question, Prof. Volokh, is it an accurate description of the case law that Tinker allows the school to engage in viewpoint discriminatory bans on speech, or is this case an outlier?
November 10, 2011, 10:25 amsbron says:
Question for the open-borders/La Raza/Aztlan types. Wouldn’t the argument for large-scale immigration from Mexico and amnesty be much stronger if students of Mexican descent proudly wore American flags also, rather than Mexican flags?
November 10, 2011, 10:26 amCJColucci says:
Once again, I offer my prediction that public schools will start requiring uniforms or content- and viewpoint-neutral dress codes that have the effect of banning all forms of clothing-based expression, whether political or fashion-based, just to avoid situations like this. As I read the cases, it would be constitutional, too.
November 10, 2011, 10:31 amKaren says:
If a student were threatened for wearing a LBGT shirt, the school would not ask the student to remove the shirt. The school would remove those making the threats. In fact, when a student in Alabama was asked to remove a pro-gay marriage t-shirt, the ACLU went to court and the school was ordered to allow her to wear the shirt to school and promise to protect her. It seems this judge allowed the bullies and bigots to win because a principal is incapable of keeping order. Instead of suspending those making threats and calling the police to track down phone death threats and harassment, the principal blamed the victim. I hope they take it to a higher court.
Truly disparate treatment based on race.
November 10, 2011, 10:32 amIndependent Patriot says:
School law and students rights are an interesting study. Certain freedoms can be and are curtailed by districts throughout the US inorder to ensure access to education. It has been consistently held that school students do not have the same rights guaranteed the public at large when attending school.These curtailed rights includes, but are not limited to, freedom of speech, due process, exercise of religion and searches.
However, there is something inherently wrong in an American school district when wearing, displaying or respecting the American flag is seen as a violation of someone else’s rights. The fact too that it is considered racist to believe in the United States, including her immigration laws, is absurd. Unless you are a citizen of this country you do not have an inherent right to be in this country. It is a right you have to earn and the first step is to obey the immigration laws of this nation.
The US is a nation of immigrants. It is our differences that give us strength. One of the best parts of our nation is that we celebrate our diversity of citizenship. However, those immigrants who came before us, all came under the watchful eye of our immigration laws. If you do not like the law you try to change it. That is how democracy works. It is tiresome that everytime you discuss immigration,someone out there calls you a racist.It demeans those who are truly victims of racism, hate and ignorance. That we are not allowed to demand respect for our laws and way of life shows just how appallingly the immigration issue has been handled and perverted by those that wish to divide our nation through the use of identity politics.
But even more disturbing is the way this case was handled by the school district in question and whose actions or inaction as it were, were then upheld by the court. It shows just how badly broken the public school system in this country happens to be. It is not a wonder that the largest growing sector of k-12 education is homeschooled children.
November 10, 2011, 10:33 amCalderon says:
Not sure how accurate it is, but this link certainly supports your point: http://www.educationbug.org/a/public-school-uniform-statistics.html. For Chicago, the intent was more about prohibiting clothing used by rival gangs, but it affects any topic of expression using clothes.
November 10, 2011, 10:37 amBigbob says:
The original post says that Tinker allows a “heckler’s veto” on student speech. I don’t think that’s so clear. Many, many courts have held precisely the opposite.
[EV says: That's not my sense of the caselaw, but I'd love to see the cases you refer to -- could you pass along some citations, please? Thanks!]
November 10, 2011, 10:43 amShelbyC says:
I have a tough time believing schools can have non-viewpoint neutral restrictions even if one viewpoint is likely to cause a disruption. Could they, for example, prevent students from wearing buttons that support Democrats, but allow buttons that support Republicans? ISTM that they would have to ban all buttons. Or in this case, ban all flags.
November 10, 2011, 10:43 amJoseph Slater says:
+1.
November 10, 2011, 10:49 amepluribus says:
ShelbyC says:
Do you mean viewpoint neutral? I’m having a tough time with “non-viewpoint neutral.”
November 10, 2011, 10:49 amShelbyC says:
Restrictions that are not viewpoint neutral.
November 10, 2011, 11:06 ampete the elder says:
“To require the school officials to ignore warnings of violence until they reached fruition would, as the Sixth Circuit noted, place school officials “between the proverbial rock and hard place: either they allow disruption to occur, or they are guilty of a constitutional violation.””
Could the school not remove all the students making the violent threats from the school? How are they forced to “ignore warnings of violence”? The decision doesn’t mention any real discipline happening to students making death threats and it only says the students were removed from the area.
You have a student announcing to staff that they are going to “Fuck them white boys. Let’s fuck them up.” And it doesn’t sound like that student suffered any real consequences for making that threat, even though a school administrator heard him.
Isn’t that what zero tolerance policies are for?
November 10, 2011, 11:07 amMarc G says:
Does the fact that the symbol being suppressed is an American Flag make any difference?
That seems to be EG’s point.
So is there a different 1st Amendment test for American Flag-wearers? Versus a tee shirt that says “The Federal Govt is Unamerican”?
November 10, 2011, 11:08 amSteve says:
No, because in fact many of them do, and they are utterly ignored by the anti-Mexican immigration types. Yes, if you assume the conclusion that immigrants from Mexico hate America and only have loyalty to Mexico, it’s hard to make much of a case for them.
Every St. Patrick’s Day I am reminded of the weird double standard in this country that applies only to Mexicans.
November 10, 2011, 11:09 amBigbob says:
not much time to dig at the moment, but here’s a start. these are gay rights cases, except the last one, which involves religious speech. the last one may be less on-point, i’m not sure. also, despite the case law below, i remember reading a 7th Cir. case that DID allow some sort of limited heckler’s veto in school, but i don’t remember the name. cheers.
The first is
Boyd County High School Gay Straight Alliance v. Board of Educ. of Boyd County, KY
258 F.Supp.2d 667
This case refused to allow a heckler’s veto over controversial speech at school, and said:
Refusing to allow a “heckler’s veto” to justify suppression of student speech, the Court in Tinker was careful to focus on whether “ engaging in the forbidden conduct would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline,” id. at 538, 89 S.Ct. 733 (emphasis added), and concluded that the protesting students’ speech was protected because it was “entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it.” Id. at 505-06, 89 S.Ct. 733 (emphasis added). Tinker expressly relied on the leading heckler’s veto case, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949). The Court explained that:
[a]ny departure from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949), and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom-this kind of openness-that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.
Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509, 89 S.Ct. 733.
—
See also Gay-Straight Alliance of Yulee High School v. School Bd. of Nassau County
602 F.Supp.2d 1233
(“Of note, it appears that Plaintiff Page’s “outburst” was the direct result of the middle school illegally granting a heckler’s veto by prematurely ending the gay rights demonstration.”)
–
Fricke v. Lynch
491 F.Supp. 381
D.C.R.I., 1980.
(“To rule otherwise would completely subvert free speech in the schools by granting other students a “heckler’s veto,” allowing them to decide through prohibited and violent methods what speech will be heard. The first amendment does not tolerate mob rule by unruly school children.”)
(I love that last sentence – BB)
–
Cf. Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey Inc. v. Stafford Tp. School Dist., 386 F.3d 514, 192 Ed. Law Rep. 670 (3rd Cir.(N.J.) Oct 15, 2004) (NO. 03-1101)
November 10, 2011, 11:17 amB-Rob says:
Public schools have barred gay students from establishing extracurricular clubs . . . but, of course, those were in Red States, so it must be OK.
November 10, 2011, 11:23 amDotar Sojat says:
Sbron says: Question for the open-borders/La Raza/Aztlan types. Wouldn’t the argument for large-scale immigration from Mexico and amnesty be much stronger if students of Mexican descent proudly wore American flags also, rather than Mexican flags?
The whole point of the La Raza/MeCHA/Aztlan types is to displace the American flag. They are working toward a Southeast US dominated by an unassimilated, non-english speaking population, of which, of course, they will be the leaders.
In anticipation of being slammed, may I add that my kids are Hispanic, from South America, and they couldn’t give a flying fig about Cinco de Mayo, pointing out wearily but proudly that they are not Mexican. We do, however celebrate the independence day of their native country, and teach them to be proud of their heritage. They wear their native country’s national soccer jersey to school. They are proud to be Americans of their native country’s heritage, just like the Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. before them.
November 10, 2011, 11:25 amSeamus says:
If they’d *really* wanted to send a political message, they’d have worn French flag t-shirts.
November 10, 2011, 11:28 amFrank Ch. Eigler says:
I must have missed the news about a horde of roving Irish gangs threatening to “fuck up” those wearing American paraphernalia on that day.
November 10, 2011, 11:39 amAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
I basically agree that the school shouldn’t be suppressing speech in this case, or many others. But making a point out of the fact that it was ‘the American flag’ is dishonest and misses the real nature of the speech in question, which is racialized (or nationalized, if you prefer) speech against other students.
Protecting the rights of the US flag-bearers is more in line with defending flag-burners than anything else. Both are examples of provocative and degrading uses of the American flag to put forward a political message.
November 10, 2011, 11:39 amGary Britt says:
Do the Irish on St. Patrick’s day threaten to kill non-Irish with American Flags?
And for a non-directed at anyone in particular comment:
I really liked how the public schools are doing such a great job of teaching tolerance for whites, males, and the USA and its symbols to the children of our foreign invaders. The racist quote from the mexican kid that those “white” boys were being racist for displaying the USA flag speaks volumes about how the racism of mexicans and other minorities against whites is tolerated and to some extent encouraged and supported by the policies and teachings at our nation’s failing public schools.
Gary
November 10, 2011, 11:41 am11-B.2O/B4 says:
By all means, let’s not pretend that displaying the flag of one’s country in one’s own country isn’t racism. Everyone knows that. Also racist?
Eating food in one’s own kitchen
Sleeping in one’s own bed
Watching films on one’s own television
Making blog comments on one’s own compute–DAMMIT!
Let’s not confuse racist American flag display with the perfectly normal, moral and legal display of OTHER countries flags, which is constitutional and right. Only the display of an American flag has “racial overtones”, not the display of a Mexican flag by Mexicans, and the intimidation of non-Mexican students.
Remember everyone, the only people in the world who can be racist are straight white european-ancestry American males. And everything they do, from alarm clock to dusk, is by definition racist. Viva la Revolucion!
November 10, 2011, 11:42 amMasturbatin' Pete says:
Both are examples of provocative and degrading uses of the American flag to put forward a political message.
When doesn’t the display of the American flag “put forward a political message”?
November 10, 2011, 11:42 amMasturbatin' Pete says:
Remember everyone, the only people in the world who can be racist are straight white european-ancestry American males. And everything they do, from alarm clock to dusk, is by definition racist.
Where does this put you on the issue of the proposed “activity/inactivity” distinction under the Commerce Clause?
November 10, 2011, 11:44 amSteve says:
Thanks for helping to make my point.
You as well. Very helpful.
November 10, 2011, 11:48 amB-Rob says:
Anyone who believes that Latino immigrants hate America ought to take a gander at the list of military personnel killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, starting with Juan Sebastian Restrepo, a native of Colombia. He was an immigrant who proudly wore the flag and was wearing it when he died.
November 10, 2011, 11:50 amFloridian says:
Yeah, and what about those St. Patrick Day parades? Shouldn’t everyone be wearing red, white and blue rather than green?
November 10, 2011, 11:50 amMike says:
Most people I know have no problem using Cinco de Mayo as an excuse to drink foreign beer and wear stupid hats. Which lines up pretty well with what they do on St. Patrick’s day.
November 10, 2011, 11:55 amB-Rob says:
You betcha! I live in a town with large Eastern European ethnic populations and historic ethnic neighborhoods. The Polish flag, the Hungarian flag, the Lithuanian flag, the Italian flag, the Irish flag, the Israeli flag . . . all those flags are OK. But fly a Mexican flag? You hate America and want to turn it over to the Mexicans. Yet, I doubt anyone here will grasp the inconsistency. Indeed, these same people who argue against banning the Confederate flag see no problem banning the Mexican flag.
November 10, 2011, 11:55 amB-Rob says:
I have a challenge for you. Go buy yourself a Union Jack and take it to the St. Patty’s Day parade in your town. We will visit you in the hospital over the next two weeks as you recover.
November 10, 2011, 11:57 amzack says:
Exactly. The flag is not a magical totem that has some inherent message. Rather, we honor the flag for the ideals it represents (e.g. freedom, democracy, equality, etc.).
When the flag is used for some other purpose, it becomes like any other symbol used to represent that purpose. I don’t think people would hesitate to ban flag bandanas in a prison if prison gangs started using them as gang identifiers. Similarly, if students in a high school with these sorts of racial/national conflicts wears the flag to inflame the conflict, we have to look at the issue differently than we would a student who wears the flag for more noble purposes. No symbol – not even the flag – can be interpreted without looking at the context of its presentation.
November 10, 2011, 11:59 amB-Rob says:
And how many of these people are there? Are there more than the number of White supremacists who want the American Northwest to be a “White homeland”? To the exceed the number of Black nationalists who want to take part of Georgia and northern Florida? Or the Alaskan separatist group that Todd Palin joined? Or the Cannucks in New England who want their own homeland? Indeed, is there any more risk posed by the La Raza folks than any of these other yahoos? No. So I will fear them no more than I fear the White separatists . . even though the White separatists actually has a body count associated with their separatist efforts, and a Raza does not.
November 10, 2011, 12:02 pmRoark says:
There is a difference between free speech and intimidation.
November 10, 2011, 12:03 pmGiant Frog says:
…a group of predominantly white and a group of Mexican students.
Are the latter students actually citizens of Mexico? (attending a school near SF?) Or did the goofy government lawyer really mean “Mestizo”? FWIW, the unrepresentative sample of Mexican citizens that I happen to know are mostly white, not Mestizo.
November 10, 2011, 12:03 pmzatarra says:
I fear this is the line of thinking that will soon occur in regards to criticizing Islam. “Well, since they might cut someone’s head off, we have to stop the speaker.” I thought it was speech that was supposed to be protected under the first amendment.
November 10, 2011, 12:04 pm11-B.2O/B4 says:
Uhh, Pro-Masturbation?
November 10, 2011, 12:08 pmFrank Ch. Eigler says:
Cute, but a better analogy would be parading with one’s own national flag.
November 10, 2011, 12:11 pmADF Alliance Alert » Not Safe to Display an American Flag in an American High School says:
[...] Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy: Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (N.D. Cal.), decided the day before yesterday, [...]
November 10, 2011, 12:11 pmGiant Frog says:
Not Safe to Display an American Flag in an American High School
How long will you continue to make unsupported claims about the benefits of “diversity”?
November 10, 2011, 12:14 pmB-Rob says:
I don’t know. We have had diversity in this land since the first White people showed up, then started importing Africans after that. he Southwest was populated by people who looked like those “Mexican” kids, not Jim Bob Whiteguy. It is all a matter how diversity is managed. Up until 1964 or so, diversity was managed using White domination in voting law, criminal law, contract law, segregation law, and social custom, too. Though the National Review types thought it perfectly appropriate that the KKK and White Citizens Council use terror to maintain White dominance, unfortunately for conservatives, diversity is, along with “for cause” employment termination, the minimum wage, and women’s rights, one more issue where the liberal position prevailed. We remain the world’s sole superpower because of our diversity, not in spite of it.
November 10, 2011, 12:23 pmHoney Badger says:
I think the speech is very political, but certainly not racist. Is it possible this group of white kids is regularly targeted for being a minority in this school? The “Mexican” students don’t seem terribly accepting. Being a member of a minority should allow for some extra protections, right? Not restrictions? And as for the clothing in question, has anyone been to Wal-Mart lately? It seems like half the clothing sold has “USA” or some variation of the red, white, and blue on it.
To all the people who say that the “white” kids were making a racist statement… do you know any of them? It seems very judgmental to say, “those kids were clearly making a racial statement!”
November 10, 2011, 12:35 pmAJK says:
Pretty much every St. Patrick’s day parade I’ve ever seen (in the U.S., obviously) includes the American flag.
November 10, 2011, 12:36 pmYant says:
In other news, ropes not allowed in school on MLK day.
November 10, 2011, 12:38 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
Actually a better analogy would be between countries that actually went to war over territory or national sovereignty.
You know, like Mexico and America.
Your analogy about St Patricks Day in America is more like doing Cinco de Mayo in Japan. Nobody is going to care.
November 10, 2011, 12:39 pmShelbyC says:
The school isn’t claiming that the American flag is a threat, they are claiming that other people will react violently to the American flag.
November 10, 2011, 12:48 pmcampanile says:
If several students were to wear Stars of David in Dearborn during Ramadan and be threatened by Muslim co-students, would school administrators be correct in demanding they remove them out of concern for their safety?
Should Dallas Cowboys shirt-wearing highschoolers in DC be forced to change their tops to stay on campus when other kids are wearing their hometeam tees in the run-up to a Cowboys-Redskins game and tensions on their side are high?
At election time, should Republican supporting students be allowed to wear their campaign tees and others not, if the school thinks the young conservatives and libertarians would be incited to violence by the sight of Hope & Change OWS shirts made and marketed by corporate America?
Should the personal, sufficiently respectful display of the American flag ever be forbidden in US public schools for any reason, much less out of deference for the emotionally charged display of another country’s flag?
November 10, 2011, 12:48 pmShelbyC says:
The school isn’t claiming that the American flag is a threat, they are claiming that other people will react violently to the American flag.
November 10, 2011, 12:51 pmHasdrubal says:
Sure the Irish are integrated now, but what was the reaction to flying an Irish flag on St. Patrick’s Day in the late 1800s?
