HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Missouri student loses dr...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 09:02 PM

Missouri student loses driving rights for flying Confederate flag

REPUBLIC, Mo. | A southwest Missouri student lost his driving privileges at school for flying a Confederate flag on his truck.

The Republic school district twice suspended Riley Collier's driving privileges because of concern that the flag distracted some students and was offensive to others.

Collier says he does not understand why he can't fly the flag while driving to and from Republic High School. He does not consider the flag racist. He says it's about history and the way of life where he grew up.

Republic School District Superintendent Vern Minor says he can't talk about the situation because it involves a student.

more . . . http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/18/3377475/missouri-student-loses-driving.html

160 replies, 16538 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 160 replies Author Time Post
Reply Missouri student loses driving rights for flying Confederate flag (Original post)
proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 OP
rfranklin Jan 2012 #1
Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2012 #95
CreekDog Jan 2012 #99
Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2012 #100
CreekDog Jan 2012 #102
YellowRubberDuckie Jan 2012 #113
rfranklin Jan 2012 #104
bluestateguy Jan 2012 #2
proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #14
oneshooter Jan 2012 #83
bluestateguy Jan 2012 #90
Zalatix Jan 2012 #3
Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #6
Zalatix Jan 2012 #7
Fawke Em Jan 2012 #114
Hugabear Jan 2012 #116
Zalatix Jan 2012 #128
Hugabear Jan 2012 #129
Art_from_Ark Jan 2012 #143
Yupster Jan 2012 #80
eShirl Jan 2012 #82
Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #145
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #47
Vattel Jan 2012 #79
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #112
Vattel Jan 2012 #119
A Simple Game Jan 2012 #141
Vattel Jan 2012 #158
A Simple Game Jan 2012 #159
MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #160
eShirl Jan 2012 #84
Raine Jan 2012 #4
arbusto_baboso Jan 2012 #105
white_wolf Jan 2012 #5
RZM Jan 2012 #9
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #27
Fawke Em Jan 2012 #115
white_wolf Jan 2012 #117
ProgressiveEconomist Jan 2012 #8
Skip Intro Jan 2012 #17
ProgressiveEconomist Jan 2012 #20
Skip Intro Jan 2012 #22
xmas74 Jan 2012 #66
Odin2005 Jan 2012 #10
Major Nikon Jan 2012 #11
proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #15
TransitJohn Jan 2012 #50
pstokely Jan 2012 #58
tkmorris Jan 2012 #62
Major Nikon Jan 2012 #101
joeglow3 Jan 2012 #12
Skip Intro Jan 2012 #16
onenote Jan 2012 #40
LanternWaste Jan 2012 #87
DavidDvorkin Jan 2012 #18
EFerrari Jan 2012 #21
malaise Jan 2012 #132
lynne Jan 2012 #23
mitchtv Jan 2012 #28
X_Digger Jan 2012 #30
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #31
cherokeeprogressive Jan 2012 #34
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #35
cherokeeprogressive Jan 2012 #38
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #39
cherokeeprogressive Jan 2012 #41
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #88
proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #44
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #46
joeglow3 Jan 2012 #72
proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #78
jberryhill Jan 2012 #152
cherokeeprogressive Jan 2012 #33
Dead_Parrot Jan 2012 #45
TransitJohn Jan 2012 #51
xmas74 Jan 2012 #67
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #69
DiverDave Jan 2012 #75
eShirl Jan 2012 #85
joeglow3 Jan 2012 #96
Arkansas Granny Jan 2012 #86
Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2012 #91
Yupster Jan 2012 #92
mike_c Jan 2012 #120
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2012 #139
mike_c Jan 2012 #153
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2012 #155
mike_c Jan 2012 #157
A Simple Game Jan 2012 #142
BiggJawn Jan 2012 #13
lynne Jan 2012 #24
BiggJawn Jan 2012 #64
oneshooter Jan 2012 #81
Yupster Jan 2012 #93
baldguy Jan 2012 #19
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #25
X_Digger Jan 2012 #32
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #36
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #37
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #89
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #108
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #121
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #124
TransitJohn Jan 2012 #52
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #54
pstokely Jan 2012 #60
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #110
bigwillq Jan 2012 #26
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #29
XemaSab Jan 2012 #42
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #43
LeftyMom Jan 2012 #48
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #49
LeftyMom Jan 2012 #53
obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #146
MFrohike Jan 2012 #55
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #56
MFrohike Jan 2012 #57
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #59
MFrohike Jan 2012 #61
onenote Jan 2012 #70
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #111
MFrohike Jan 2012 #123
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #125
MFrohike Jan 2012 #126
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #127
MFrohike Jan 2012 #150
onenote Jan 2012 #133
MFrohike Jan 2012 #151
cliffordu Jan 2012 #63
xmas74 Jan 2012 #65
onenote Jan 2012 #68
xmas74 Jan 2012 #135
proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #71
The Genealogist Jan 2012 #109
proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #118
xmas74 Jan 2012 #134
Yupster Jan 2012 #97
Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #106
Hugabear Jan 2012 #131
Yupster Jan 2012 #137
xmas74 Jan 2012 #136
Yupster Jan 2012 #138
xmas74 Jan 2012 #140
obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #147
Yupster Jan 2012 #149
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #73
elehhhhna Jan 2012 #74
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #76
treestar Jan 2012 #77
The Midway Rebel Jan 2012 #94
Yupster Jan 2012 #98
L0oniX Jan 2012 #103
gratuitous Jan 2012 #107
RebelOne Jan 2012 #122
MineralMan Jan 2012 #130
Art_from_Ark Jan 2012 #144
moriah Jan 2012 #148
rdking647 Jan 2012 #154
jwirr Jan 2012 #156

Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 09:04 PM

1. The way of life that he refers to included slavery...which is very offensive to Americans....

 

though quite alright in the Confederate States of America (demised).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:00 AM

95. Would you apply the same standard to commemorating slaveholding native American cultures? N.T.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:10 AM

99. Do you think you should be able to fly the Nazi flag in Germany?

since you can fly most any other there?

and why do you only seem to post when your post is needed to defend the undefensible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #99)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:13 AM

100. Yes, I do.

I also think you should be able to deny the holocaust there. "Freedom of Speech for people who are right" isn't.

As to the other - I usually only bother posting when I wholly or partially disagree with what's been said; I don't generally bother with backslapping (although lower down in this thread I made an exception).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #100)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:17 AM

102. We know, we know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #100)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:30 PM

113. The only thing holocaust denial does is propogate hate...

...and they have banned it because they don't have freedom of speech in those countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:50 PM

104. Slavery is offensive to anybody who believes in the concept of freedom for all...

 

just because it happens even today doesn't make it acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 09:05 PM

2. Yes, it is about heritage

A heritage that is racist, un-American and traitorous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:22 PM

14. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:31 AM

83. So we should go in and plow up all of the Confederate

Grave yards and let Wall-Mart build on top of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:09 AM

90. Absolutely not! That would be an outrage.

No Wal-Mart on Confederate graveyards.

A Best Buy would be a far better idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 09:08 PM

3. How is the Confederate flag NOT treasonous?

 

It represents an illegal secession, and it represents a pseudo-country that went to war with the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 09:21 PM

6. Just curious

 

How do states legally secede from the union?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kellerfeller (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 09:26 PM

7. Sadly, they don't.

 

I say sadly because the Right Wingers of the South have been a cancer upon America for decades. The South is their breeding ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:40 PM

114. I'm pretty sick of this broad-brush painting of the South.

Look, folks, UTAH is the reddest state in America and it is NOT in the South.

Just say "right wingers" and leave region out of it.

I see Battle Flags of the Northern Virginia Army (the Stars and Bars isn't the Confederate Flag, btw) flown in all regions of this country.

FWIW, Southern Democrats are the strongest in the country. You want to help us lift our states out of Republican control? Move down here and vote. Help us fund liberal talk radio (all we have on terrestrial radio is right wing talk shows). Support Southern Democrats.

Just stop putting us down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:43 PM

116. Yeah, that Alan Grayson is such a racist right-winger...

He must be, since he's from the South...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:38 PM

128. I said the South is a breeding ground for Right Wingers, not that all Southerners are RWers

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #128)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:41 PM

129. The United States is a breeding ground for right-wingers

It's not limited to just the South, you know. I don't see any reason to single out the South.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #129)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:16 PM

143. Yup. Just look at Hayden Lake, Idaho,

the home of Aryan Nations, which isn't anywhere near the South.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kellerfeller (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:53 AM

80. That was my first reaction too

As opposed to a legal secession?

