Flags Banned At Local High School

[Kelzie]

Telling students they can not bring flags to school is banning the flag.

Students have no rights. The US flag wasn't banned. Only the children from bringing it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Schools have a lot of power over students. It seems like they can just waive constitutional freedoms because they deal with minors. That, and kids have to sign a discipline handbook which relieves them of a lot of choices.
The first amendment doesn't protect Defamation, Causing panic, Fighting words, Incitement to crime, Sedition, or Obscenity.

Actually the Supreme Court has ruled that sedition is protected speech depending on the clear and present danger test, only speech which directly calls for the immediate overthrow of the government is not protected now it comes down to a clear and probable danger test,

See: Schenck V United States, Dennis V United States, and Yates V The United States.

the Fighting Words test has been so watered down that it is essentially useless, basically you would have to be screaming in someones ear with a bullhorn for it to fall under the guise of fighting words.

1942 Chaplinsky V New Hampshire, Jehovah’s witnesses as a religious view don’t believe in the flag salute because they consider it idolatry, the plaintiff was a Jehovah’s witness and he got assaulted while preaching and the police came and arrested him and calls the police: “Damn Fascists, and profiteering Racketeers.” And was charged by a law against offensive annoying et al words. It goes to the Supreme Court and Justice Murphy concludes that in this case the First Amendment didn’t apply and the fighting words exception is created, but also makes clear that the fighting words has limits and it must be language which the average person finds offensive and it has to show direct causation between the language and the offensiveness created by it. And the average person changes through time as well.

Obsenity is even harder to make stick because the Hicklin test is no longer used but rather if it can be shown that even part of the work in question is artistically valuable in nature then it is protected speech ie the work must be looked at as a whole.

English precedent called Regina Vs. Hicklin 1868. What would be defined as obscenity is if one page of an entire book was deemed to be obscene it would be enough to get the whole book made illegal. This comes from English Common law.

Beginning in 1957 this started to lax in the Butler Vs. Michigan that dealt with a law that had a ban on any material that could be considered harmful to children. Frankfurter stated holding adults to the standards of children is like burning the house to roast the pig.

Roth Vs. U.S.A and Alberts Vs. California p.438 it is the real landmark case that deals with sexually explicit material, Roth was a publisher of literary erotica. The convictions are upheld but the precedent which the case sets is one which opens the way for much more permissive standards towards pornography. Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment but the difficulty comes with identifying what is obscene. Brennan says that the government needs to look at a new set of issues to look at the average person rather than the most vulnerable in society. Second Brennan also says that the government needs to look at the work as a whole and the dominant theme of the work as a whole. If the work is purian sex for sex sake then it is obscene but if there are any literary or artistic value then it still gets a pass.

I will agree that the Supreme Court has ruled that the school has more lee-way in determining free speech in the classroom, however, free speech does not end at the entrance to the school, the flag issue does not fall into the category of offensive or obscene speech so in my opinion this case would be overturned if brought before the Supreme Court.

See: Bethel V Fraser and Tinker V Des Moines.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Students have no rights. The US flag wasn't banned. Only the children from bringing it.

That's not true, the Constitution does not end at the school yards gates.

See Tinker V Des Moines, though the decision was partially overturned in Bethel V Fraser case it only limited free speech in the class room to obscene speech and I can hardly agree that either the Mexican or the American flag is offensive, but rather they are expressions of legitimate political debate. I do know one thing that if this was challenged in all likely hood it would find its way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Kelzie]

That's not true, the Constitution does not end at the school yards gates.

See Tinker V Des Moines, though the decision was partially overturned in Bethel V Fraser case it only limited free speech in the class room to obscene speech and I can hardly agree that either the Mexican or the American flag is offensive, but rather they are expressions of legitimate political debate. I do know one thing that if this was challenged in all likely hood it would find its way to the Supreme Court.

Actually yes it does. Tinker involved adults. Children have no rights. None at all. If flags were used to incite others, the principle had every right to prevent their use.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually yes it does. Tinker involved adults. Children have no rights. None at all. If flags were used to incite others, the principle had every right to prevent their use.