Every era has had problems with a dominant immigrant group. This time isn’t particularly special and it’s certainly no worse than it was with the Irish or Italians.
November 10, 2011, 12:51 pmyankee says:
Seems to me the big problem is that the school has so little control over discipline that it’s unable to prevent students from being physicallly attacked for wearing the wrong clothes. Students should be able to display American, Mexican, Japanese, Nigerian, or even Confederate flag without physical violence.
November 10, 2011, 12:53 pmyankee says:
Seems to me the big problem is that the school has so little control over discipline that it’s unable to prevent students from being physicallly attacked for wearing the wrong clothes. Students should be able to display American, Mexican, Japanese, Nigerian, or even Confederate flag without physical violence.
November 10, 2011, 12:56 pmyankee says:
Seems to me the big problem is that the school has so little control over discipline that it’s unable to prevent students from being physicallly attacked for wearing the wrong clothes. Students should be able to display American, Mexican, Japanese, Nigerian, or even Confederate flag without physical violence.
November 10, 2011, 12:59 pmPatrick Moran says:
The opinion says that students could be prohibited from wearing the American flag because the threats demonstrated that it was dangerous for them to do so, while there was no evidence of a similar danger caused by wearing a Mexican flag. The logic of this is that equality could be restored if there were threats against people for wearing Mexican flags. Then both would be banned. Did the court really mean to provide an incentive for the aggrieved plaintiffs to restore equality by making threats of their own?
November 10, 2011, 1:09 pmPatrick Moran says:
The opinion says that students could be prohibited from wearing the American flag because the threats demonstrated that it was dangerous for them to do so, while there was no evidence of a similar danger caused by wearing a Mexican flag. The logic of this is that equality could be restored if there were threats against people for wearing Mexican flags. Then both would be banned. Did the court really mean to provide an incentive for the aggrieved plaintiffs to restore equality by making threats of their own?
November 10, 2011, 1:12 pmClark says:
“Not Safe to Display an American Flag in an American High School”
If EV were in the headline writing business, he’d title an article about lower speed limits as “Not safe for Americans to travel on American roads”.
November 10, 2011, 1:30 pmEd Unneland says:
I have the feeling wearing black pants, a tan shirt and an orange tie on the 17th of March just might be in list (with sky diving and such) of risky activities that voids one’s life insurance :)
November 10, 2011, 1:34 pmTed says:
I kind of agree. If you’re going to bury the benefits of diversity by subjecting one group to the threats of another, I don’t see the point in continuing to maintain diversity. Diversity’s value is not merely found in the conflict between groups, but the reactions and teachable moments that such conflicts produce.
November 10, 2011, 1:42 pmJesse-Az says:
You know that Cinco De Mayo does not involve America. Likewise St. Patty’s Day doesn’t involve the Brits.
I honestly don’t know where you’re going with this. Most Irish I know couldn’t care less about England if you brought a flag in… well unless you were talking the Irish team vs England team in soccer.
November 10, 2011, 1:44 pmJimbino says:
I hate to correct EV’s grammar yet again but
does not conform to standard English usage, which would require
or,
or,
cf.
href=http://www.urch.com/forums/gmat-sentence-correction/48223-forbid-
It’s too bad the prescriptivist has to keep correcting lousy English usage, especially on the Web, knowing that, if he doesn’t, the descriptivists will google and cite every bad example as evidence of the correctness of bad usage!
November 10, 2011, 1:47 pmSteve says:
WOW! What is our country coming to?
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
ps. Link Exchange?
November 10, 2011, 1:57 pmGary Britt says:
So that’s a “No they don’t.” correct?
Gary
November 10, 2011, 2:07 pmAlex David says:
Let’s see what the school does when a fair amount of students show up on May 5th wearing an American flag shirt.
The parents should band together and make sure of it.
What will the school do? Kick them ALL out? Arrest them? Go ahead.
Do it. The world will be watching!
God Bless the USA!
November 10, 2011, 2:10 pmJohnAGJ says:
Sounds like yet another reason for school choice. Get the government out of the system and let parents decide where to send their kids. That way they can wear t-shirts with Mexican, French, or USA flags, pro-gay or anti-gay, pro-Christian or anti-Christian, etc. or even a school uniform. I’ll wager that most of the lil’ darlings would get a far superior education than they are at public schools now. I’m really sick of all these petty arguments over Bible clubs, GSAs, t-shirts, prayer, etc., that are nothing but distractions from the REAL issue: public education is abysmal and no matter how many dollars we sink into the system it hasn’t gotten any better. The USA is only getting worse in test scores for math, science, reading, etc.
November 10, 2011, 2:15 pmJohnAGJ says:
Sounds like yet another reason for school choice. Get the government out of the system and let parents decide where to send their kids. That way they can wear t-shirts with Mexican, French, or USA flags, pro-gay or anti-gay, pro-Christian or anti-Christian, etc. or even a school uniform. I’ll wager that most of the lil’ darlings would get a far superior education than they are at public schools now. I’m really sick of all these petty arguments over Bible clubs, GSAs, t-shirts, prayer, etc., that are nothing but distractions from the REAL issue: public education is abysmal and no matter how many dollars we sink into the system it hasn’t gotten any better. The USA is only getting worse in test scores for math, science, reading, etc.
November 10, 2011, 2:15 pmZaggs says:
The test of free speech has never been to uphold that speech you agree with. But rather uphold the speech you disagree with. Some people want to make wearing an American flag on Cinco de Mayo a targeted message. So what? Would you say the same for wearing a Team USA Jersey in Mexico City during a Team USA vs Mexican national team soccer match? Sorry but you should not expect everyone to bend over backwards when you celebrate the independence of country A in country B.
November 10, 2011, 2:22 pmWhat is of concern is that only the kids displaying the American flag were sent home, while the kids carrying the Mexican flag were not. That would seem to be racial discrimination purposefully carried out by the school administrators. Administrators who should all be fired as they basically admitted they can only control the Hispanic students by removing whom ever the Hispanic students want them to. Another example of discrimination would be having a “Mexican heritage day” while not having an American one (July 4th would normally not be part of the school year). Espcially since its “Mexican” and not hispanic.
Kevin N. says:
“why do they get to wear their flag when we don’t get to wear our flag?”
November 10, 2011, 2:25 pmBreaking news, bro…if you’re in America, the American flag is “your flag”.
Sorry (for you)!
MDT says:
CJColucci,
Once again, I offer my prediction that public schools will start requiring uniforms or content– and viewpoint-neutral dress codes that have the effect of banning all forms of clothing-based expression, whether political or fashion-based, just to avoid situations like this. As I read the cases, it would be constitutional, too.
It would also be a good thing. Cut off “clothing-based expression,” and who knows? Kids might actually learn to express themselves some other way. Even with words.
November 10, 2011, 2:32 pmstyrgwillidar says:
“Seems to me the big problem is that the school has so little control over discipline that it’s unable to prevent students from being physicallly attacked for wearing the wrong clothes. Students should be able to display American, Mexican, Japanese, Nigerian, or even Confederate flag without physical violence. yankee”
No. The big problem is people seeing the display of an American flag as being an indication of hostility instead of reminder of the inclusiveness of America. The display of the Mexican flag in this case was a statement of separation- ie. that somehow Hispanics are separate from this country as opposed to part of it. I don’t understand why people see the display as being anti-hispanic.
November 10, 2011, 2:37 pmDavid W. says:
Unfortunately, this is becoming all too common. But Professor Turley said it best when commenting on a nearly identical incident last year:
November 10, 2011, 2:41 pmMDT says:
B-Rob,
We have had diversity in this land since the first White people showed up,
See, this is what happens when people start thinking of “diversity” as something to do with skin color. The North American continent was damned diverse well before “White people” arrived here; dozens of separate tribes with mutually unintelligible languages, different social structures, different cultures. Think Europe, only without the technology.
November 10, 2011, 2:42 pmAnon321 says:
Not to take this thread further afield, but I just thought I’d note what Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage says on this subject:
“When forbid is used with a preposition, to is the commonest choice, and while usually the construction is to and the infinitive, occasionally it may be to and an object: [examples ellided]
Forbid is also used, although less often, with from. Critics deny that this usage is idiomatic, but it has been around for a long time. The OED enters it, and although it labels the sense rare and restricts the verb in this sense to use ‘with the personal object only,’ it provides evidence of usage from 1526. Our more recent evidence shows that while it is still used with the personal object, it is also applied to other kinds: [examples ellided].”
Out of curiosity, from a prescriptivist’s perspective, which is more authoritative: message board comments, or the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage?
November 10, 2011, 2:45 pmDilan Esper says:
Kids should be able to wear the American flag at school, including to protest Cinco de Mayo celebrations. Seems no different to me from the armbands in Tinker.
But as a matter of current law, I am afraid Prof. Volokh is right about the depressing state of student speech protections.
November 10, 2011, 2:46 pmyankee says:
I don’t see why it’s the school’s business to puzzle out the exact message sent by flying the Mexican flag on Cinco de Mayo or the message sent by flying the American flag in response. Obviously different people interpret these things differently.
The school’s business is to keep order and educate students. If they are incapable of protecting students from physical assault by other students, there’s a serious problem.
November 10, 2011, 2:51 pmDavid W. says:
The answer isn’t to suppress this form of speech. If there is a student or students who will turn violent at the sight of an American flag, they need to be removed from the school.
November 10, 2011, 2:54 pmDotar Sojat says:
B-Rob, easy on the Kool-Aid, there son. Pour it on your straw men.
November 10, 2011, 2:54 pmcampanile says:
Heaven forfend Jimbino forfend a language buff’s right to correct common usage.
November 10, 2011, 2:54 pmJack says:
Actually, American flag t-shirts are illegal anyway.
They violate the U. S. Flag code, which clearly states that the flag is not to be used as an article of clothing or depicted thereon, with the exception of flag patches as part of military or other uniforms.
November 10, 2011, 2:59 pmzuch says:
Well, yes, we still need to teach tolerance and multiculturalism. And get it to stick. It’s useless to teach it if the lesson doesn’t sink in; if the students don’t exercise such discretion, not just the teachers.
And we have problems with the socialisation of kids too, more so in some areas.
But I’d venture that the likes of the Arizona Patriots and other xenopyhobic RWers aren’t helping matters much.
Cheers,
November 10, 2011, 3:13 pmZack says:
Is the problem that people are seeing the display of the flag as an indication of hostility, or is the problem that people are using the flag to demonstrate hostility? I obviously don’t know how the students were using the US flag in this case (any more that you know the purpose of the display of the Mexican flag). If, however, I was able to prove that the US flag was being used to indicate hostility, would that change your mind?
In other words, are you arguing that the display of the US flag can only have one purpose (a noble one), while the display of the Mexican flag can have negative intentions behind it? Or are you arguing about how the flag was used by these students in this case? If your point is latter, would you agree that some displays of the flag could be hostile (and potentially subject to restriction under Tinker), even if the judge got the facts of this case wrong?
November 10, 2011, 3:14 pmDoriangrey says:
Time to start the mass deportation of illegal Mexicans, hell time to start the mass deportation of ever Mencha and La Raza member and any person of Mexican descent that thinks the United States of America is El Norte Mexicano.
November 10, 2011, 3:17 pmrilkefan says:
Think you want to look up a couple of words, even if you’re stuck with M-W.
November 10, 2011, 3:19 pmAdam says:
I’m not sure what’s going on here is “displaying” the American flag. It sounds to me that there is more than the usual intended message attached to these particular displays, on this particular day.
November 10, 2011, 3:24 pmFub says:
There was that unfortunate incident of the Batallón de San Patricio back in 1848.
There is still a San Patricio County and town of San Patricio in Texas.
November 10, 2011, 3:32 pmAnon321 says:
You’re right, I did misspell elided. Otherwise, I’m not sure what words you’d like me to look up. I gather that you think the first quote proves Jimbino’s point? If you read the rest of the passage, though, it’s clear that MWDEU is noting that the usage has been criticized as unidiomatic, but arguing that the criticism is unfounded or misguided, in light of the five centuries of attested usage in published English.
November 10, 2011, 3:33 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Three cheers for racist proposals for mass violation of the law.
November 10, 2011, 3:40 pmTed says:
Hip, hip… Jorge?
November 10, 2011, 3:44 pmgooners says:
The flag code isn’t enforceable. It’s just guidelines.
November 10, 2011, 3:51 pmAdam says:
We gotta stop agreeing like this.
You’re kidding, right?
I don’t think anyone is saying that.
In fairness, it seems to apply to whoever is the most recent waive of immigrants. It certainly used to be the Irish, the Chinese and the Italians.
Invaders? Nice. You just wanted to wipe out any possible credibility before moving on?
Or it speaks volumes about how much more in tune he was to the messages that the patriots intended to communication that you are.
Actually, no. B-Rob’s analogy demonstrate’s the point — that there is more than patriotism being communicated — better than yours.
Huh?
November 10, 2011, 3:51 pmRandall says:
I suspect that Orange would be the dangerous color to wear on that day.
November 10, 2011, 3:52 pmrob bob says:
A country without borders…is it even a country?
November 10, 2011, 3:53 pmrilkefan says:
That’s a descriptivist argument. Show where Jane Austen used it, or where Fowler says it’s cool, if you want to convince a prescriptivist.
November 10, 2011, 3:54 pmgooners says:
It is interesting, though, that back when Abbie Hoffman started wearing an American flag shirt is totally freaked out the right-wing and even got him arrested. Now the right-wing is fighting for American flag shirts as a fundamental right.
November 10, 2011, 3:57 pmrilkefan says:
Another point – a random dictionary is likely to be descriptivist. The American Heritage dictionary is more prescriptive than yours. That’s another place to look if you’re not into Austen.
November 10, 2011, 4:02 pmMatthew says:
I am confused here for a few reasons. First, it is always disappointing that any discussion about anything immigration-related always turns vitriolic and tends to be filled with misinformation. At some point doesn’t each side have to accept the fact that we see the world differently and get past these asinine arguments we have over and over (“This is racism!,” “No it isn’t!” etc.) Second, while I don’t agree with the legal reasoning of the decision, I think there was some inappropriate behavior that the school has to deal with. Lastly, I feel the headline was overly hyperbolic and I am particularly disappointed that this happened with an article by Mr. Volokh because I always find his blog posts especially insightful or interesting.
November 10, 2011, 4:06 pmcampanile says:
What did you learn in the class and courtroom today, students?
We learned that people who take offense the loudest and threaten violence upon others’ expression get their way. We learned that displaying the American flag on clothing can be considered offensive by reactionary PC standards and prohibited in American schools when (multicultural) objections are raised. We learned that being a proud American isn’t considered cultural or cultured.
November 10, 2011, 4:10 pmMalvolio says:
I don’t know how the Japanese would feel about a Cinco de Mayo, but the Mexican government declared war on Japan on May 22, 1942 and Mexican ground troops fought Japanese troops in the Philippines, while Escuadrón 201 (the Aztec Eagles) flew Thunderbolts alongside the USAAF.
Whether the average Japanese (or the average Mexican) even remembers this, I have no idea.
November 10, 2011, 4:18 pmShelbyC says:
The same principle used here can be used to suppress wearing of the Mexican flag due to the threat of xenophobic RWers.
November 10, 2011, 4:18 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Anyone who doesn’t recognize that displaying the American flag can sometimes be offensive is a blind, unthinking patriot.
November 10, 2011, 4:19 pmDoriangrey says:
Andrew McStupid,
I suggest you try actually examining US Law. You won’t since it doesn’t support your baseless assertion, but here is a hint for you. “Operation Wetback”. Or for that matter the US Coded Title 50.
November 10, 2011, 4:24 pmVladimir says:
Do you mean the problems *posed* by the dominant immigrant group are no worse than the others you cite? If so, I disagree. It’s not a novel observation, but the shared border, the welfare state, and the cultural and academic fetishism of inauthentic racial victimhood are novel challenges foreign (sorry) to your examples.
November 10, 2011, 4:27 pmleo marvin says:
Stop this tomfoolery at once!
November 10, 2011, 4:32 pmcampanile says:
Heh, good satire, Andre MacKie-Mason-McCommenter :)
Let me add, the school and court missed a teaching moment over how:
The American flag pertains to all Americans and should be respected by guests on US soil, but we’re all free to protest it, thankfully.
Some Americans have more recent different cultural heritages than Mayflower Yankee, French New Orleans or African slave which have all been resolved into historical America.
Displaying the U.S. and other flags as personal cultural symbols shouldn’t necessarily constitute either-or propositions, but:
Teen students do unnuanced bi-polar thinking (hormones, unfinished brains) and seize upon oppositional opportunity.
Administrators see everything in black and white because, not only are they afraid of discretion and decision-owning, they’re scared not to overreact to certain situations out of politically requisite “sensitivity” (as victims of Schools of Education victim-and-dominant culture narrative and bureaucratically dulled brains.)
November 10, 2011, 4:39 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Given that,
1. in the USA, it is never inappropriate to display the USA Flag,
2. in the USA, it is never inappropriate to display the Mexican Flag, as long as you also display an equally-sized and rightmost USA Flag,
3. If it had been some people wearing Gay Pride shirts on Valentine’s Day, the decision would have most definitely gone the other way.
Isn’t there a justiciating heuristic, that if your analysis produces obviously stupid results that We the People in the main are going to disagree with,
your legal analysis is flawed in that it has missed some important principles, precedents, customs, and laws, and you need to start again?
November 10, 2011, 4:49 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
You mean that immigration law allows the deportation of citizens based on their ancestry and political beliefs? That’s news to me.
November 10, 2011, 4:51 pmgooners says:
What?