My state voted 80 % to 20 % to secede. They sure thought it was legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kellerfeller (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:29 AM

82. They amend the U.S. Constitution to allow it, then do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eShirl (Reply #82)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:50 PM

145. Article 1 Section 10

 

Does not disallow it and then the 10th Amendment gives the states authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:22 AM

47. Because we are not currently at war with

the Confederate States of America.

If a former enemy standard applied then we couldn't fly a British flag either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:36 AM

79. But that's not the standard that was suggested in the post to which you replied.

The suggested standard was not a "former enemy standard." It was an illegal succession standard. Personally, I would apply an obviously fucking racist standard as a basis for not allowing the flag at a high school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:28 PM

112. The definition of treason is in the constitution

It requires a war... an official enemy to aid and comfort. Not an attitude or view... a for real enemy in a for real war.

I think what the poster wanted was "sedition"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #112)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:14 PM

119. good point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:45 PM

141. And if we had a legal succession from the British Empire,

what was the Revolutionary war about?

The British certainly didn't think it was legal when we left them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #141)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:11 PM

158. I think our succession was legal, but that is arguable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #158)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 06:38 PM

159. Britain didn't think so, hence the Revolutionary war. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #158)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:03 PM

160. I doubt it mattered even nowadays if it was legal or not

 

There is new states which didn't ask permission

Montenegro from Serbia

Estonia from Soviet Union are two examples

Of Course we have international law

Your an state when the international community recognises you as such and if the states Government is in control of the territory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:31 AM

84. It's a statement. "We lost, and still not over it after 150 years."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 09:15 PM

4. "History" yeah that's always the explanation racists

give for racist behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:51 PM

105. The History of Treason, is how I usually answer that claim.

For some reason, I've never received a cogent answer to that one, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 09:20 PM

5. I don't give a damn whether the ignorant asshole considers the flag racist or not.

It is racist, this bullshit about it being for heritage is just stupid. I was born and raised in Tennessee and I've made it perfectly clear I consider my "southern heritage", as the people around here call it to be disgraceful. The Confederate flag represents racism, hate, and bigotry. You don't hear of people in Germany flying the swastika in the name of history, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 09:31 PM

9. The Swastika (like all Nazi iconography) is specifically banned under German law

 

It's been that way since right after the war as a means of preventing the resurgence of the Nazi party. Same kind of thing in Iraq with the Ba'ath Party. It's banned by name in the Iraqi constitution.

Even the poster for the film 'Inglorious Basterds' had to have the swastika removed in order to be displayed in Germany.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:11 PM

27. Now they have a bunch of Swastika-like symbols that mean the same thing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:41 PM

115. I'm from Tennessee and still live here and I don't

call it "Southern heritage;" therefore, "the people" - at least not all of us - around you do not call it that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:04 PM

117. I know that not everyone does.

I was just venting my frustration. Some of my family's big into this stuff and it gets old really fast. My brother is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and I get so sick of hearing how great the South is and what a hero Lee was, and how awful Lincoln was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 09:30 PM

8. IMO it's as offensive as a swastika

It stands for 400 years of brutal skin-color-based exploitation that took away every human right, including especially the right to learn to read. Vestiges of slavery remain powerful today, including especially explosive racial disparities in wealth, incarceration, health, and unemployment.

It sickens me to hear that the Confederate Swastika still flies over the State Capitol in South Cariolina. With all the attention that state is getting this week, has ANY news report shown that abomination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:36 PM

17. The Confederate Flag was removed from "over the State Capital" years ago. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:46 PM

20. Wikipedia disagrees with you

The Confederate Swastika STILL flies on a 30-foot pole on the lawn in front of the State Capitol, next to a monument to fallen Confederate soldiers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:55 PM

22. It no longer flies over the State House dome.

I read your post as asserting otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:55 AM

66. It's been banned in cemeteries in Missouri.

I believe that happened around 2002 or somewhere in there. It was decided that it was racist and (a few lawmakers viewed it as)treasonous.