No you're wrong:

Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court. Held:
1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.
2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507. 3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.


MR. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner John F. Tinker, 15 years old, and petitioner Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, attended high schools in Des Moines, Iowa. Petitioner Mary Beth Tinker, John's sister, was a 13-year-old student in junior high school.

It was partially overturned in the Fraser case but only on the basis of obsenity. You're wrong the Constitution does not end at the school grounds gate.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html

 

[Kelzie]

No you're wrong:



It was partially overturned in the Fraser case but only on the basis of obsenity. You're wrong the Constitution does not end at the school grounds gate.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html

Blah, blah, blah...oh right here..."the petitioners were quiet and passive". As opposed to the flag wavers who were inciting violence. Thanks for proving my point for me.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Blah, blah, blah...oh right here..."the petitioners were quiet and passive". As opposed to the flag wavers who were inciting violence. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Well your point appeared to be that children have no free speech rights and that's where you're wrong.

I don't see how flag waving is an incitement to violence, I find waving either a Mexican or an American flag to be even less offensive than wearing a black arm band.

This would be an interesting case and I guarantee if the students who were suspended file a law suit it will find its way to the Supreme Court, I don't know how they would rule but in my opinion it falls under freedom of expression, free speech can only be limited in the classroom if it is obscene or an incitement to violence, and in my opinion flag waving does not fall into either of those two categories.

 

[Kelzie]

Well your point appeared to be that children have no free speech rights and that's where you're wrong.

I don't see how flag waving is an incitement to violence, I find waving either a Mexican or an American flag to be even less offensive than wearing a black arm band.

This would be an interesting case and I guarantee if the students who were suspended file a law suit it will find its way to the Supreme Court, I don't know how they would rule but in my opinion it falls under freedom of expression, free speech can only be limited in the classroom if it is obscene or an incitement to violence, and in my opinion flag waving does not fall into either of those two categories.

But it was in this case. Doesn't matter if in 99.99% of the times flag waving is a symbol of pride, in this case it was used to p*ss someone off. They can take it to SCOTUS. They will lose.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

But it was in this case. Doesn't matter if in 99.99% of the times flag waving is a symbol of pride, in this case it was used to p*ss someone off. They can take it to SCOTUS. They will lose.

Why will they lose? I'm sure that the black arm bands p!ssed some people off too, that isn't the issue, the issue is curtailing the freedom of political expression which this decision by the principle clearly does. In my opinion not only can the principle not ban the American flag but he/she can not ban the Mexican flag either.

The fact that the political expression happened to p!ss some people off is a non-issue, because it is still protected speech. If we start limiting the first amendment based on what is or is not offensive we might as well be living in Nazi Germany.

Imagine if a teacher banned wearing say anti-war or anti-Bush t-shirts now those shirts might offend me, I might get pissed off, and it might very well cause a fight but it is still their god given right to wear them all the hell they want.

If you think that you can actually prove that this case would fall under the fighting words exception then good luck with that, because that is one of the hardest things to prove in court (harder than slander) basically you would have to be screaming in someones ear with a bullhorn for it to fall under the fighting words exception.

 

[Kelzie]

Why will they lose? I'm sure that the black arm bands p!ssed some people off too, that isn't the issue, the issue is curtailing the freedom of political expression which this decision by the principle clearly does. In my opinion not only can the principle not ban the American flag but he/she can not ban the Mexican flag either.

The fact that the political expression happened to p!ss some people off is a non-issue, because it is still protected speech. If we start limiting the first amendment based on what is or is not offensive we might as well be living in Nazi Germany.

Imagine if a teacher banned wearing say anti-war or anti-Bush t-shirts now those shirts might offend me, I might get pissed off, and it might very well cause a fight but it is still their god given right to wear them all the hell they want.

If you think that you can actually prove that this case would fall under the fighting words exception then good luck with that, because that is one of the hardest things to prove in court (harder than slander) basically you would have to be screaming in someones ear with a bullhorn for it to fall under the fighting words exception.

Because the black arm bands were specifically being used peacefully. The flags weren't. It makes all the difference in a school, where the administrators are charged with the safety of all their students.