November 10, 2011, 4:54 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Gooners is correct, the USA Flag code is not law; it is codified customs.
Flag customs have a longer history than any nation.
You are completely free to violate the Flag customs, and by so doing you signal to everyone your complete jerkitude, that you are being deliberately rude.
November 10, 2011, 4:55 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Campanile-I don’t see how any of that is responsive. Are you or are you not saying that displaying the American flag is never offensive?
If you start from false premises, your conclusions won’t be supported.
November 10, 2011, 4:55 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Look it up gooners, it’s in the flag code. YOu wanna march in a St. Patricks Day parade with an Irish flag, you better also have a same-size American flag marching parallel and rightmost
November 10, 2011, 4:57 pmSarcastro says:
I do like John A. Fleming‘s analysis.
Then, having proved his case by assumption like three times, he invites Prof. Volokh to start again, which is quite sporting of him.
November 10, 2011, 4:58 pmDoriangrey says:
Oddly your willful ignorance of US law doesn’t strike me as surprising. Willful and intentional acts of subverting or overthrowing the US government or support of organization attempting to do so are in fact ground’s for having your citizenship revoked and you deported. But you obviously wouldn’t know that would you.
November 10, 2011, 4:59 pmcampanile says:
Are you asserting that this case is about hyper-sensitivity to respecting the American flag? I must’ve misread it- thot it was about how displaying the American flag dissed Mexican-Americans, legal and illegal, and was an incitement subject to sanction.
November 10, 2011, 5:01 pmgooners says:
Or else what? People like you will think I’m a jerk? I think that ship has sailed.
November 10, 2011, 5:02 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
The only places in the United States where a foreign flag can be flown in the place of honor, is at national embassies.
Our custom is, nations being equal (just like people), when two national flags are flown together, they should be the same size. But the host country’s is rightmost, in the place of honor.
November 10, 2011, 5:02 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
He will frown at you. Harshly.
Try again. And this time, read the First Amedment and learn the difference between protected speech and belief and unprotected attempts at violent overthrow or incitement to violent overthrow.
I’m honestly not sure who you’re arguing with or what your problem with me. I objected to one specific statement, and you seem to be yelling loudly about everything except that.
November 10, 2011, 5:07 pmAnon321 says:
My goodness, are there really only two credible authorities on English usage now? What about that arch-snoot Nino Scalia:
“Second, Bonime held that § 227(b)(3)’s text . . . forbids federal courts from hearing suits under the Act that would be barred in state court.” Holster v. Gatco, Inc., 130 S.Ct. 1575, 1575 (2010) (Scalia, J., concurring in the denial of certiorari).
He also uses the construction in a parenthetical here:
“See, e.g., Street, supra, at 768–770, 772–775, 81 S.Ct. 1784 (discussing possible judicial remedies for violation of a federal statute that forbade unions from spending objecting employees’ fees for political purposes) . . . .” Davenport v. Washington Educ. Ass’n, 551 U.S. 177, 186 (2007).
If you want to see what Scalia’s pal Bryan Garner has to say about “forbid from” in the Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style, you can click here. His view is similar to MWDEU’s: it’s been condemned by some, but it’s commonly used in edited, published sources like the NY Times. I realize that this argument sounds in descriptivism, but you never know when one of the cited sources will turn out to be on the prescriptivist’s list of True Authorities.
Of course, my experience with Jimbino and other prescriptivists leads me to believe that even if Austen and Dryden and Milton used the construction, that would simply be evidence that great writers sometimes make mistakes. It would in no way undercut the belief that the construction was impermissible under the rules of English grammar and usage.
November 10, 2011, 5:10 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
The USA: emotionally insecure since 1923.
November 10, 2011, 5:12 pmcampanile says:
A M-M,
Honestly, “honestly?” Your characterization of me “yelling” is as disingenuous as the rest of your argument.
“I don’t see how any of that is responsive. Are you or are you not saying that displaying the American flag is never offensive?”
One-wayism, broken symmetry? Could not some students claim the display of the Mexican flag is offensive? Or are you hanging your hat on how good conservatives wouldn’t have flag underpants?
November 10, 2011, 5:12 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
I’d call it figurative, not “disingenuous,” but if it offends you so much feel free to strike the word, the rest of the point stands. I honestly have absolutely no idea who you’re arguing with.
Let me try one more time. True or false: you asserted that displaying the American flag should never be offensive.
November 10, 2011, 5:17 pmyankee says:
Fortunately, this being the Land of the Free, I can display whatever flags I want in whatever order I want, the federal government’s demands that I give its flag special treatment notwithstanding.
November 10, 2011, 5:20 pmJmaie says:
But I’d venture that the likes of the Arizona Patriots and other xenopyhobic RWers aren’t helping matters much.
Is there anything that in your mind is not automatically caused by those evil conservatives? Morgan Hill is not too far south of San Francisco. That region is one of the most liberal you’re likely to find and there is no one calling for immigration status checks by police or similar. Sheesh.
November 10, 2011, 5:23 pmSarcastro says:
I’ma display a 10-foot America flag next time I got to the movies. Flag code says it’s cool!
November 10, 2011, 5:25 pmcampanile says:
Straw man, A M-M. I asserted that displaying the American flag in US public schools in a respectful manner (and patriotic tees are considered respectful to this generation) should always be allowed and not considered a bona fide offense to other “differently” flagged-bearers.
I’ll go further and add that dissent and disrespect of the American flag should also be allowable, in a content-neutral fashion, but not to the extent of banning its image when other flags are permitted.
Blood-friends, now?
November 10, 2011, 5:26 pmJimbino says:
Regarding “forbid … to” vs. “forbid … from,” I found nothing useful in Jane Austen, many examples of the former and none of the latter in either the KJV and the RSV of the Bible, and a few examples of the former and none of the latter in Shakespeare.
I know that Scalia is touted as a master of English usage; I have never agreed with that. Apart from his misunderstanding of the Constitution, the main difference between me and Scalia is that my early Baptist and Bible Church upbringing encouraged reading of the Bible, which I have done many times in many language translations, while Scalia’s church, on the other hand, has actively discouraged (if not forbidden) the reading of the Bible, lest any word of God interfere with Roman Catholic dogma. Unfortunately Scalia’s non-reading of the Bible has apparently interfered with his mastery of English usage. Ditto for the other Roman Catholics of SCOTUS, no doubt.
I haven’t searched the Tanakh — the bible of the other SCOTUS justices — in English. I suppose it’s likely that we won’t see good English usage again at SCOTUS until a Protestant be appointed.
November 10, 2011, 5:35 pmTed says:
Is that because the flag is special, or because you think such display is never offensive, and therefore never be disruptive?
November 10, 2011, 5:35 pmcampanile says:
Oh, the Mexican flag is offensive! If those Latino students aren’t forced by the administration to remove their shirts, we’ll do it for them, roughly.
Obviously the reverse case should be just as repulsive, except for the fact the ACLU would’ve stepped in on behalf of the Mexican flag bearers had the administration done to its Latino and sympathist students what it did to the ‘Merican banner proud ones.
November 10, 2011, 5:39 pmcampanile says:
Ted, yes, the American flag is special, especially on American soil and in American institutions, to include American public schools. If you consider its display to be sometimes “offensive” and “disruptive,” then protest it while realizing others can protest and proscribe the display of your flag, per your rules. Is that what you want?
November 10, 2011, 5:46 pmRuggerducky says:
Its illegal to wear the flag as apparel of any sort, and insulting to every veteran and servicemember. These racist punks did this intentionally, and they may as well have thrown the flag on the ground and shit on it. Incredibly disrespectful, and ILLEGAL.
If you’re at all respectful of the flag, read this, and you’ll understand a little better.
From the US Flag Code:
November 10, 2011, 5:48 pm(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.
Anon321 says:
No doubt, indeed. I suppose we’ve also discovered why Eugene has so much trouble with English usage: he’s not a Protestant.
This is one of the funniest things I’ve read in quite a while. Thank you, kind sir.
November 10, 2011, 5:49 pmNickM says:
I agree. I would also add that when even one student feels comfortable saying to an assistant principal “Let’s fuck them up.” about other students, something has gone seriously wrong with that school’s discipline system.
Nick
November 10, 2011, 5:51 pmDilan Esper says:
The US Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties, nor should it, and nor, for the most part, can it.
It’s basically the cottage industry of a handful of flag scolds who have nothing better to do than worry about how a piece of cloth whose only meaning is as a symbol is treated.
November 10, 2011, 5:51 pmDilan Esper says:
I don’t buy that it’s even jerkitude. Why is it jerkitude to, for instance, throw an old flag away? Why is it jerkitude to fly another flag higher than the US flag?
It’s a fricking piece of cloth, folks. Get over yourselves.
November 10, 2011, 5:53 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Or else nothing. But you won’t have any cause to complain if your friends and neighbors now think you’re a boor.
November 10, 2011, 5:58 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Hey Sarcastro, aannkkk, would you go into your friend’s house and pin up a 10-ft flag across his window? Nice try, but no cigar this time.
November 10, 2011, 6:02 pmcampanile says:
Whom are you addressing, us, or those who took offense at the American flag in school on Cinco de Mayo?
National symbols count and traditionally receive respect, no matter that some disagree as to the formalities.
I still maintain that the school and all parties involved missed the lesson: that the American flag encompasses us all, whether citizens, guests or illegals on American soil, and that other heritages can be additionally respected.
November 10, 2011, 6:02 pmTed says:
I don’t know. Why treat the flag special? Why not protect it, or not, to the same extent as any other form of symbolic speech? I guess I would like to know what compelling interest is served by treating speech involving the flag differently?
November 10, 2011, 6:03 pmTed says:
Indeed. It’s much better when those students keep quite about it and launch a violent ambush. That way, the school can deny ever knowing about it!
November 10, 2011, 6:07 pmTed says:
Do you advocate the same rational approach to profanity?
November 10, 2011, 6:09 pmSarcastro says:
Dude, no cool. I totally respect property rights which is why I’d only put up my flag in a public place, like a movie theater!
But yeah, I think the flag code gives us some much needed political correctness for the side that doesn’t hate America!
And it’s very relevant to First Amendment jurisprudence.
November 10, 2011, 6:12 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
flag scold!
The proper display of flags are ancient and honorable customs. They promote civility among nations and peoples. They show courtesy, to prevent unintended misunderstandings.
For instance. Leave San Diego, sail down to Puerto Vallarta. When you enter the harbor, you should be flying the US flag on the transom, and you should raise the Mexican flag at the spreaders. It is a sign of respect, of the guest to his host. The rule is to fly the host country flag at the spreaders while in host territorial waters. It also signals to the host country what quality of guest you are.
Geez, I have to educate you VC’ers every couple of years on this topic. All you libertarians believe it’s your God-given right to be rude. As if showing courtesy is too difficult for you to be bothered with, and everyone should respect you for being true to you own personal and idiosyncratic code or behavior.
Courtesy is a necessary component of peaceful living with your neighbors. You abandon it to your own detriment.
November 10, 2011, 6:16 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
A movie theater is not a public place. It’s a business being run on private property, to which everyone who pays for it can see a movie in peace and quiet. And to that end, the business owner has the right to establish and enforce rules of behavior, one of which is most definitely you can’t block other’s view of the screen, another is that you can’t emplace distracting signage.
Aannkkk, still fail.
November 10, 2011, 6:22 pmTed says:
He’s right Sarcastro, you should have used a soccer game as an example.
November 10, 2011, 6:26 pmSarcastro says:
Get along with your neighbor by following these rigid rules!
Which is why you’d better keep up with the PC terms! Asian is fine, unless you know the specific country of origin. Likewise, “American Indian” is currently accepted, but the more common “Native American” is fine, if a bit backward.
[I'm an Eagle Scout, and I'm all for ceremonial patriotism and ritual, but once you start to require esoterica from random citizens, it gets less patriotic and more pompous.]
November 10, 2011, 6:27 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
It’s just a piece of cloth
And a thank-you note is just a piece of paper. And a handshake is just a behavior that germs invoke in their hosts to propagate. And helping a neighbor is a waste of your time. And saluting shows servility. And wedding and baby shower gifts are a waste of your money, helping people who compete with you and your children for food and resources.
November 10, 2011, 6:35 pmcampanile says:
I don’t understand what you’re getting at, wrt this case and speech expression. It’s obvious that modern nation-states invest themselves in their symbols to an extent, why else Fourth of July and Cinco de Mayo celebraciones?
Let’s turn this around: Why are some students allowed to be offended by the display of the American flag while they’re “protected” in bandying the Mexican national flag? IOW, why should some flags be more special than ours, especially in schools supported by American citizens and alien residents?
You must be angling to entrap some of us in the Flag Burning Amendment. No thanks, no salutes, and pass the salt, please. In this case, the only instance of treating speech differently involving the American flag is its banishment while allowing other banners. I would wish that the US flag get equal to more partial consideration since the polity its represents pays for the schools and other infrastructural institutions we use, though they be Progressive and aggressively “reforming.”
Too often, our public school kids attend remedial culture classes, or (national) reform schools, no matter how well-behaved.
November 10, 2011, 6:41 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Sarcastro, you got it wrong. Courtesy by its very nature cannot be required. There’s nothing wrong with not showing courtesy. But don’t complain if you’re lonely.
And since you’re an Eagle Scout, then of course you know that courtesy is an essential attribute of a successful leader. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. YOu wanna get stuff done, you’re gonna need help, and being courteous to all helps you attract and retain and motivate the people you work with and for.
November 10, 2011, 6:47 pmSarcastro says:
[Procrustean and Byzantine rules are not tantamount to courtesy.]
November 10, 2011, 7:04 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Yeah, soccer, like when Chivas USA plays the US National Team, or the Mexican National team plays the Galaxy. You’ll be a lonely guy waving a USA flag among all the Mexican flags. But at some point, no matter which flag, the spectators above you will yell at you to sit down and put that @!*&# flag away, so they can see the game.
November 10, 2011, 7:05 pmSarcastro says:
[John A. Fleming, your thing is similar to Jimbino's thing.
What will impress you is not as generally applicable to other folks as you think.]
November 10, 2011, 7:11 pmDoriangrey says:
Read it and weep…
Losing your citizenship
For a natural-born citizen, losing your citizenship is actually quite difficult. The law prohibits the taking of your citizenship against your will, but there are certain actions a citizen can take which are assumed to be a free-will decision that constitutes a voluntary renunciation of the citizenship.
Moving to another country for an extended period of time does not constitute an act that presumes renunciation. Neither does taking a routine-level job with a foreign government. This stand is quite different from U.S. policy of the past, where even being naturalized in another nation could be seen as renunciation. The sections of the law that pertained to losing ones nationality for many of these cases was found at 8 USC 1482 and related sections.
The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that may force you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:
Becoming naturalized in another country
Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
By being convicted of committing treason
The bottom line here Andrew, is you are wrong. You are wrong on legal grounds, and you are wrong on moral and ethical grounds. The United States has no moral, legal or ethical obligation to allow people who want any part of America to be reconquered by Mexico to keep their citizenship or remain here.
The Southwestern United States is not El Norte Mexico, and anyone who has a problem with the US Flag flying on any day at a US High School should seriously have the question of whether they retain their US Citizenship raised.
Title 18 makes it crystal clear that swearing an allegiance to a foreign Nation i.e. Mexico, is valid grounds for revoking of that individuals citizenship (whether they are natural born citizens or not). So no, mass deportations of illegal aliens is not illegal, immoral or unethical, nor is mass deportations of individuals who believe that the Southwestern United States should be reconquered by Mexico.
November 10, 2011, 7:15 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Procrustean and Byzantine
Snort. Agreed. Chapman’s Piloting (iirc) has about four pages, with illustrations, covering from dinghies to supertankers. The U.S. Code has about 3 pages of typical two-column legal-style, but written for ordinary folks.
If you know and observe the basics, it is a shorthand communication between you and the people you meet, of what kind of person you are. Courtesy is a lubricant, an amplifier. Never required, always appreciated, helps people stay calm, prevents misunderstanding.
There never would have been this stupid Court ruling, and all these threats of violence, if the parties involved had been educated on the basics of flag display, and decided on their own to observe these customs.
November 10, 2011, 7:23 pmTed says:
My curiosity lies in whether you think that the US flag should garner special First Amendment privileges, or if you agree that it should be on equal footing in terms of First Amendment protection.
See, there’s two issues here: (1) the flag is special, and it deserves greater protection than any other flag or various forms of speech; (2) the flag is not special, and should is treated like any other form of symbolic expression.
As is relevant here, if you think (1), I would like to know why. If you think (2), then I would ask whether you think that the disruption standard simply should not be a valid restriction on student speech.
Nope. Just want to if you think (1) or (2). And if (2), why you (apparently) don’t think the disruption standard should apply to in this case. Seems to me that there was significant disruption.
November 10, 2011, 7:35 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
[Sarcastro], I disagree. The students in Morgan Hill didn’t know why they were offended by each other’s behavior. But apparently some were impressed enough to be willing to commit violence over a show of disrespect towards “their” flag.
Where’d that come from? It’s just a piece of cloth! People are willing to kill their neighbors, bloody their hands, and throw their lives away? There’s something primeval going on here. Flags are apparently more than a quaint anachronism.
People like to chatter all the time on proper language usage. It’s fun and intellectually stimulating and a social lubricant. But they don’t reach for their kives and guns over a misplaced participle.
November 10, 2011, 7:39 pmTed says:
I expect you feel the same about those who wave the confederate flag (or have it painted on their truck)?