Interesting how some battleground states have banned it but others take pride in flying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:01 PM

10. Good. Serves that racist, traitor-loving fucker right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:14 PM

11. I suspect he will get his driving privileges reinstated

It wouldn't surprise me if the ACLU gets involved as they have in the past in similar cases. I salute the principal for trying to put a lid on racist bullshit, but ultimately I think this will cause more harm than good.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-05-09/news/0105090258_1_confederate-flag-shirts-supreme-court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:24 PM

15. Courts have ruled schools have the right to limit speech that is considered disruptive

It's not as clear cut as you are implying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:45 AM

50. If he's allowed to fly this, but that kid in Alaska can't fly 'Bong Hits for Jesus'

OFF of school grounds, something's really, really fucked up in America. But we already knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:32 AM

58. Would it really be disruptive at a nearly white high school?

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pstokely (Reply #58)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:52 AM

62. Yes it would

Believe it or not there are some white people who would be pretty pissed to see a Confederate flag on school grounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:14 AM

101. Perhaps not, but it sure seems that way

If the case can be made that a t-shirt is not disruptive, it's hard to make a case that a flag which is out in the parking lot is.

It's hard to imagine this ever making it to the court stage anyway. I don't think many school districts would be willing to spend money to defend a lawsuit that could easily go either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:18 PM

12. This is a test for DU and we are failing miserably.

As disgusting as this is, we should be adamently opposed to this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:35 PM

16. You are correct. Many DUer's support freedom of speech and expression only when

said speech or expression meshes with a particular view or opinion. Few seem to realize that freedom of speech and expression exists for those with whom we disagree, or it doesn't exist at all. One of the scariest of reoccurring phenomena on DU, imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:45 PM

40. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:43 AM

87. You then believe that freedom of speech applies

You then believe that freedom of speech legally applies without exception to all public school grounds?

("One of the scariest of reoccurring phenomena on DU, imho..." Along with a lack of knowledge re: law & jurisprudence too...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:37 PM

18. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:49 PM

21. Count me among the "failures".

Racism in all forms is despicable, including this one. Good for the school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:46 PM

132. Ditto n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:55 PM

23. Agree with you 100% -

- squashing freedom of expression and speech should never be acceptable. Its more understanding given that this is a school as emblems that can be considered disruptive can be prohibited, such as tee shirts promoting drug culture or violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:14 PM

28. +1

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:15 PM

30. Agreed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:16 PM

31. Schools don't allow students to have the word "fuck" written on their stuff at school,

is this really any different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:21 PM

34. So it's a "fuck flag" then? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:23 PM

35. I am comparing the Confiderate flag to the word "fuck."

Both are probably banned by the school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:31 PM

38. Yeah, I kinda figured that. Just stirring the pot. I'm quite literal in my interpretation of

The First Amendment.

Freedom of Speech is an absolute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #38)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:33 PM

39. Does that include death threats against politicians? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:46 PM

41. I do not think threats against ANYONE fall into the category of protected speech, no.

A flag is not a threat, nor is the word fuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:55 AM

88. I was just wondering how far you took

"I'm quite literal in my interpretation of The First Amendment.

Freedom of Speech is an absolute."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:43 AM

44. Not at school it's not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:12 AM

46. It's not absolute anywhere, but

as the supreme court famously said (I think in allowing students to wear anti-war symbols) students do not "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."

I agree that free expression is reduced in a school setting, but the burden is with the school to cross a high threshold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:08 AM

72. Outside the school doors outside of school hours?

That is the distinction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:30 AM

78. On school property

The school is not letting him drive and park at school. They can't take his driving privileges away - the ban is only for school property.

The headline is confusing. I probably shouldn't have copied it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #38)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:04 AM

152. It is a symbol of violent rebellion against the United States


It is illegal to advocate violent rebellion against the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:20 PM

33. Yup. Freedom of Speech is okay when it dovetails with MY worldview...

Otherwise? It's either racist, bigoted, uneducated, or otherwise offensive and should be banned.