If a student wore a anti-Bush shirt with the intention of causing problems (which by the way, those are usually not allowed in high school either) then they would be told to go home. However, if they wore it and you just got offended because you have delicate sensibilities, than that is your own problem.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Because the black arm bands were specifically being used peacefully. The flags weren't. It makes all the difference in a school, where the administrators are charged with the safety of all their students.

I'm sorry but how exactly does one wave a flag violently?

 

[Thorgasm]

I'm sorry but how exactly does one wave a flag violently?

Nice try, Perry Mason. If you can't figure out how one person would be able to threaten, intimidate, or push another's buttons then you need to learn a new phrase. "Would you like fries with that?"

You could freeze the flag and then swing it at someone. :doh But, seriously, in an emotionally charged situation, all it takes is getting inside one's bubble to start violence. Flags are not necessary to be brought to school by students. The school's number one job is safety of the students, even before education. Freedom of speech is not absolute, as you should know. This is a grey area though. The flag just happens to be a symptom of a larger problem. The flags don't cause violence by themselves. They can be used to incite violence though. I will have to stick to my original assessment. BAN THE STUDENTS.:rofl

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Nice try, Perry Mason. If you can't figure out how one person would be able to threaten, intimidate, or push another's buttons then you need to learn a new phrase. "Would you like fries with that?"

You could freeze the flag and then swing it at someone. :doh But, seriously, in an emotionally charged situation, all it takes is getting inside one's bubble to start violence. Flags are not necessary to be brought to school by students. The school's number one job is safety of the students, even before education. Freedom of speech is not absolute, as you should know. This is a grey area though. The flag just happens to be a symptom of a larger problem. The flags don't cause violence by themselves. They can be used to incite violence though. I will have to stick to my original assessment. BAN THE STUDENTS.:rofl

This is not a grey area if you actually read what I have posted a situation exactly the same as this was brought before the Supreme Court, the case involved students wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War, they were suspended, the Court found that the suspension was unconstitutional and that the arm bands were protected speech.

If you think that you can limit someones freedom of expression based on what you find offensive then why don't you move to China?

If you think that you can prove that waving the flags in this situation violates the fighting words exception then I suggest you look into how many times the fighting words exception has ever been found to be a valid excuse for suppressing the first amendment.

There are limits on the freedom of speech in the classroom, however, this is not one of them.

Not one of you has made a valid case to the contrary other than your ridiculous assertions that they were not waving the flags peacefully, as if you can wave a flag violently. :roll:

I have provided case law to back my assertions, what have you provided?

 

[Thorgasm]

This is not a grey area if you actually read what I have posted a situation exactly the same as this was brought before the Supreme Court, the case involved students wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War, they were suspended, the Court found that the suspension was unconstitutional and that the arm bands were protected speech.

If you think that you can limit someones freedom of expression based on what you find offensive then why don't you move to China?

If you think that you can prove that waving the flags in this situation violates the fighting words exception then I suggest you look into how many times the fighting words exception has ever been found as a valid excuse for suppressing the first amendment.

There are limits on the freedom of speech in the classroom, however, this is not one of them.

Not one of you has made a valid case to the contrary other than your ridiculous assertions that they were not waving the flags peacefully, as if you can wave a flag violently. :roll:

I have provided case law to back my assertions, what have you provided?

Most schools have a policy of banning anything that disrupts the learning environment. This goes beyond the scope of violence/safety. Since this is subjective, it is left up to the discretion of the school's admin. I would suspect you could spend a legal career suing schools for banning things if your freedom of speech were to extend to the classroom.

BTW, I never said that they should ban the flags.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Most schools have a policy of banning anything that disrupts the learning environment. This goes beyond the scope of violence/safety. Since this is subjective, it is left up to the discretion of the school's admin. I would suspect you could spend a legal career suing schools for banning things if your freedom of speech were to extend to the classroom.

BTW, I never said that they should ban the flags.

See that's the thing it is not left up to the schools discretion, the school has no more right to curtail legitimate, non-obscene, political expression than does the government.