November 10, 2011, 7:39 pmTed says:
Yeah, the kids probably would have had no problems (hugs even!) if the students just wore shirts that read, “Fuck Mexico.” I can see where the flag aspect of the communication was really the issue.
November 10, 2011, 7:44 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
And going meta …
<grin>
It doesn’t matter whether I’m courteous to Sarcastro, because sarcasm is its own reward.
But I should try to be extra-friendly to [Sarcastro], to encourage him to reply more often. In fact, I should try and structure my comments and replies to encourage Sarcastro to defer to his friend.
November 10, 2011, 7:51 pmDilan Esper says:
National symbols are ENTITLED to no respect at all. Any respect people choose to give them is their prerogative.
West Virginia v. Barnette settled this.
November 10, 2011, 7:51 pmDilan Esper says:
Other than it’s value as a piece of cloth, the ONLY value of a flag is expressed in the principles that it stands for. I would wipe my ass with a North Korean or Chinese flag.
And the principle that the American flag stands for is that we are a free society. Which means, among other things, that we aren’t compelled to respect our flag. Again, West Virginia v. Barnette and Texas v. Johnson and US v. Eichman are all very clear on this.
Part of that freedom is to burn flags. Part of it is to fly another country’s flag over ours. Part of it is to defecate on American flags.
If you would prefer to live in a country where those things are illegal, I would suggest that you actually have no conception of the meaning of the symbol you wish to protect.
Flag scolds are people who think a piece of cloth is more important than freedom.
November 10, 2011, 7:56 pmcampanile says:
Ted, both. Both an inclusive neutral point-of-view and recognition that public schools are American government grounds should allow for the unencumbered display of the American flag, both respectful and not.
And, Dilan, no use talking with you, as it’s obvious, in this case, that the Mexican flag was given priority over our national rag, and that suits you.
On to why American female students should cover their heads with scarves for Allah and berets for Che while the other hair-exposed girls are considered offensive and taboo, depending on the local public jurisdiction that is, apparently, not a part of the country.
November 10, 2011, 8:08 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
I agree with you completely Dilan. Really, I do. In this (USA) exceptional free country, do whatever you want with a flag. It’s just a piece of colored cloth.
We’re so free, you don’t even have to respect what other people think about the flag. Think anything you want, do anything you want. To thine own self be true.
Is this a great country, or what!
I’m no scold. These are the flag customs. I gave you the facts. Take ‘em, leave ‘em, modify ‘em as you wish.
November 10, 2011, 8:23 pmTed says:
Both? The options are mutually exclusive; either the flag gets special privileges by receiving heightened FA protection or it is treated like any other speech, subject to the established limitations on speech.
So, in this case. Do you agree that the wearing of shirts with the US flag caused substantial disruption as described in Tinker and its progeny? If so, do you think that wearing the flag should have been allowed, notwithstanding any resulting disruption? If so, please explain why he flag should receive special privileges. That is, what is the compelling interest that our society has in giving expression involving a flag special privileges?
November 10, 2011, 8:23 pmTed says:
By “customs,” you must mean an objective historical recital of what has been done in the past and agreed upon by old, white men, right? That’s not the usual use of the word “customs,” is it?
November 10, 2011, 8:26 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
I wasn’t aware that “American” was a race.
November 10, 2011, 8:30 pmJarbidge says:
Imagine, say, a town in Germany where American kids from the nearby base and German kids from town share a school. And on July 4th, the American kids plan to wear US flag shirts. Some German kids plan to wear shirts with the German flag. The US kids announce they will assault German kids who do so.
The proper response is for the administration to forbid the German students
from wearing German flag shirts, right?
(FWIW, I’m with Dilan on one thing – flag shirt, football team shirt, blue bandanna, red bandanna – whatever, they’re just clothes)
November 10, 2011, 8:42 pmAnonimus says:
And yet, liberals get upset if they think anyone dares to question their patriotism…
November 10, 2011, 8:45 pmSarcastro says:
I can tell if you love America based entirely on how well you slavishly keep up your symbolic devotions to it!
November 10, 2011, 8:59 pmnice strategy says:
Having seen the local news coverage of this when it happened, I am confident that the white students were being the original provocateurs here. I also thought that the principal was being cowardly and think this case was wrongly decided. But the context is Cinco de Mayo, a day that elicits more cultural pride, commonly expressed at school by students choosing to display a Mexican flag/shirt on this one day. This happens every year on 5/5 at most every school in California.
The white students objected to this display of their peers’ heritage, perceiving it to be anti-American. On Cinco de Mayo, I say, get a grip folks. By wearing an American flag in response, they were disapproving of their classmates personal identity, expressing that they thought it was inappropriate, and that sentiment was expressed in at least one TV interview that aired the day they were sent home. I think this should be protected speech, but the white students took something that was a harmless yearly one-day expression and escalated it into something more personal.
The Principal claiming not to have seen any Mexican colors on Cinco de Mayo is laughable. The white students were objecting to the notion that Cinco de Mayo should be recognized and celebrated in the first place, and that notion didn’t materialize out of nowhere.
Live Oak has been in the news before when the administration was cowardly regarding the rights of gay students. Perhaps in this case they tried too hard to avoid the perception that they were indifferent to conservative white students going out of their way to provoke their peers.
November 10, 2011, 9:02 pmAnonimus says:
Yes, because there’s no daylight at all between “slavish devotion” and “It’s a fricking piece of cloth, folks.”
November 10, 2011, 9:26 pmRS says:
“Mexican students”
No, sorry, there should be no MEXICAN students in American schools except those near embassies or consulates.
American students of Mexican decent? Yes.
But I fear we are not getting that, we are getting MEXICAN students who see Southwestern America as a stolen part of Mexico.
This needs to be stopped now or else we will have a civil war in the southwest.
November 10, 2011, 9:33 pmAnonimus says:
If you think ethnic separatism by many Mexicans and (even worse) Mexican-Americans living in California is simply a harmless one-day thing on Cinco de mayo, you don’t live in California, you live in a fantasy world.
Unfortunately, far too many public school personnel are liberals who make this sort of problem worse by promoting multi-culturalism rather than assimilation.
November 10, 2011, 9:33 pmSarcastro says:
Still, your ability to use how people treat symbols to determine what’s in their hearts is impressive.
And made all the more so when it coincidentally affirms your contempt for people who disagree with you politically!
November 10, 2011, 9:41 pmAnonimus says:
I didn’t say anything about how people treat symbols, I said something about Dilan Esper’s statement. Try to follow along.
I have contempt for contemptible behavior; sue me.
November 10, 2011, 9:55 pmInstapundit » Blog Archive » FREE SPEECH: Not Safe To Display An American Flag In An American High School. “When we’re at the… says:
[...] SPEECH: Not Safe To Display An American Flag In An American High School. “When we’re at the point that students can’t safely display the American flag in an [...]
November 10, 2011, 10:34 pmSarcastro says:
November 10, 2011, 10:36 pmDilan Esper says:
1. I live in California. It is a better place because of all that Mexican culture, and those Mexican lags are no threat to me.
2. I also love my country, in part precisely because we are the type of place that alllows people the freedom not to.
3. I think many of the flag scold types have no idea of why America is so great.
November 10, 2011, 11:12 pmRDG says:
This controversy reaffirms my belief that we no longer live in a country, but that the US is now just one big bus station. No common values, no common tradition, no common history anymore. Just mind your own business and the freaks and mutants acting up across the aisle will most likely leave you alone.
November 10, 2011, 11:13 pmDilan Esper says:
Campanile:
Only a total imbecile would read what I wrote in this thread and think that I favor treating the Mexican flag as privileged over the American one. Indeed, the same First Amendment that protects the right to burn either flag should protect the right to display either one.
November 10, 2011, 11:16 pmDilan Esper says:
John:
Actually they are not customs. Customs are things that everybody does. But most Americans who have displayed a flag have probably violated the flag code.
They are not customs. They are, rather, things a few obsessed people care about that the rest of us don’t.
And no, the First Amendment protects the right of people to not respect other people’s views and practices. Yet again, you care more about fabric than freedom, which is pathetic.
November 10, 2011, 11:21 pmDilan Esper says:
That’s not really true, but I wouls also suggest to you that often the only way you get unity is by stomping on people’s freedoms.
November 10, 2011, 11:25 pmKR says:
I’ve worn orange on St. Patrick’s Day. I have Ulster Protestant ancestors and no Irish Catholic ones. To be clear, I also consider that ancient history and don’t actually care; I probably put on an orange shirt just to be contrary. But I would be courteous enough that I wouldn’t do it around people who really do care — say, at a Boston parade.
Also, the diminutive of Patrick is “Paddy”. A “Patty” is what you get when you order at McDonald’s.
November 10, 2011, 11:39 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Let’s compare….
So what would be the basis for removing someone for simply (a) being of Mexican descent and (b) thinking that the United States of America is ‘El Norte Mexicano?’
Or what would be the basis for removing someone who ‘has a problem with the US flag flying [it wasn't 'flying' that was the issue, but ok] on any day at a US High School’?
Let’s review the list you’ve so graciously provided of justifications for losing citizenship:
* Becoming naturalized in another country
Nope.
* Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country.
Nope, no sworn oaths here. Of course, you suggest that this is where you’re looking.
I assume you meant to reference Title 8, not Title 18.
There aren’t any cases directly on point, as far as I can tell; probably because no one has actually been crazy enough to try to litigate your theory. But here’s a good statement of exactly how strict the requirement of a formal oath is. For some context, this is a person who was trying to give up citizenship.
Fox v. Clinton, 751 F. Supp. 2d 122, 131 (D.D.C. 2010)
* Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
Nope.
* Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
Nope.
* Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
* Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
Nope.
* By being convicted of committing treason.
Nope.
Or, maybe you’re suggesting that every one of those people could be convicted of treason? Setting aside the fact that such a theory wouldn’t allow for ‘mass deportation’ (it would require individual trials), the claim doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
I’m not an expert on treason law (I suspect few people are) so I can’t guarantee that this is the leading case, but it clearly lays out exactly why your theory would never fly.
Tomoya Kawakita v. U. S., 343 U.S. 717, 736.
Someone who belongs to a political group and espouses certain views may be found to ‘adhere to the enemy,’ though since there is no credible threat to the US from Mexican separatists such an enemy may not even exist. But merely holding certain beliefs or belonging to a political party (while also being of a certain heritage) does not constitute an overt act of aid and comfort to the enemy.
For a more recent statement of the principle, see:
United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 114 (2d Cir. 1999).
—
Of course, even if you’d presented a plausible theory of how mere political membership or personal belief could justify a revocation of citizenship, your professed desire to limit the deportations to people ‘of Mexican descent’ (and not anyone holding those views and memberships) would unquestionably violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The government may not discriminate based on race unless it passes strict scrutiny, and there’s no way your nonsense proposal would.
Satisfied? Or would you like to put forward a theory, supported by statutes and case law, to back up your claim that the US could deport “ever [sic] Mencha and La Raza member and any person of Mexican descent that thinks the United States of America is El Norte Mexicano.”
November 10, 2011, 11:48 pmjmaie says:
By “customs,” you must mean an objective historical recital of what has been done in the past and agreed upon by old, white men, right?
They don’t have customs in Asia / South America / Africa?
November 10, 2011, 11:59 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEJ4OJTgg8
Everyone who’s different from me is a freak!
—
As to the ‘courtesy’ argument: It may well be unneighborly, in certain contexts, to disrespect the flag. It’s far more unneighborly to actually make a big deal (or any deal, for that matter) about it when your neighbor disrespects the flag.
November 11, 2011, 12:01 amGary Britt says:
When one illegal alien comes to this country in violation of our laws its a crime. When millions do, its an invasion. Pretty simple really, except for maybe somebody who went to a government run public school during the past 20 years or so.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 12:04 amyankee says:
The Flag Code’s rules are very strict, especially 4 USC 8 (“Respect for flag.”) For example, flag bumper stickers are a violation of 4 USC 8e’s rule against display of the flag in any location where it might easily be soiled or damaged. T-shirts that display the flag are also out (no apparel). Fortunately, most patriotic Americans have the good sense to ignore the Flag Code.
November 11, 2011, 12:05 amAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Don’t let definitions get in the way of the point you want to make.
November 11, 2011, 12:10 amGary Britt says:
It wasn’t those few “white boys” as one racist mexican kid described them that escalated anything. Those few white boys were clearly the minority, and shouldn’t the school do a better job of teaching the mexican kids to be tolerant of other’s views and the symbols of others. I just don’t see 100′s of white boys threatening to riot and kill 3 or 4 mexicans who wear a mexican flag T-Shirt on the 4th of July. Its because the school makes sure they teach tolerance to the white boys, and that they teach hate towards whites to the mexicans/blacks/gays/women pick your aggrieved minority of choice for that one.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 12:15 amGary Britt says:
Nor rational thought get in the way of your responses.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 12:17 amCarey J. says:
Do you suppose part of that may be that Irish-Americans generally don’t expect everyone to provide them with Gaelic-labeled products and Gaelic-speaking customer service? And BTW, the Irish-Americans have paid their dues in full. In the less enlightened times when they first came here in numbers, shops often posted signs that read, “Help wanted – no Irish need apply.” The Union Army during the Civil War had hundreds of thousands of Irish and German immigrants.
November 11, 2011, 12:20 amVladimir says:
On Point 3–do you think the kids the opinion refers to as “Mexican students” have any idea of why America is so great? More fundamentally, do you think they think America is great?
I ask these questions in all honesty. In my experience–I’m in Florida–the idea of the melting pot is dead, and even the “salad bowl” is on its way out. On a regular basis I see unvarnished antipathy toward anything a non-postmodernist would describe as American Culture, coming from people I can fairly presume are recent immigrants of Latin/Central American heritage.
I have a hard time believing you don’t observe the same phenomenon in California. Or perhaps I have misread your posts, and you do see it but just interpret its worth in a manner different than I do.
November 11, 2011, 1:13 amzuch says:
And then there’s the people that say that wearing [or burning] the flag is not expressive, and thus not free speech…. But aren’t those the same people?
Cheers,
November 11, 2011, 1:25 amDilan Esper says:
Vladimir:
In my experience, Mexican families in California truly love this country, because it gives them opportunities they don’t get in Mexico. They also love Mexico as their cultural and ancestral homeland. You will find many Irish-Americans in Boston with similar feelings.
November 11, 2011, 1:29 amzuch says:
You don’t get it. I’d be glad to be rid of xenophobic RWers and paranoid or thin-skinned Latinos. It takes two to tango, and why people insist on this self-destructive dance is beyond me.
Cheers,
November 11, 2011, 1:37 amBooMushroom says:
There isn’t a real problem in the country with illegal Irish immigrants. There are no major Irish gangs. The Irish don’t insist on everyone speaking Gaelic. There are not whole sections of most towns where the businesses are all Irish-themed with Irish names and Irish cuisine, where the Irish customers look at the English like they’re intruders. The Irish aren’t digging tunnels and submarines to smuggle drugs and people into our country, and they are not killing our border guards. I see no double standard.
November 11, 2011, 2:19 amBooMushroom says:
From MEChA’s homepage:
A group whose stated goal is to take American soil and give it to Mexico. The land they’re targeting includes Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington. They’re not saving up gold to buy it. Their logo is an eagle holding a machete and a stick of dynamite. I think a good prosecutor could make a case here.
November 11, 2011, 2:56 amDoc Rampage says:
Well, maybe it’s a cultural thing, then. In American culture, when you see someone proudly wearing the symbol of something you love, say a football team or a country, you just smile, and if you’re feeling friendly you might say “Go Broncos” or something like that. I guess in Mexican culture the reaction is to want to fuck the guy up.
Seriously, we are seeing the same argument here that happened at the school. If those Mexican kids hadn’t been anti-American, they wouldn’t have taken offense to the flag shirts. Almost certainly it was a perception that they were anti-American that prompted the American kids to wear the flag shirts, and the Mexican kids proved by their reaction that, yes, they were anti-American.
So here we see some people automatically defending the kids who wore flag shirts because they are patriotic Americans and they sympathize with the flag-wearing kids. On the other side, we see the usual suspects defending the anti-American side. But don’t call them anti-American! Just because they _always_ come down on the side of the anti-Americans, that only shows that, somehow, their sense of justice, fair play and the American way always seems, just by happenstance to force them to defend the anti-American cause.
We also can’t conclude anything about their political commitments from the fact that they always have something spiteful to say about the American flag or anyone who honors it. After all, the flag is just a symbol, like the word “nigger”, and you can’t really tell anything about anyone by how they react to mere symbols.
November 11, 2011, 3:21 amNick056 says:
Doc —
Thank you for rehearsing exactly the kind of baiting tactics that could cause people who have no antipathy toward symbols like the American flag to start expressing antipathy toward its display. It’s very useful to have you do that, because it illustrates just what’s at work here:
1) Introduce something that should be a symbol of unity, use it as a judgement on somebody else’s celebration of heritage;
2) Then attack other people for hating on your symbol of unity, which you were deploying precisely to divide, by judging those who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo;
3) Call them and people who disagree with you anti-American, for recognizing that you’re using the flag to condemn OTHER AMERICANS for being insufficiently patriotic.
It’s a neat trick, and yes, the canniest response would be to say, hey man, I love America, but you’re using that flag to stand in judgement of me today, so stop. But most people aren’t that canny. They’d just rather say you wanted to provoke them and that it sucks and everything ou’re doing sucks. Then you can say ou proved your point — just not to anyone paying attention.
Really, stop endorsing it when some Americans use the flag to condemn other Americans. It’s a cheap abuse of a symbol that has inspired many people for many years, engaged in by those who care more about enforcing codes of cultural conduct than expressing love of country.
November 11, 2011, 4:16 amSubsunk says:
Methinks you don’t know what you are talking about today. How is National Review White dominated, instead of simply conservative? And our “diversity”, as a country, has nothing to do with our status as a superpower. Our economic and military prowess are the sole reasons we were a superpower (you may make a case we still are the only superpower, but you would be hard pressed to find any further evidence of that after 2008) in the past. “Diversity”‘s got nuthin’ to do with it.
November 11, 2011, 6:47 amFriday morning links: Thank you, vets! - Maggie's Farm says:
[...] Volokh: Not Safe to Display an American Flag in an American High School [...]
November 11, 2011, 7:44 amFrancisChalk says:
Public School: A grossly incompetent, bloated Marxist gulag, which employs bottom-feeder college graduates for the sole purpose of brainwashing youth into hating America, The West, Capitalism and freedom. Close them all and the country would flourish.
November 11, 2011, 8:19 amColonel Mustard says:
Goodbye California. Can’t say I’m sorry to see you go. You brought this upon yourselves. Your constant kowtowing to minorities is a disgrace. Political correctness run amok.
November 11, 2011, 8:25 amSurreptitious Evil says:
Hmm,
Fowler, himself, referred to it as “unidiomatic”. Fowler’s 3rd Edition, of course, would never demean itself by referring to any usage as “cool” or “not cool” but does state:
November 11, 2011, 9:19 amjukeboxgrad says:
anonimus:
There are a number of groups in this country with a deep commitment to “ethnic separatism” and a deep rejection of “assimilation.” Examples: Amish, Hasidism. Is everyone opposed to “assimilation” a problem for you, or only when it’s people you don’t like?
Or is the real problem something other than the dynamic of “ethnic separatism” vs. “assimilation?”
November 11, 2011, 9:50 amSeamus says:
Actually, that No Irish Need Apply story is a myth. (http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm) I know Ted Kennedy claimed to have seen signs saying just that, but then again he also claimed he didn’t realize he’d made a wrong turn (from a paved road onto an unpaved dirt road) until he’d driven off the Dyke Bridge. So his powers of observation are notably deficient.)
November 11, 2011, 9:59 amSeamus says:
“I have a challenge for you. Go buy yourself a Union Jack and take it to the St. Patty’s Day parade in your town. We will visit you in the hospital over the next two weeks as you recover.”
So if kids in the Boston public schools wear a Union Jack on St. Patrick’s Day, it’s OK (1) for the Irish students to threaten to “fuck them up” and/or (2) for the administration to ban the wearing of Union Jack t-shirts but not Tricolor t-shirts? Just askin’.
November 11, 2011, 10:03 amKevin R.C. O'Brien says:
You’re quite correct, but who would expect kids educated in any California public school, let alone the zoo described in this case, to know that?
It’s hard enough to find, among unique-and-special-snowflake university graduates, one who can put the Civil War in the right century. Mexican history they leave to the Mexicans, unless they identify as Mexican, in which case they leave it to the historians instead.
November 11, 2011, 10:06 amKevin R.C. O'Brien says:
I grew up in a Boston burb and am probably fairly described as a deracinated Irish ethnic. There was actually a mild (and I stress mild) rivalry between the Irish kids who would go all out on St Patrick’s Day and kids who were not on board, and a bit fed up with all the Irish hoopla. What the kids who were opposed to the orgy of Lucky Charms Irishness did was wear orange (whether they were protestants, Italians, or what have you). To many it was no big deal, and I have no recollection of ever wearing anything particular pro or con… whatever shirt was on top of the drawer, I suppose. If I was on either side it was purest coincidence.
No one threatened to beat anybody up, let alone beat anybody up. Maybe a little teasing.
But that was the 1970s and there was still education occurring in the classroom.
Now, I wouldn’t have tried wearing orange in some neighborhoods in Ulster cities during that same period.
I believe the error in this case was acting to “defuse the situation” as educrats are so fond of doing, as opposed to acting to “punish threats of violence” — which are actually criminal acts, aren’t they? We’re paying the price for forty years of making teachers of our least able people.
November 11, 2011, 10:18 amSeamus says:
Uh, huh. That must be why, in 1920, Pope Benedict XV announced that Catholics who read the Bible could gain a partial indulgence and that those who read it for a half hour could gain a plenary indulgence.
November 11, 2011, 10:18 amSpot the Irony « Countenance Blog says:
[...] Reaganites crying in their beer over this ruling. I find that ironic, bordering (no pun intended) on hypocritical. [...]
November 11, 2011, 10:30 amShelbyC says:
What paranoid or thin-skinned Latinos? Let me be more clear with the hypothetical scenario:
RWers: We’re a-gonna kick the crap outta any Mexercan that displays the Mexercan flag on the cinco de mayo.
School: Oops, the Mexican flag is causing a disruption. No Mexican flags on May 5. But we have no evidence that American flags will lead to a disturbance, so those are cool.
Same principle, different application.
November 11, 2011, 10:53 amArthur Kirkland says:
Is the thinking that, if conservatives could clear out the liberals, Rick Perry’s secession movement could finally get the traction it deserves?
Anyone who uses an American flag to effect low-grade bullying is disgracing the flag and himself. Many uses of the American flag for other-than-patriotic reasons are not only boorish but indeed unlawful; if I recall correctly, dealers who use the American flag in newspaper advertisements and in tire-height rows along roadways to try to sell cars not only are behaving shabbily but are violating flag-treatment statutes, at least in my state.
November 11, 2011, 11:08 amShelbyC says:
No, but multi-culturalism contributes significantly to the obesity problem.
November 11, 2011, 11:11 amStones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e197v5 says:
[...] Seriously? [...]
November 11, 2011, 11:14 amHoney says:
This generation should take a lesson, from all the people in veterans hospitals.Wearing our Banner, is rude and outrageously disrespectful!
November 11, 2011, 11:25 amAnonimus says:
Ramesh Ponnuru or Kathryn Lopez might question the premise.
November 11, 2011, 11:28 amAnonimus says:
Yes, anyone can plainly see the huge effect on American culture from the Amish and Hasidim. And if I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard an Amish kid shout “fuck them [non-Amish] boys, fuck them [non-Amish] boys” I could practically pay off the national debt.
Yes, you should do so, before posting.
November 11, 2011, 11:37 amSDN says:
Yeah, because there’s no difference between the Irish (who obeyed the immigration laws then in force) and the Mexicans who didn’t obey the laws in force and want to take back the Southwest for Mexico. What a tool you are.
November 11, 2011, 11:40 amsammy taylor says:
While I believe the court decided correctly, the administrators at the school should be tarred and feathered for making this decision.
November 11, 2011, 11:46 amcampanile says:
Here is the actual wording of the US code Title 4 chapter 1- The Flag
My reading of these guidelines is that images of the flag on clothing are not so much at issue as is the use of actual flag banners for draping people and objects or as material to be cut, sewn and fashioned into clothing.
November 11, 2011, 11:49 amcampanile says:
Here is the actual wording of the US code Title 4 chapter 1- The Flag
My reading of these guidelines is that images of the flag on clothing are not so much at issue as is the use of actual flag banners for draping people and objects or as material to be cut, sewn and fashioned into clothing.
November 11, 2011, 11:52 amSDN says:
As opposed to using it as a doormat like your side. Don’t buy your definition of patriotism anymore. Oh, and we’re not interested in seceding. More like offering you the same choices the Founders offered Tories at the end of the first Revolution.
November 11, 2011, 12:01 pmrilkefan says:
Well, Austen was a metonym there (probably there’s some more appropriate Greek rhetorical term, but I’m insufficiently pedantic to get those precisely right); but Scalia is supposed to be worth listening to. I don’t know how closely he edits his decisions, so I’d hesitate to infer he thinks “forbid from” is really kosher. Incidentally I think he’s been on the usage board of the AHD.
Fowler’s 3rd says he thought “forbid from” was “unidiomatic”, and it recommends avoiding the construction, though it notes “the tide seems to be turning” (which I bet Fowler would have found stale and amended).
November 11, 2011, 12:10 pmyankee says:
That’s not my reading. Here’s the full text of 4 USC 8(j), which you quote only in part:
(Emphasis added.) If images of flags were uniformly kosher, and the only objection was to using the actual cloth from an actual flag, there would be no need for a special exception for flag patches worn on certain uniforms.
November 11, 2011, 12:14 pmGary Britt says:
Who was doing the bullying in this case? Certainly not the 4 kids with American Flags versus the 100s of mexicans? Who is doing the bullying when its the 100s of mexican kids threatening violence and to bring in gang members with weapons to go after the 4 kids with American flags?
I know you are an intelligent person so I can only assume that you prefer an agenda based on your own preconceptions to the real world facts, and this leads you to make such ridiculous statements as the above. As a person involved in the news media in some form or manner I would have hoped your statements wouldn’t be so disconnected from the actual facts under discussion.
The problem in this case was the complete lack of tolerance on the part of the 100s of mexican kids for the 4 kids with an american flag. We have trained our minorities in our failing public schools to have such fragile psyches that they are incapable of surviving 4 white kids with a flag versus their 100s of mexicans with mexican flags. They are trained to be so insecure that they feel it necessary to resort to violence and threats of violence rather than be tolerant of a tiny 4 person minority who chose to celebrate cinco de mayo in an unconventional manner.
Then some white liberal apologist comes by and yells at the 4 white kids to stop bullying those 100 mexican kids and making the mexicans so violent and intolerant. Yeah that makes sense.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 12:22 pmcampanile says:
However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations.
Again, a flag patch is a flag in its entirety and, sewn on clothing, lends an official cast to its wearer. We wouldn’t want locksmiths and plumbers wearing flag patches on their shirts as if they were US officials cloaked with legal authority, (unless they worked for Nixon.)
If images of flags embedded in and surrounded by fields of color, pattern or other objects are considered a violation, then all art, photographs and other forms of expression containing the image of the American flag would be subject to (without force of law) these strict guidelines as to the display and care of.
To me, tee shirts can be expressive.
November 11, 2011, 12:36 pmyankee says:
What hundreds of kids threatening violence? Do you have any basis for this claim?
November 11, 2011, 12:41 pmRandolph says:
In the various VC threads on speech in schools I usually find myself among the one or two most pro-administration commentators. I tend to think that school is about learning, not about expression, and I think administrators should be given broad latitude to run schools as they see fit and judged on their results rather than methods.
But in this case it appears that the administrators went out of their way to make a content-based rule rather than a content neutral one. I would have no problem if they decided to ban all flags (sounds like it was a significant distraction), but just banning the US flag sounds more like siding with one faction than trying to break up the conflict.
IOW, it’s one thing to supress students expression in general
November 11, 2011, 12:49 pmRandolph says:
In the various VC threads on speech in schools I usually find myself among the one or two most pro-administration commentators. I tend to think that school is about learning, not about expression, and I think administrators should be given broad latitude to run schools as they see fit and judged on their results rather than methods.
But in this case it appears that the administrators went out of their way to make a content-based rule rather than a content neutral one. I would have no problem if they decided to ban all flags (sounds like it was a significant distraction), but just banning the US flag sounds more like siding with one faction than trying to break up the conflict.
Allowing a “hecklers veto” to prompt a general rule may be unfortunate, but I’m willing to accept that in the name of educational efficiency. OTOH allowing threats of violence to justify the official adoption of the threatener’s viewpoint is too much for even me to swallow.
Tinker needs to be adjusted to require administrators to implement content neutral rules.
November 11, 2011, 1:00 pmGiant Frog says:
FWIW, the school is about 40% white and 40% mestizo.(greatschools.org)
With a few very rare and recent exceptions (e.g. one of google’s several founders) there’s really little or no evidence of that.
Amusingly, here’s what the former president of Mexico says Mexicans have contributed to the US:
[1] Nope. Look at any stats related to “family values”.
[2] Gigantic structures for torture and genocide.
So, the answer is: japalenos and tacos. And the rest.
November 11, 2011, 1:12 pmGiant Frog says:
FWIW, the school is about 40% white and 40% mestizo.(greatschools.org)
With a few very rare and recent exceptions (e.g. one of google’s several founders) there’s really little or no evidence of that.
Amusingly, here’s what the former president of Mexico says Mexicans have contributed to the US:
[1] Nope. Look at any stats related to “family values”.
[2] Gigantic structures for torture and genocide.
So, the answer is: japalenos and tacos. And the rest.
November 11, 2011, 1:14 pmGiant Frog says:
FWIW, the school is about 40% white and 40% mestizo.(greatschools.org)
With a few very rare and recent exceptions (e.g. one of google’s several founders) there’s really little or no evidence of that.
Amusingly, here’s what the former president of Mexico says Mexicans have contributed to the US:
[1] Nope. Look at any stats related to “family values”.
[2] Gigantic structures for torture and genocide.
So, the answer is: japalenos and tacos. And the rest.
November 11, 2011, 1:15 pmGiant Frog says:
FWIW, the school is about 40% white and 40% mestizo.(greatschools.org)
With a few very rare and recent exceptions (e.g. one of google’s several founders) there’s really little or no evidence of that.
Amusingly, here’s what the former president of Mexico says Mexicans have contributed to the US:
[1] Nope. Look at any stats related to “family values”.
[2] Gigantic structures for torture and genocide.
So, the answer is: japalenos and tacos. And the rest.
November 11, 2011, 1:16 pmjukeboxgrad says:
anonimus:
This is what you said before:
Are you saying that “ethnic separatism” is a problem only if the separatists are having an allegedly “huge effect on American culture?” Who gets to decide which ethnic groups have taken their “separatism” too far and need to embrace “assimilation?” Should that be up to Anonimus, or should we have a government Ministry of Assimilation, or do you have some other proposal?
And what if “ethnic separatism” is having a “huge effect” on the culture in certain places, like, say, Monsey NY? Is that OK, but only if it doesn’t happen in too many places? Just curious. Because if you visited that place (and other places like it), you would indeed “plainly see the huge effect” of “ethnic separatism” on the culture in those places.
November 11, 2011, 1:16 pmNot Safe to Display an American Flag in an American High School « A Moral Outrage says:
[...] TheVolokhConspiracy [...]
November 11, 2011, 1:18 pmTed says:
Define “unlawful.”
November 11, 2011, 1:25 pmGary Britt says:
But only 4 of the 40% white population had the American flags and it was those 4 that were accused of bullying the 100s of mexican kids through their display of the American flag. So not really applicable to my point. Never heard or saw the word mestizo before. That’s a new one for the lexicon.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 1:30 pmAnonimus says:
I understand you have a problem with Jews, but that’s a separate issue.
But yes, I would also oppose public schools pushing Amish or Hasidic separatism in their curriculum, rather than assimilation. But I’m not aware of a mass Amish separatism movement in American schools. Do you have some examples of public schools doing that?
I think public schools should foster American culture and assimilation, rather than ethnic separatism, in their curriculum. I don’t know why that’s a difficult idea for you to grasp.
November 11, 2011, 1:35 pmTed says:
Ban all flags on May 5th? Or ban all flags always? Interesting notion of “education” you have there…
November 11, 2011, 1:35 pmJK says:
Either way. How does wearing or not wearing a flag affect one’s ability to learn calculus?
And sure, you could argue that a flag ban only on cinco de mayo isn’t content-neutral, but there’s always grey are. I guess I could be persuaded either way, but it’s a far, far cry from banning American (and no other) flags in an American school.
November 11, 2011, 1:43 pmRandolph says:
Eh, same author as before, this computer seems to have defaulted to a different screen name.
November 11, 2011, 1:44 pmjukeboxgrad says:
anonimus:
I understand you like to make shit up.
You seem to be making a narrower statement than what you said before. You started with a complaint about “ethnic separatism by many Mexicans,” and you suggested that this is a problem because of their allegedly “huge effect on American culture.” So are you now saying that “ethnic separatism” is OK, even if it’s having a “huge effect” culturally, as long as we don’t see “public schools pushing” it? Because that’s not what you said before.
November 11, 2011, 1:46 pmjukeboxgrad says:
subsunk:
anonimus:
You both have poor reading comprehension. You are responding to a person who said this: “up until 1964 or so,” but you’re acting like those words aren’t there. What he was talking about is exemplified here:
Maybe you didn’t know that.
November 11, 2011, 1:54 pmAnonimus says:
I think your lack of comprehension is your own problem.
November 11, 2011, 1:55 pmAnonimus says:
So you agree that what happened in 1957 has no relevance today. Good for you.
November 11, 2011, 1:57 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
I’m back. Here’s a thought experiment, for all you “it’s just a colored piece of cloth”.
Take a Mexican flag down to your local barrio when there’s lots of people about, and go full-on desecration of it (in a way that doesn’t violate local ordinances for fire, human wastes, etc.). Make a very public spectacle of yourself.
Take a USA flag and go the Anglo part of town, and do the same thing.
If you have any conclusion that the response you receive will be different, you’re a racist.
If you would fear for your personal safety in either or both cases,
November 11, 2011, 1:57 pma) you need to re-examine your assumptions on the power of symbols, and
b) some people living in this country are not committed to securing the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
A.W. says:
you can find my extended thoughts at the link but a few observations.
First, it is nothing less than crazy to say that you cannot display an American flag in America. Its amazing. At one point the S.C. said a kid could be forced to pledge allegiance to the flag. Then they said, they couldn’t be. then they said you could even burn the american flag. and now we say a student can be banned from having an american flag. its lunacy.
hopefully this decision will be seen as being so nuts that the S.C. will step in and reverse the dicta in Tinker suggesting that there should be a heckler’s veto. The judge isn’t crazy; the caselaw is.