 

[Thorgasm]

See that's the thing it is not left up to the schools discretion, the school has no more right to curtail legitimate, non-obscene, political expression than does the government.

Tot, are you siding with the ACLU? The school obviously does reserve the right to ban anything not necessary to education that may disrupt it. How else could they have dress codes. Tell me, can a bandana be violent?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Tot, are you siding with the ACLU? The school obviously does reserve the right to ban anything not necessary to education that may disrupt it. How else could they have dress codes. Tell me, can a bandana be violent?

Well that's where you're wrong and proof that you did not read the Supreme Court decision which I presented to you. The school does not have the right to curtail the freedom of political expression in the classroom.

See the Supreme Court case Tinker V Des Moines.

 

[Alias]

The communists that run the schools are trying to keep all influence of God and patriotism out.

 

[Sir_Alec]

The communists that run the schools are trying to keep all influence of God and patriotism out.

You better be sarcastic because both of those things should not be in our schools. Just keep the flags in and the stupidity out... oh wait its a school, its full of stupid teenagers.

 

[Thorgasm]

Well that's where you're wrong and proof that you did not read the Supreme Court decision which I presented to you. The school does not have the right to curtail the freedom of political expression in the classroom.

See the Supreme Court case Tinker V Des Moines.

Wow, I never would have guessed that you would be for kids flying their gang colors at school. I wish that there was freedom of speech in schools. But there isn't. I know what you are saying is true. The reality is though, that there isn't. A kid should be able to wear a "Vote for Saddam" T-shirt. But in order to protect him from the beating of a lifetime, they would not allow it. This is because of something that is happening all too often these days. Insurance companies have more to say about policy than SCOTUS or our govt. They would be found negligent if they allowed him to wear that shirt and he was hurt/killed.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wow, I never would have guessed that you would be for kids flying their gang colors at school. I wish that there was freedom of speech in schools. But there isn't. I know what you are saying is true. The reality is though, that there isn't. A kid should be able to wear a "Vote for Saddam" T-shirt. But in order to protect him from the beating of a lifetime, they would not allow it. This is because of something that is happening all too often these days. Insurance companies have more to say about policy than SCOTUS or our govt. They would be found negligent if they allowed him to wear that shirt and he was hurt/killed.

Gang colors and legitimate political expressions are very different things.

There is freedom of speech in school, the Constitution does not end at the schoolgates, it's not my opinion it's the opinion of the Supreme Court.

 

[Kelzie]

Gang colors and legitimate political expressions are very different things.

There is freedom of speech in school, the Constitution does not end at the schoolgates, it's not my opinion it's the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Not when that speech would incite violence. SCOTUS was very clear that it had to be peaceful.

 

[Alias]

Do you ever wonder why you never hear of this crap in the private schools? They have dress codes and discipline like public schools use to. All this crap in our public schools is the direct result of lack of discipline and enforcing a dress code. The problem is the liberals who brought all this crap upon us and now we have to deal with another liberal failure.

 

[Kelzie]

Do you ever wonder why you never hear of this crap in the private schools? They have dress codes and discipline like public schools use to. All this crap in our public schools is the direct result of lack of discipline and enforcing a dress code. The problem is the liberals who brought all this crap upon us and now we have to deal with another liberal failure.

Because somehow it is liberals fault that parents are too lazy to teach their children discipline. Right.:roll:

 

[Alias]

Because somehow it is liberals fault that parents are too lazy to teach their children discipline. Right.:roll:

Yes, it is liberals fault because when a child misbehaved when I was a kid he was punished. You can't do that now. You can't touch a child now and they know it. They can dress like bums and you can't do a thing about it. Why? Liberal policies.

There were no mass shootings in schools when I was a kid. There were no snotty kids sassing teachers and getting by with it. I never saw drugs in schools and now it's a problem in every school. Why?

I agree parents should discipline their kids. It is also true that a lot of parents don't discipline their kids and the schools has to but can't because their hands are tied by..........liberals. The authority of the adult has decreased and the freedom of the child has increased and the child is not responsible enough to handle it correctly. You can't let the inmates run the asylum.