Second, this entire episode reflects the failure of this school. the entire reason why we have a public education system is to prepare people to be citizens in the republic. Well, these kids are being taught that 1) its okay to use violence to suppress speech you don’t like and 2) that the American flag is for whites only. both the hispanic children and some of the white children apparently have gotten that second message. But, i will note, its not clear whether the plaintiffs in this case took this view, or just got sick and tired of people declaring their love of a country that is not ours.
November 11, 2011, 2:06 pmA.W. says:
you can find my extended thoughts at the link but a few observations.
First, it is nothing less than crazy to say that you cannot display an American flag in America. Its amazing. At one point the S.C. said a kid could be forced to pledge allegiance to the flag. Then they said, they couldn’t be. then they said you could even burn the american flag. and now we say a student can be banned from having an american flag. its lunacy.
hopefully this decision will be seen as being so nuts that the S.C. will step in and reverse the dicta in Tinker suggesting that there should be a heckler’s veto. The judge isn’t crazy; the caselaw is.
Second, this entire episode reflects the failure of this school. the entire reason why we have a public education system is to prepare people to be citizens in the republic. Well, these kids are being taught that 1) its okay to use violence to suppress speech you don’t like and 2) that the American flag is for whites only. both the hispanic children and some of the white children apparently have gotten that second message. But, i will note, its not clear whether the plaintiffs in this case took this view, or just got sick and tired of people declaring their love of a country that is not ours.
November 11, 2011, 2:06 pmjukeboxgrad says:
anonimus:
You attempted to rearrange the goalposts, as usual. There’s no “lack of comprehension” on my part.
Also, as usual, you’re ducking the question. Is “ethnic separatism” OK, even if it’s having a “huge effect” culturally, as long as we don’t see “public schools pushing” it?
Where did I say that?
November 11, 2011, 2:14 pmAnonimus says:
As usual, you’re missing the fact that I don’t take you at all seriously.
November 11, 2011, 2:28 pmjukeboxgrad says:
You never take any serious questions seriously. This is what makes you a troll.
November 11, 2011, 2:30 pmAnonimus says:
To the contrary, I always take serious questions seriously.
November 11, 2011, 2:42 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I guess you must do that under a different name, or on a different blog. If it’s here under this name, you should show us where all those serious answers are hidden.
November 11, 2011, 2:45 pmAdam says:
Because Valentine’s Day is a straight holiday and wearing gay pride gear would be saying f-u to your straight holiday?
Because it’s not offense at the display of the flag that’s at issue. It’s the inferred speech that motivates the display of the flag, which caused disruption and under the court’s reasoning can therefore be suppressed for one day a year.
It’s not to people in Northern Ireland.
Your private school was lacking in dictionaries? ’cause that’s not what invasion means.
Your first statement is only true because there wasn’t really such a thing as illegal immigration when the Irish waive was cresting. And it’s been hundreds of year since more than a small fraction of Irish actually spoke Gaelic.
Everything else this part of your list absolutely used to be the case, when the Irish were the most recent big immigrant group.
I wouldn’t got that far, but it is interesting how many of the criticism here don’t seem to recognize how we got here. The court was only asked to decide if this particular restriction on speech was kosher. I didn’t get to say that it would have preferred a different disciplinary reaction to the mess at this school.
So while I think the better course for the school, at least in the abstract, was to punish any student threatening or carrying out reactionary violence, that wasn’t an option open to the court.
Or maybe you might be able to handle the notion that your expressive conduct means different things in different contexts.
November 11, 2011, 2:50 pmAnonimus says:
You teenagers are so grumpy.
November 11, 2011, 2:51 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Which teenagers?
November 11, 2011, 2:54 pmAnonimus says:
Invasion: “entrance as if to take possession or overrun”, “infringement by intrusion”, “the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful”.
Didn’t your failing government school have any dictionaries?
November 11, 2011, 3:06 pmdisgustedwithpeople says:
When will these “teachers” and “students” learn that Mexican is not a Race but a nationality? Why is it that Mexicans are so adamant that they are a race? They are, just like most of us, a mixture of several different classes of national origin. Like dogs and cats, we may have many different personal origins but, we are all the same race. Unless, you believe that the Blacks, and Asians, and Whites all just sprang up from the dirt, or out of the ooze simultaneously.
November 11, 2011, 3:14 pmAdam says:
Which is it that you think encompasses Latino immigration, “invasion by rats” or “advent of a disease?”
November 11, 2011, 3:17 pmTed says:
FFS, JBG, really? Having a slow Friday?
November 11, 2011, 3:19 pmyankee says:
Why do I have the impression that to you “American culture” means “my particular American subculture”?
November 11, 2011, 3:21 pmGary Britt says:
So confident in your ignorance and error. If one is going to insist that a dictionary controls the meaning of another speaker’s words you should at least be thorough enough to double check a dictionary before posting. You offer living proof of the problems with the teaching of basic english, math and science versus liberal social theology in our failing public schools. You get an A++ and a gold star from your NEA Union Teacher for being appropriately vigilant at defending liberal dogma and beliefs no matter what the actual facts. But for the use of the English language and dictionaries in particular, not so much.
in·va·sion
/?n?ve???n/ Show Spelled[in-vey-zhuhn] noun
….
3.
entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4.
infringement by intrusion.
invasion —n
…
2. any encroachment or intrusion: an invasion of rats
5. the movement of plants to a new area or to an area to which they are not native
(if plants can do an invasion so can Mexicans. Certainly Mexicans are at least equal to plants in their ability to invade some place, don’t you think?)
November 11, 2011, 3:25 pmAnonimus says:
Why do Latinos and rats go together in your mind? You seem to be a racist.
November 11, 2011, 3:28 pmAnonimus says:
That seems to be based on nothing more than your own prejudice.
November 11, 2011, 3:30 pmAdam says:
At least you were smarter than anonimus and deleted the second (introducing something harmful) to avoid unpleasant appearances. And of course the first (invading with an army).
But #3 doesn’t do much for you unless you are asserting an intention to take possession and overrun. Again, those nasty appearances.
Number #4 is “invasion of privacy,” so, yeah, doesn’t work for you unless your complaint is about Latino Peeping Toms.
But I guess you’re just a botany enthusiast. Funny that you don’t don’t recoil from the suggestion that Latinos are a foreign species.
November 11, 2011, 3:32 pmAdam says:
You were the one asserting that those definitions were somehow relevant.
November 11, 2011, 3:34 pmjukeboxgrad says:
ted:
Oh, that’s nothing. For some real epic exchanges, see here, here or here.
November 11, 2011, 3:35 pmAdam says:
Oh and just for fun, here’s Merriam Webster:
1
November 11, 2011, 3:36 pm: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2
: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful
Ted says:
Huh. That’s the definition you were intending to invoke when referring to Mexican invasion? An analogy to botany? How was Adam, or anyone else, supposed to know about the botanical definition of invasion? And, more importantly, in what way is Mexican immigration even analogous to plant invasion? I mean, do you believe there is an INVASION of Icelanders as well as Mexicans? Are Icelanders who have emigrated to America native to America? No? Well they must be invading American then! I figured you’d have at least used the rat definition.
As for your original statement, I got you. You used “invasion” as hyperbole to show your disdain for Mexican immigrants. To flaunt your conservative eCred. Mission accomplished. We now know where you stand on Mexican immigration.
November 11, 2011, 3:40 pmTed says:
Ah. Yes, when ChrisTS feels compelled to comment on a “new low” by Anonimus, that is one for Blog Log.
November 11, 2011, 3:45 pmNewEnglandGirl says:
Very well said. I cannot imagine how any school or judge can or would try to justify banning the American flag. This is preposterous!
November 11, 2011, 3:48 pmjukeboxgrad says:
What intrigues me is watching him try to outdo himself. There might be something more entertaining on TV right now, but it’s probably on a channel I don’t get.
November 11, 2011, 3:50 pmGary Britt says:
Are you suggesting latinos are a foreign species because that’s not something I wrote.
When caught with your pants down and your ignorance showing for all to see, you do a nice shuck and jive trying to divert attention from your obvious initial ignorance, but the fact remains that invasion has many more meanings than you were taught in your failing public school, and my statement regarding invasion of illegal aliens from mexico was quite correct.
Your shucking and jiving however just makes you look more ignorant in that your silly defenses make you look like you don’t even know how to read a dictionary, don’t understand the use of alternative meanings in a dictionary, and have no comprehension of the use of examples in a dictionary. Mistakenly and ignorantly arguing that a given example represents the one and only possible example of the meaning to which it is appended might work in 5th grade public school, but not here however.
Now to your “infringement by intrusion is invasion of privacy” again you would think that you would tire of making such a fool out of yourself and your public school union teachers by checking a dictionary yourself BEFORE posting more examples of your ignorance for all to see.
intrusion [in-troo-zhuhn]
3.
….
an illegal act of entering, seizing, or taking possession of another’s property.
Funny, the word privacy just ain’t mentioned there brainiac. However, ILLEGAL ENTERING is mentioned there. So to substitute ILLEGAL ENTERING for “intrusion” in the definition of “invasion” you get “INFRINGEMENT BY ILLEGAL ENTERING”. Gee that sounds just like what millions of Mexicans do every year to the USA. Why its an INVASION.
Read ‘em and weep and learn when to fold a losing hand.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 3:58 pmMDT says:
Dilan Esper,
I live in California. It is a better place because of all that Mexican culture, and those Mexican lags are no threat to me.
Typo of the year candidate here.
November 11, 2011, 3:58 pmJimbino says:
I’ve spent months reading the Bible, and Luther, Wycliffe, Tynsdale and Coverdale spent months translating it for the people. Do you have to be Catholic to get those indulgences?
A good synopsis of the historical Bible-banning and Protestant-burning promoted by the Roman Catholic Church can be found at:
http://biblelight.net/banned.htm
November 11, 2011, 4:05 pmyankee says:
America being a big place, the idea that there’s some uniform American culture that the government should promote is pretty silly. So which culture should the government be promoting in the public schools? The culture of San Francisco, California? Lancaster, Pennsylvania? Lynchburg, Virginia? Or are some of those places more American than others?
November 11, 2011, 4:07 pmAdam says:
You asked why plants can do it but “Mexicans” can’t, implying that the botany example supported you. But the plants you are talking about are foreign species, and that’s why it’s an “invasion.” It’s just a specific case of the “introduce something harmful” definition that you wisely avoided.
But this is silly. You said it was an invasion. You did that to demonstrate your hostility to toward immigrants. We got that, and I called you on it, so why are you trying to backpedal now?
But I’m sure if you just call me mistaken and ignorant enough no one will notice.
PSST: Infringement of what?
(This is almost fun)
November 11, 2011, 4:11 pmGary Britt says:
There is no “rat” definition of invasion. Do you also not know how to read a dictionary. Went to the same school as Adam? Examples appended to a meaning in a dictionary are not the only possible examples for that meaning. Don’t they teach anything in your failing public schools these days?
As to which definition I meant when I used the word invasion, all of the definitions with the rats and tourists examples apply, the example of a plant spreading to an area they didn’t previously occupy applies, and the infringement by intrusion as demonstrated in another post pointing out Adam’s continued ignorance on this matter aptly applies as well.
The proper meaning of invasion as used in my first post was quite evident from the context and any person of a well rounded english language non-failing public school education. Others should have at least been smart enough to consult a dictionary before posting blather about meanings of the word invasion.
Was the use of the word invasion in my original post provocative. Certainly to those trained in liberal theology of our failing government run public schools, because there is nothing a good liberal hates more than diversity ….. of thought.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 4:11 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Here’s one answer:
November 11, 2011, 4:14 pmAdam says:
So, to sum up, you meant either an infestation (rats), a temporary infestation (tourists), incursion of a foreign species (plants) or the privacy thing.
I lied. This is actually fun.
Yes, it was. Which is what’s so funny about how hard you are working to stay away from it.
November 11, 2011, 4:25 pmGary Britt says:
Now you are just trying to make yourself look stupid on purpose. You can’t possibly be as ignorant as this last post of yours indicates.
OK, I’ll add the missing words that you couldn’t figure out how to find on your own.
Intrusion = Illegal act of entering … another’s property. (y = u + v)
Invasion = Infringement by Intrusion. (x = z + y)
So, then
Invasion = Infringement by the illegal act of entering on another’s property. (x = z + u + v)
So PSST infringement of what you ask? another’s PROPERTY. The fact you couldn’t put the above together yourself is a very poor reflection on your logic and reasoning skills. Sadly, logic, reasoning and critical thinking just aren’t as important as repeating the memorized politically correct mantra’s in our failing public schools I guess.
I can’t wait to see your next infantile and moronic response. I don’t think you should have one, but you keep surprising me with just how much digging you are willing to do when deep down in the hole of ignorance.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 4:26 pmWhitehall says:
Reading this post on the judge’s decision and most of the comments above reminds me how degrading and damaging to our nation the legal bureaucracy and many of it functionaries have become.
The judge’s decision is just plain distructive to America as were the decision taken at the school level. Many of the comments, I assume from lawyers, devolve into hair-splitting and sophistry.
The flag of the USA and of the state of California no doubt fly on the school’s flagpole. The school and the court are financed by American taxpayers. Of course, American values expressed by some of the students should be supported and upheld by the school and by the court. To support their suppression is suicidal to our nation.
The comments also remind me how meaningless the word “racist” has become. Arguing for loyalty to the United States of America and its primacy within its territorial bounds is not “racist.” To claim other otherwise is libel on Americans.
November 11, 2011, 4:30 pmGary Britt says:
You can sum up all you want. Sadly your summations are just mere reflections of your demonstrated cognitive disabilities. They are reflections of your mind and your words.
My words and yours are both here and they speak for themselves. I’m happy with mine, and you apparently love yours. How sad for you.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 4:34 pmAdam says:
Let me save you a few steps, and then put you out of your misery.
Here’s what you just did:
invasion = intrusion
And no, that’s not right. They have very similar meanings, but they ain’t the same thing.
So now for the mercy killing. You went down the wrong path with the dictionary. You weren’t using the word invasion literally, you were using it as an analogy. In your view, a large group of immigrants is analogous to an actual invasion by an actual army. You honestly think that “Mexicans” are “taking over.” That’s what you meant, and that’s how I (and probably everyone else) understood it.
I sarcastically challenged your analogy, and you went immediately into a rather pitiful exercise in bad semantics.
And at the risk of stooping to your level of personal attack, you really aren’t smart enough for these word games.
November 11, 2011, 4:37 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
“hair-splitting and sophistry”. A technical term, meaning “more nuance than I am capable of understanding.” (Alternatively, “more nuance than supports the point I care to make.”)
November 11, 2011, 4:38 pmGary Britt says:
Nope. Not at all correct. As usual your understanding is quite limited and mostly wrong.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 4:43 pmcampanile says:
So, students whose parents are in the service at a nearby base can commemorate Veteran’s Day with special shirts and US flags at school and threaten three students who show up wearing a Mao shirt, Hồ Chí Minh tee, and Che beret to induce the school to make them take them off. How is this not tyranny of the majority and mob, and what about the concept of protected peaceful protest or, at least, content-neutral censorship (which I don’t like in this instance for its potential to stop any and all expression on any given occasion because of complainers)?
And what about this “just one day” business? Certain students could take offense at the display of the American flag for all sorts of ideological, heritage and religious reasons, on many days of the year, such as St. Patrick’s, Earth Day, May Day, Bastille Day, Juneteeth, Ramadan, and even during a very German Octoberfest.
Additionally, anti-war students could be offended by Veteran’s Day, German-descended students by VE Day, Japanese by VJ Day, native Americans by Columbus Day and Thanksgiving, Muslims by Valentine’s, Americans by Cinco de Mayo, British by the Fourth of July, etc. Should they be forbade from wearing (that one’s for Jimbino) their own and perceived as oppositional heritage symbols on these days, if a majority objects to them and threatens violence?
More fundamentally, how could a respectful display of a national flag on its government property not always be allowed and be subject to others taking offense at it? Contextualization be damned. Do you think Mexican students would be barred from wearing their national flag in front of easily offended and threatening US-heritage students in Mexico on the Fourth of July?
November 11, 2011, 4:43 pmTed says:
Did I understand you correctly this time? That illegal Mexican immigrants are RAPING America?
November 11, 2011, 4:44 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
While I agree with most of your conclusions, this is where basically all of your arguments have fallen apart.
November 11, 2011, 4:51 pmNathan Shapiro says:
Tinker‘s comments on “disruptive” activities focused on the actions of the speakers, not other classmates. As long as the student’s means of expressing themselves were not disruptive, it was OK. In other words, you can wear an armband passively, but you can’t rant about Vietnam in your math class. You can meet peacefully in a classroom at lunch time, but you can’t hold a rally through the cafeteria.
November 11, 2011, 4:53 pmTed says:
Indeed. People should be coerced, burned at the stake if necessary, to honor the flag and it’s well-defined, indisputable meaning. You see it’s a self-sustaining cycle: the more people you coerce to honor the flag, the more deserving the flag is of honor!
By “American values” you mean, “Take your foreign pride and shove it,” right? You do our American race proud, Real American(tm)!
November 11, 2011, 4:55 pmAnonimus says:
Of course the massive invasion of illegal aliens is harmful to America.
They are relevant to your idiotic comment about others’ lack of dictionaries.
November 11, 2011, 4:57 pmAdam says:
You’re asking the wrong question. The question isn’t whether the students celebrating Veteran’s Day get a heckler’s veto (although that’s the effect). The question is, given that the revolutionary attire has produced disruption in the school, can the administration respond by suppressing the speech that sparked the disruption. If schools get to suppress speech to avoid disruption to their function, it’s hard to see how a court can do anything but answer yes.
Again, that doesn’t mean that the school’s disciplinary choice is preferable. It would be better for the school to discipline those making threats, but this sort of thing seems to fall squarely in within the exception contemplated by Tinker.
November 11, 2011, 4:58 pmAdam says:
Odd how Gary doesn’t want to say that.
Of course, I disagree.
November 11, 2011, 5:00 pmTed says:
This is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the slough of cases that have followed Tinker have expanded the disruption standard to include others’ reactions to the speaker’s speech. Thus, a heckler’s veto is alive and well in our public schools.
November 11, 2011, 5:02 pmNathan Shapiro says:
If the answer is yes (and I’m not sure it is), then the response by the administration still needs to be content and viewpoint neutral. That means banning ALL expressions of national heritage. You cannot just ban one national flag and allow the other group—who presumably is responsible for the “heckling veto”—to wear theirs.
November 11, 2011, 5:04 pmAnonimus says:
I didn’t say American culture was “uniform”. But you think you’re as likely to have as much in common with someone from Botswana or China as someone from another US state? Talk about silly.
And is it only America that has no common culture? Or does this standard apply to every other country as well? Presumably any reference to “Mexican culture” or “Hispanic culture” would also be silly in your mind.
November 11, 2011, 5:05 pmGary Britt says:
LOL. Adam, still digging deeper in your hole of ignorance yet again. Not so good at math and logic. You need to stop before you hurt yourself.
Sorry that isn’t what I just did. Let’s take some baby steps and try to follow along:
Here is what I said and you quoted back:
Intrusion is y and it is defined by the sum of two parts u and v. (y = u + v)
Invasion is x and it is defined by two parts z and y (x = z + y)
You incorrectly state that the above says Invasion = Intrusion or using the variables X = Y. You are WRONG yet again. The above clearly says and is spelled out in the clearest possible manner X = Z + Y NOT X = Y. Didn’t you take any algebra in your failing public school?
So again, Invasion(x) = Infringement_by(z) illegal_act_of_entering(u) another’s_property(v)
It is not possible to resolve that equation to X = Y. Z must always be present
The rest of your post becomes meaningless because it starts from the false premise that you know how resolve an equation or conduct an exercise in logic and crictical thinking
The use of the word invasion is BOTH literally correct as I have amply demonstrated and could be thought of as an analogy to the military definition of the word invasion. However, they are both true at the same time, and please stop trying to tell me what I meant with my words. I think I know what I meant.
Not at all what I said or meant. I referred to millions being an invasion a large group does not have the same meaning. Further comparisons to an actual army are not what I said, and is a figment of your own imagination. As I’ve amply demonstrated the meaning of the word invasion has approximately 5 definitions only 1 of which is the military one and 3 of the non-military ones apply to my use of the word invasion in varying degrees.
Not what I meant. Not what I said. I will take you at your word that it triggered various liberal bigoted stereotypes in your mind about persons who say something or have thoughts not approved by your liberal theology, and that as a result what you state above is what you thought. However, those bigoted notions are in your mind and in no way reflect the reality of what is in my mind.
Here the lesson ends. Stop digging.
November 11, 2011, 5:06 pmdarleen click says:
Vouchers, please.
November 11, 2011, 5:10 pmcampanile says:
Adam, I understand the case and reasoning, but not the premise. The attire doesn’t produce disruption, voluntary reactions to it do. Students can bully and administrators can suppress all manner of expression, even an American flag at a US school on American soil, if some choose to be offended.
We seem to be teaching students that offense taken is more powerful than tolerance of POV and that, since people apparently can’t be expected to control their reactions to things, said things must be removed for the offense to be mitigated. This is less a slippery slope than an abyss of moral abdication.
November 11, 2011, 5:12 pmAdam says:
No. That’s the point. It doesn’t.
The administration can do anything that’s content and viewpoint neutral. The exception allows them to make rules that are not content and viewpoint neutral to avoid disruption of the pedagogical function.
November 11, 2011, 5:12 pmTed says:
When’s the last time you were in, or have even met someone from, China or Botswana. Personally, I found much in common with them. Certainly more than I would find in common with you.
November 11, 2011, 5:15 pmGary Britt says:
Again projecting your own bigoted thoughts and stereotypes onto others and doing so quite incorrectly.
Show me a post where I’ve said I don’t want to say that? Show me a post where I’ve indicated any answer on that particular question one way or the other. The answer to that question as I’ve amply demonstrated is not necessary to finding several non-military definitions to the word invasion.
You really need to work harder at avoiding projecting onto others your own unfounded bigoted thinking about what they mean or are saying.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 5:20 pmGary
Nathan Shapiro says:
Prior to Tinker, the court addressed that students have First Amendment rights not to be forced to speak, but it never addressed head-on their right to express themselves in a school context. It may have been assumed by school administrators that they could ban any act of speech they wanted. The point of Tinker was to declare that students did have the right to speak in schools as long as their speech is not disruptive.
The exception would be that the school may suppress their speech if they have reason to fear disruption—but the suppression itself must be governed by the First Amendment’s viewpoint neutral requirement. How could the courts countenance anything else? If a particular subject is causing fights to break out, they can pick whichever side they like to continue expressing themselves, but silence the other?
That simply doesn’t make any sense under any First Amendment jurisprudence I’m aware of.
November 11, 2011, 5:24 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Gary, at the risk of being pedantic, your algebra doesn’t work. At least not without some refinement.
What you’re trying to do is impose a group structure onto language, with an internal law of composition (addition) representing definitions based on combination: that is, if A means B in combination with C, then A=B+C.
However, that construction doesn’t yield a group. To see why, consider the tautological statement “A car is a car which is also a car.” That would yield C=C+C, meaning that cars would have to be equivalent to the identity. If that were true, then “A box is a box which is also a car” would be true.
It’s possible that you could fix the problem by modding out by equivalence classes representing equivalent words, but I’m not convinced that would work (and I don’t have the time at the moment to think it all the way out). But even if it did, your algebra argument above wouldn’t hold.
The reason this doesn’t work is that the property of language you’re trying to work with fits much more neatly into quasi-sentential logic than it does into an algebraic group structure.
Without being too precise, “Invasion is infringement and intrusion” translates roughly to “A \equiv B & C”. This makes the error in your above argument clear also, since “A \equiv B & C” does not preclude the possibility of “A \equiv B”.
November 11, 2011, 5:24 pmAdam says:
Sigh. I gave you the chance to bow out, but since you did not, fine.
You remember when you said that the examples given after a definition aren’t exhaustive (even though I never claimed they were, but incorrectly assumed I implied)? Well, guess who’s claiming that part of the words from the third definition of “intrusion” are the sum total of the words meaning? Yes, that’s right, you.
Moving on. As to your math, you got even that wrong. Look at the words. Now look at the parts. Which words did you forget to add up?
Beyond that, we aren’t doing math here, “Einstein.” I simplified the point to highlight your error. I’ve done that a number of times in this exchange, and a each time you shifted ground to avoid the fact that I had distilled your meaning in a way that you found uncomfortable.
Oh, and whose properties are all of these immigrants entering illegally? Is there a massive squatting problem in this country that I’m not aware of?
Or did you really just say that the territory of the United States is “our” property and not “theirs?”
“Them” being “our foreign invaders” or their children, right? Because the Mexican students at this school must all be children of illegal immigrants, right?
Clearly.
November 11, 2011, 5:25 pmGary Britt says:
No you did not understand correctly and your changes to words in the quote back are your words and changes not mine.
The intended satirical humor of your post does not escape me with its play on the words “illegal entry”, but one has to be careful in addressing these things in a written public forum versus over Jack Daniels in a private conversation.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 5:27 pmGary Britt says:
I’ll take your word for it.
I used it to try and make more clear the word constructs from which Adam was so desperately trying to escape. I think for those purposes it worked fine, and that pure precision in a mathematical sense wasn’t required.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 5:32 pmTed says:
Oh, right. Please forgive my trespass (!). I forgot America is watching…
November 11, 2011, 5:39 pmAdam says:
I take your point about the source of the disruption. But I do think the context is important, and that it isn’t really about offense.
To me, the school’s reasoning here is grounded in a belief that the message being sent by flag attire on this particular day is “f your Mexican holiday” or worse, and it’s that message that’s being suppressed.
But I get where you are coming from in your concern about abuse. Should there be a legal distinction between banning speech of this type, as opposed to general speech that offends someone? Maybe. But I guess ultimately the school administration might be better suited to tell one from the other than a court.
How about the one where you skipped over those definitions from dictionary.com? Or the several since then where you’ve avoided making that argument?
But fine, feel free to adopt the “harmful” definition. We could have spared this whole conversation had you done so earlier.
November 11, 2011, 5:40 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Gary, the point is that the imprecise mathematics undercut your argument, as you’ll see if you read what I wrote above.
In effect, he accused you of saying “x=y”. You responded by claiming that wasn’t possible, since you said “x=y+z”. You’d be correct (assuming that z/=0) if you were operating within a well-constructed group. But you aren’t, and so the argument fails.
If arguments that appear to rely on mathematics aren’t precise (or if the person making them doesn’t know enough to evaluate whether they’re precise) they should be avoided. Bad mathematics is dangerous, because it gives an air of credibility to arguments that don’t deserve it.
(By the way, I’ll note the obvious: it’s a bit ironic for you to deny responsibility for accurate algebra after using your argument as the occasion to congratulate yourself on being so much more mathematically literate than the people you were talking to.)
November 11, 2011, 5:45 pmAdam says:
I guess I’m having a hard time understanding how it could be. How does a school discipline a student for “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” in a content neutral way, for example? The whole notion of suppressing particular speech is by definition not content neutral, right?
November 11, 2011, 5:45 pmGary Britt says:
Yes you’ve attempted to over-simplify many things in this exchange almost all of them were incorrect and mere attempts to shuck and jive your way out of your own laughable assertions and errors of language and logic. This was just one such example.
You distilled nothing, did not make me uncomfortable in any way, and I didn’t shift ground but rather continually defended my original premise and use of the word invasion. It was you in your first post with your snarky and quite incorrect assertion that the word invasion did not mean what I thought it meant and that I needed a dictionary. This resulted in all your shucking and jiving and shifting to avoid confronting the fact that your original assertion was just plain wrong and full of it. You then compounded the error of your original assertion by asserting that the definition of invasion which states infringement by intrusion means only an invasion of privacy. Again I demonstrated with a dictionary this was incorrect and it referred to an illegal entering onto property which caused a whole new round of the Adam shuck and jive show.
Again, stop projecting onto me your own thoughts and manner of action.
The shuck and jive continues. Depends on where they enter and where they go after that. Why do you continue to ask these inane questions to which you already know the answers.
I’m confident there are many problems in this country to which you are blissfully unaware. Whether squatting is one of them depends on your definition of squatting.
Are you asking me if the territory of the USA belongs to the USA and not to Mexico?
That’s not quite a quote of anything I wrote. Other than that I can’t discern a question in that sentence.
Not something I said. No doubt a portion of them were either illegals themselves or the children of illegals.
That’s just the reality of things. Expressing the reality of something is not the same thing as expressing a value judgment good or bad about it. Again, stop projecting your own bigoted thoughts and stereotypes onto others.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 5:52 pmwut? says:
And lets also not pretend it’s America and not Mexico you are celebrating in not Mexico.
November 11, 2011, 5:56 pmAdam says:
I suppose it would be pretentious to say, “methinks thou doth protest too much?”
Now THAT’s a shuck and jive.
And just so we’re clear, no, the territory of the United States is not the property of its current citizens. You can find this out by trying to build a house on the nearest open space or public park.
You might want to scroll back up to where you wrote “children of our foreign invaders.” You might remember it. It’s what started this off, and it’s what you’ve been backpedaling from for so long.
November 11, 2011, 6:04 pmGary Britt says:
I did read it and did understand it, and I conceded you were correct from an absolute precision of mathematics point of view as far as I am capable of understanding.
My argument however wasn’t a mathematical one in substance, and the use of some amount of math as an analogy, even if not 100% accurate in a universe of all possible sets of constructs which includes nonsensical constructs like a “car is a car like a car”. It was precise enough in the subset of all possible constructs that doesn’t include the nonsensical ones or if further reduction is required it was precise enough in the one single subset of the precise and singular group of sentences forming the precise paragraph in which the math was used to get my point across.
Getting my point across was the objective and not constructing a universal mathematical truth which remain true of an infinite variety of constructs many or most of which are meaningless. Its not engineering we are doing here. We are using language, and by its very nature language is not capable of 100% precision. So a mathematical analogy to help explain a couple of sentences doesn’t need to have 100% precision. It just needs to be good enough for the purposes of the analogy.
I wasn’t talking to people. I was talking to one person Adam. That assertion was also precise enough for its context and usage.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 6:11 pmDilan Esper says:
John, nobody ever said people didn’t invest meaning in flags. Rather, what I said is that it is still just a symbol. In other words, for instance, burning the American flag is not the same thing as burning down the US Capitol. Because the flag is nothing more than a symbol, whereas the US Capitol is a place where legislators and their staffs work and the public business gets done.
And my problem with the flag scolds is that they don’t realize that desecrating a symbol does no harm to whatever it is that the symbol stands for. To take an example that conservative Christians might relate to– burning a cross might be seen as very offensive. Burning a cross, however, does no injury to Jesus if you believe he was the son of an all-powerful God. Disrespecting a symbol can insult, it can hurt people’s feelings, etc. But it does no lasting harm.
In contrast, restricting people’s rights to disrespect symbols does grievous harm, because in our system the right of free expression is one of the central principles upon which our country operates.
So sure, I wouldn’t recommend EITHER burning a Mexican flag at a Mexico-Guatemala soccer match at the Rose Bowl OR burning an American Flag at a VFW meeting. But the Constitution is very clear that people have the right to burn flags, and people who are offended by it would benefit from learning to get over it and accept that their precious symbol is just that, a symbol. Not the thing symbolized.
November 11, 2011, 6:13 pmAnonimus says:
So? Symbols are important.
Now, how does that sound?
November 11, 2011, 6:18 pmGary Britt says:
In this case yes it would, and incorrect as well.
Gee thanks for that captain obvious, but I’m not sure why you’re telling me this. Its got nothing to do with anything I’ve posted.
Yes now that I wrote, but not the fumbling sentence you composed that alluding to the above.
I’ve backpedaled from nothing. You’re projecting again.
What started this off was your snarky bull crap about the meaning of the word invasion and the use of dictionaries. Your snark was wrong and silly as I’ve amply demonstrated, and you’ve been digging a deeper and deeper hole of embarrassment for yourself for hours ever since.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 6:22 pmTed says:
Fine? Correct? Just? Free? Reasonable? Rational? Progressive? Conservative? American? What answer are you looking for?
November 11, 2011, 6:24 pmDilan Esper says:
By the way, as I noted, I think that the display of the American flag in school should be protected speech.
That said, I am also troubled by the tenor of the comments that say that because of something special about the American flag and patriotism and mom and apple pie and whatever, there’s no situation where a school could ever ban flying an American flag.
Imagine the following hypothetical. Sally Student, in a civics class in high school, speaks out in favor of the First Amendment right to burn the American flag, after several students denounce the result in Texas v. Johnson. She says that she thinks you ought to be free to criticize the government.
This offends Jerry Jock, whose father was a member of the Marine Corps and risked his life for this country in the Persian Gulf in 1991. So Jerry and a bunch of his friends decide that there needs to be some payback, and they kidnap Sally and gang-rape and sodomize her, all the while holding up American flags, shoving them in her face, gagging her mouth with then, and saying “see what you get for disrespecting the American flag!!! you see!!!”. Sally takes several weeks off from school, is deeply psychologically traumatized, etc. On the day that Sally returns from school, another group of friends of Jerry find out she’s coming back and decide they want to tell Sally that she deserved it. Knowing the nature of the crime, they decide the way to do it is to come into class and sit in seats surrounding her, wearing American flag t-shirts and discussing how unlike SOME people, they believe in patriotism and that people who don’t deserve what they get.
The principal suspends the students wearing those t-shirts and tells them they aren’t coming back to school until they wear something else.
Unconstitutional?
November 11, 2011, 6:31 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Gary, at this point your argument has become circular. You’re assuming that the construction you used is not “nonsensical” in order to make the mathematics work, and then using the mathematics to show that the construction is “nonsensical.”
(If you’re in doubt about the last paragraph, note that “nonsensical” results arise whenever you try to combine things with overlapping definitions. The claim you were trying to disprove stated, in effect, that you were combining overlapping things. You argued against the claim by using the math which assumes they’re non-overlapping.)
Basically, there’s no way that I can see to naturally restrict your construction onto a subset of language where both (a) it is mathematically sound, and (b) it allows you to make the statements you did.
As to using math as a loose “analogy” to “get your point across”…in a word: don’t. There’s no justification for it (especially given the existence of other, more accurate symbolic representations of the objects at hand) besides supporting an otherwise unsupportable claim.
You mocked the person (I’m very sorry for the error of thinking it was more than one) you were talking to for not seeing the self-evident mathematical contradiction in his argument. You can’t consistently do that *and* then disavow the need for precise mathematics because language is imprecise. If you’re making an imprecise argument, be honest and up front about that.
November 11, 2011, 6:32 pmGary Britt says:
I skipped nothing. Instead of skipping a definition, I picked out the ones most relevant to the meaning in the context of my usage. Picking the ones most applicable to the context of my usage is not at all the same thing as not wanting to say something. Instead its a function of wanting to say that which is the most accurate.
Again stop projecting your prejudices and bigotries onto me.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 6:33 pmDilan Esper says:
Symbols are unimportant. Seriously. Completely unimportant. If someone burns the American flag, it does this country no harm at all. The only thing that can do us harm is if we toss away our freedoms because of such a stupid thing.
As for your second example, hate speech is protected by the Constitution, and yes, to an extent that means that people need to learn to stiffen their spines regarding hate speech while also expressing that they don’t like it. Which is completely consistent with my position with respect to people who don’t like disrespect to the flag– go ahead and say you don’t like it, but learn that it also does you no lasting injury unless you let it.
November 11, 2011, 6:34 pmTed says:
Alright.
You used the word invasion in this sentence:
You meant the term to be taken literally and figuratively. We understand the figurative interpretation. Please enlighten us as to the precise literal definition you intended the term to mean. Feel free to cite the single dictionary definition you intended, or provide your own.
November 11, 2011, 6:34 pmTed says:
Disagree.
As to which speech? The discussing? That’s disruptive, and properly stopped/disciplined. The tee-shirt wearing? Nothing suggests its disruptive, no problems.
November 11, 2011, 6:38 pmcampanile says:
Perhaps the US flag wearing students would have been better off burning the Mexican flag, rather than by wearing the American one.
Part of the reason why this case is so vexing to some of us is that liberals who claim to champion the rights of “minorities” and free speech are coming down on the side of a bully majority (large group vs. four), voluntary and violent offense, and censorship. Not classical liberals they.
November 11, 2011, 6:40 pmCA Adds Another Nail! | Time2ChangeTheWorld says:
[...] Not Safe to Display an American Flag in an American High School (volokh.com) Share this:TwitterFacebookMoreStumbleUponDiggPrintEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
November 11, 2011, 6:42 pmGary Britt says:
I’m afraid I don’t agree. When limited to the paragraph in which the math was used as an analogy its neither circular nor nonsensical.
Not sure if I agree with this assertion of opinion, but I will think about it.
I don’t agree with this assertion as applied to a specific set of facts or more precisely as applied to one specific paragraph that contained a mathematical analogy that was precise enough for getting the point across. It might be something I could agree with as a universal rule of sorts, but would still need to reserve objections on an as applied to specific cases basis.
My argument was plenty precise for the context of the discussion, which by its nature can never be 100% precise, so as to not require any disclaimer regarding precision.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 6:48 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Gary, I’m willing to go back over the past statements in more fact-specific detail when I’m back at a computer. VC’s mobile interface isn’t that conducive to working with these insanely long comment threads.
November 11, 2011, 6:53 pmGary Britt says:
I’ve already done that Ted. Just look upstream in the thread for the posts with Adam. There are basically 4 that apply to varying degrees. The definition that uses plants invading a space it normally isn’t found is fairly applicable; The definition that gives tourists invading a tourist site as an example is fairly applicable; The definition that speaks of an invasion of a space by rats is loosely applicable; and the definition that says invasion = an infringement by intrusion is absolutely applicable.
So take your pick.
Gary
For more detailed elucidation refer upstream.
November 11, 2011, 6:57 pmyankee says:
Do we have any actual evidence that the source of threats was a “large group”? The sources EV links to only describe it as a “group,” which does not exactly narrow it down. Say what we will about this incident, let’s make sure we have the facts right.
As for your other claims, I will offer the following summary of my position:
1) Different people interpret the meaning of political symbols differently.
2) Based on the facts presented, and in that particular context, the message sent by the U.S. flag was probably something along the lines of “eff your Mexican holiday.”
3) Physical violence is not the correct response to “eff your holiday.”
4) Students should not fear violence from other students no matter what they wear.
5) The fact that the school administration is unable to prevent students from being attacked for wearing the wrong clothes is a sign that something has gone seriously wrong with the way the school is being run.
6) Nonetheless, the school administrators’ actions were probably constitutional under Tinker.
November 11, 2011, 6:59 pmTed says:
What do you mean by “coming down on the side of?” Do you mean that we agree that the four’s expression was not protected by the First Amendment under the current state of the law? Just be cause we agree of a particular legal result, doesn’t think we mean it was correct. Who here has even suggested that they support the threats of the majority group? Ideally, both would be allowed to display their flags, and any disruptors would be punished disciplined and educated. But that’s not what the current law requires.
November 11, 2011, 7:00 pmTed says:
Yeah, I have a problem with “literally” meaning 4different things. You seemed attached to the botanical definition, but you couldn’t possibly have meant that literally. The invasion of a foreign species of plant into a non-native botanical region doesn’t have have anything “literal” to do with human Mexican immigration.
Likewise for the army definition. The Mexican military has not invaded us. They can’t even invade their own drug cartels.
Regarding the tourist definition, that example is itself a figurative example, not a literal example. Tourists do not “overrun” or “take possession” of their destinations. Perhaps figuratively, but not literally. A literal example would be more akin to the army definition, which doesn’t seem to literally apply to Mexican immigrants.
So that leaves the intrusion definition, which does seem to apply literally to an illegal immigrant. The problem I’m having is that you contrasted a single illegal immigrant, which is a “crime,” with a million illegal immigrants, which you described as an “invasion.” That suggest, to me, at least, that you did not literally mean the intrusion definition, because that would seem to apply equally to a single actor and well as multiple actors.
Could you just state the literal meaning of “invasion” that you intended to convey?
November 11, 2011, 7:14 pmTed says:
I’ll second Yankee’s thoughts, with the exclusion of “probably” in the last sentence.
November 11, 2011, 7:17 pmAnonimus says:
So you’re saying being Hispanic is analogous to being raped?
They’re very important to a lot of people other than you. You should learn not to be such a narcissist.
November 11, 2011, 7:20 pmPhos says:
Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.
November 11, 2011, 7:36 pmGary Britt says:
But it does quite figuratively or pictorially in one’s mind describe the movement of millions of foreign nationals over time from their place of origin into another place where they either weren’t previously present or don’t rightfully belong. So I find it to be fairly applicable. Imagine a time lapse photography of some plant species moving into and occupying more and more space in a new part of one’s yard. Then imagine a time lapse map where mexican nationals are moving into the USA with their spread and population density being represented by the color red (or any other color) Both will look quite similar.
But its still a literal definition of invasion and one that is fairly applicable to the mexican illegal immigration into this country.
Yep.
I don’t see the problem. I think its just in your mind. People don’t tend to think of one person entering a country as an invasion so I see nothing wrong with not using that term to describe one person entering the country illegally. While the term invasion is a noun it was used by me in also a descriptive sense so it is logically more applicable in a descriptive sense to millions of illegal aliens as to one.
I was thinking of a combination of the meanings above when I wrote the sentence.
Gary
November 11, 2011, 7:45 pmTed says:
I don’t think you understand what “literal” means. I think you meant invasion figuratively and metaphorically, not literally (and not both).
November 11, 2011, 7:59 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I believe I referred to violation of statutes (not necessarily statutes that reflect wisdom, in my judgment).
November 11, 2011, 8:01 pmAnonimus says:
The failure to understand is Ted’s.
November 11, 2011, 8:12 pmwhit says:
“And just so we’re clear, no, the territory of the United States is not the property of its current citizens. You can find this out by trying to build a house on the nearest open space or public park.”
I’ll defer to the illustrious mr Guthrie on this one. IT IS “our land”. Collectively. In that respect, it belongs to “you and me”, you and me NOT being defined as those who are NOT citizens. I respect this when I visit other nations. I am a guest. It’s not MY country.
The fact that an INDIVIDUAL cannot build on a public land doesn’t mean it’s not owned by ALL OF US. You must realize how ridiculous you sound. The entire concept of National Parks btw, was that those lands belong to us all
November 11, 2011, 11:55 pmwhit says:
i would also note that i have both a moral and a legal duty to defend this land, this nation. that’s because i’m a citizen.
my heritage, my ancestors came from many nations. i MAY feel a moral duty to defend one or more of them from attack at some point if those nations were attacked, but clearly my duty to THIS nation is not in doubt.
from what i know of the bong hits for jesus case – it was profoundly stupid.
and this case is too.
the idea that IN the United States of America, a public high school student could be forced to cover/not wear a t-shirt depicting an American flag on ANY day, and especially that on that same day it is perfectly ok to wear a (not) US flag, … well this is the kind of thing that makes people hate the law sometimes.
because while there may be a “legal rationale” for it, there is simply no excuse for such a policy. and that would hold true in ANY country. i can’t imagine on some given day in the year in (insert country X), it would be legally justified to prohibit a public school student from wearing a shirt with the flag of (country X) while allowing students to display flags from (countries NOT X).
it’s ridiculous
November 12, 2011, 12:03 amGary Britt says:
When it comes to what I meant, between you and me I think I’m the expert on the subject.
I meant it both literally and figuratively and also intended for it to be provocative. It is literally true that its an invasion under some definitions of invasion, and it is figuratively true its an invasion under other definitions of the word.
3 cows might literally be a herd of cows, but most people wouldn’t describe it that way. They would confuse you by using some other description like “3 cows over there” and not “that herd of cows over there”. Change it to 1000 cows and everyone would say “that herd of cows over there”.
One illegal alien crossing the border may appear to you to be literally an invasion under the infringement by intrusion definition, but I think you would be the only one to call it that. Millions of illegal aliens crossing the border – now that’s an invasion for sure, literally and figuratively.
Gary
November 12, 2011, 12:04 amDANIEL GREENFIELDS WEEKLY ROUNDUP | RUTHFULLY YOURS says:
[...] Director Blue at The Volokh Conspiracy) Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (N.D. Cal.), decided the day before yesterday, [...]
November 12, 2011, 6:24 amKevin P. says:
Make stuff up a lot?
November 12, 2011, 10:35 amjukeboxgrad says:
Maybe you missed this:
That’s moral support for the KKK. More facts that you may have missed:
November 12, 2011, 10:43 amDavidka says:
Typical cowardly clueless school administrators. If “Mexican” students (why are Mexican students in a California high school?)threaten American students, for wearing the flag or anything else, the Mexican students should be severely disciplined, with criminal charges brought if necessary. End of problem.
November 12, 2011, 2:35 pmRob says:
Please get it through your mind that the so-called legal term “substantial disruption” is a Leftist/authoritarian method to control, restrict, stifle, hinder, and/or render obsolete the right of free speech and freedom of expression in the USA. It must be excised from all policy books, regulations, rulings, and laws immediately. The courts must not use that term to explain its arguments based on what was being said or shown by both sides in the hearings. The term must be forbidden in the future. There is nothing in the Constitution that support any basis to give elected lawmakers and judges the power to restrict free speech because of concerns about “substantial disruption” by people. I suppose the Nazis have that basis to oppress and harass the Jews’ right to speak out or oppose Nazi policies, since the Jews were causing “substantial disruption” to the “peaceful” Nazi society in the 1930s. Think about that!
November 12, 2011, 3:48 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Yes. The two most famous cases involve attempted suppression of anti-war and pro-drug legalization speech. This is obviously a Leftist conspiracy.
Nothing protects free expression like banning terms. :)
November 12, 2011, 3:59 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Why did you include the terms “Mexican” and “American”? The most likely possibility seems to be that you think it would be different if “American” students were threatening “Mexican” students. Is that correct?
November 12, 2011, 4:00 pmChris Mallory says:
No we didn’t. For most of the time America has been a nation we have been a nation of White Northern Europeans. In 1790, it was estimated that whites were 80% of the population of North America. In the 1940,1950, and 1960 census whites were 90% of the American population. In 1990, whites had dropped to 80% again. Now whites have dropped to 66%. Your comment about the SW shows your ignorance. The South West was largely unpopulated except for a few American Indians. The Mexicans were unable to move into this area because of those tribes. It took white Americans to bring these areas to the level of prosperity they know now.
November 12, 2011, 6:22 pmI dare say we are in much worse shape with your vaulted “diversity” than we were in 1960 or 1990. Diversity is weakness. Diversity kills.
Andrew MacKie-Mason says:
Cite?
November 12, 2011, 6:43 pmzuch says:
Not exactly.
Here’s from a story on this:
The school was (probably reasonably) apprehensive, and tool steps.
When you start getting into “who did what first”, you’re probably not doing what the school really needs to do first and foremost. This situation might cause trouble, and the school didn’t want it here. They don’t need to decide what they’d do in a different situation now.
The kids doing the Cinque de Mayo stuff were arguably not provocative and confrontational (maybe they were, but nothing on the record to support such). The kids with the American flag were looking to stir up trouble. Had a few kids been parading Mexican flag T-shirts on the Fourth of July, I’d say the same.
Now I’m of the opinion that people ought to allow confrontational behaviour (are you surprised?) and they ought to grow thicker skins and find other ways to deal with irritation that either fighting or lawsuits. Which is what I alluded to above. But my opinion of what First Amendment law should be is not what the state of the law actually is. But I can’t figure out what your point is: Do you think I have the law wrong? Or do you agree with my contention that people ought to let such confrontation and azolishness slide? It almost sounds like you and I are coming from the same place, but you don’t understand that.
Cheers,
November 12, 2011, 11:54 pmWhen can the american flag be displayed? | a hockey coaches corner of the world says:
[...] is an article from The Volokh Conspiracy about a case that was just decided regarding the display or wearing of [...]
November 13, 2011, 5:55 pmnemo says:
And what would the activities of a “gay” club be? Being “gay” together? -meaning engaging in homosexual activity. Sounds reasonable to me for being barred, just as a club for any other sexual activity should be barred from school premises.
November 13, 2011, 6:36 pmPeter S. Chamberlain says:
November 13, 2011, 7:12 pmPearlstein says:
It would be interesting to consider the consequences of, say, Americans in a Mexican school – in Mexico that is – demanding that the Mexican flag be banned as racist. Or consider if the students threatened with violence were gay, or black. I rather doubt that the outcome would have been the same; no, the school would have gone all out in the protection of their rights.
November 13, 2011, 11:43 pmAdam says:
Way to stand up for free speech!
(My apologies if the irony was intended)
November 14, 2011, 11:23 amHazel Meade says:
This reminds me somewhat of the practice that the Orangemen have of holding their annual march of pride through Catholic neighborhoods in Belfast. An event known to result in riots.
Personally, In understand the free speech argument, but I think there’s a pretty strong case to be made tht the school is within it’s rights if the speech is so disruptive that it makes it impossible to maintain discipline in the school, which, after all, is supposed to be a learning instution and not a public forum.
November 14, 2011, 7:16 pmU.S. District Court: School can ban American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo « Hot Air says:
[...] … yeah, maybe. Read law prof Eugene Volokh for a bit more on that. For decades, the constitutional standard for free-speech cases in public [...]
November 14, 2011, 7:53 pmU.S. District Court: School can ban American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo | Tea Party Tribune - Tea Party & Political News says:
[...] … yeah, maybe. Read law prof Eugene Volokh for a bit more on that. For decades, the constitutional standard for free-speech cases in public [...]
November 15, 2011, 5:30 amUS Freedom of Expression and Media Law Round Up: 16 November 2011 – Gervase de Wilde « Inforrm's Blog says:
[...] to tension between Caucasian and Mexican students on the previous year’s holiday. As the Volokh Conspiracy blog suggests, it is the facts of this case – which seem to indicate ill feeling between the [...]
November 15, 2011, 7:06 pmGreg says:
I’m fascinated by all the minutae in the discussion above, when the bottom line, according to the judgement, is that if someone is likely to react violently, the correct thing to do is appease them. Sort of like the Mohammed cartoons? South Park? Molly Norris? Fine, let’s move on to banning women from wearing revealing clothing so they don’t tempt anyone to rape them. Get rid of gays so no one is inconvenienced by having to stone them. Don’t allow teenage girls to have boyfriends so they don’t have to be killed to preserve the family honour. Life will be so much simpler and nonviolent.
November 15, 2011, 7:35 pmAndrew MacKie-Mason says:
Greg, I don’t see the opinion as saying that at all. It’s making a legal claim (the school was within its rights to do what it did) rather than a normative one (the school was right to do what it did).
November 15, 2011, 7:48 pmUGO Car GPS says:
In the IT world, there are dozens of certifications, and most of them aren’t worth much anymore, if they ever were. Fewer people are pursuing low-level IT certifications, and for good reason.
November 16, 2011, 3:23 amGreg says:
I used “correct” in the sense of “not wrong”. If the school is within its rights to favour the threatening students’ rights at the expense of the other students’ rights, then my other examples of infringing rights to avoid violent consequences have to be allowable as well.
November 16, 2011, 8:52 amNovember 17 roundup says:
[...] “Not Safe to Display an American Flag in an American High School” [Volokh] [...]
November 17, 2011, 12:26 amStar-Spangled Banner Does Not Wave in California - ALL FLAGS – ALL FLAGS says:
[...] on a Volokh Conspiracy blog, law highbrow Eugene Volokh recently voiced his dismay with a whole state of affairs in [...]
November 17, 2011, 7:28 amAdam says:
No, the bottom line is that if someone is going to react violently, the school has the option to ban the expression. It also has the option to discipline those reacting violently.
Basically, the bottom line is the school gets to decide who to discipline and not the courts, as long as there is disruption involved.
November 17, 2011, 5:26 pmAdam says:
Only if one abandon’s the logic of the opinion. And at the risk of being uncharitable, all logic.
The key here is that a school is not a open forum for free expression, and has repeatedly been recognized as allowed to suppress speech that disrupts its function as a school.
That puts schools in a constitutionally special place that does not apply at all to your other examples.
November 17, 2011, 5:29 pm