Can anyone say Tebow?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:02 AM

45. ^ This

All Americans have the inalienable right to say dumb shit. Not just congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:46 AM

51. A hearty +1

That this is the minority opinion here speaks volumes about how much this site has changed, and not for the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:58 AM

67. Except for one thing:

this is at a school and it's deemed a disruption. It's allowed. It's no different then dress code rules, which are quite legal.

If he wanted to fly it off school grounds that's a whole different deal. He has that right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:02 AM

69. Personally, I appreciate it when racists self-identify ... makes it easier to shun them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:12 AM

75. You are 100% correct

I hate it when I see one, but it is a right that I will not infringe upon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:36 AM

85. I'm all for ignorant racist fucks letting everyone know who they really are.

Makes it easier for the rest of us to heap scorn and ridicule on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eShirl (Reply #85)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:03 AM

96. I agree. I prefer to know outright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:42 AM

86. I have to agree with you. As offensive as it is, it's a free speech issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:19 AM

91. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:43 AM

92. I agree

All kinds of people are disturbed by all kinds of symbols, words, opinions, etc.

To me that's more their problem than the disturbers.

It's freedom of speech. If you don't like a word, symbol, opinion, then don't look at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:16 PM

120. best response in this thread....

Yes, the flag is offensive. That's the point of "free speech," to protect an individual's right to say what they will, even when others are offended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #120)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:59 PM

139. I'm surprised you take this position.

I know you are a college prof.

Are you ok with one of your students calling, without school sanction, another student "faggot" in your class?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #139)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:40 AM

153. no, but while I'm also not "ok" with him making derogatory remarks more generally...

...about groups he looks down on, including saying offensive things about them, I acknowledge his right to say it. Two things-- first, my acceptance of anyone's right to free speech does not mean I endorse or agree with or even want to hear whatever it is they have to say. Second, my taking offense is no justification for suspending someone's rights. THAT'S my position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #153)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:40 PM

155. My "OK" inquiry was about the "without sanction" part of my question.

I assume your university has hate speech rules. Yes? Am I to assume you are not in agreement with those rules?

BTW, I would never think you, one of DU's best, IMO, would be "ok" on a personal level with any such statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #155)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:20 PM

157. that's a tougher question than it seems....

I mean, on the one hand, I accept that the university has an interest in limiting speech that infringes on other peoples' enjoyment of their time in school, as well as a legitimate desire to avoid association with hate speech-- but on the other hand, I also accept that everyone has the right to speak their mind, even when what emerges is odious. Further-- and I think this is IMPORTANT-- one primary function of the university is to serve as a sounding board for ideas, and a forum for discussion. My personal view is that the best way to smash bigotry is not to ban talking about it, but rather to shine a bright light on it.

It's telling that most instances of genuine hate speech that I can recall on my campus were anonymous, e.g. stuff chalked on the quad, or hateful notes posted on doors. In those instances, the persons doing the speaking were malicious, and sought to avoid discussion by refusing to take responsibility for their words or deeds. I cannot respect that, even if I accept their right to say what's on their mind.

Finally, it's one thing to call someone names, and quite another to suggest that the group they belong to is somehow bad, or whatever, for purposes of discourse. The latter is what we DO at universities. It's part of that process of shining light on ugliness. It's one of the things that academic freedom is meant to protect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:09 PM

142. DU is not a very liberal site anymore.

I accused a poster of being on the right a while ago, they answered my post by saying they were proud of the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:21 PM

13. I had distant cousins in the Wehrmacht

So to use Bubba's reasoning I should be able to fly a swastika from my truck, right?
It's all about "heritage" and that kind of shit, right?

Bullshit, it's Racism.

BTW, in most states, driving is a "privilege", not a "right". The thread title errs slightly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:07 PM

24. Pretty sure you can fly that swastika -

- providing it doesn't violate any local laws regarding obstruction of drivers view or similar nature. There's no law in the US restricting you from flying the Nazi or Confederate or any other flag from your personal vehicle or on your personal property that I'm aware of.

However, can't say I'd recommend anyone doing such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:49 AM

64. That's my point.

It should be as socially unacceptable to fly the stars-and-bars as it is to fly the swastika.

But then, as we saw from the GOP clown car demo derby in South Carolina, it would seem that "Southern Hermitage" does include racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:21 AM

81. How about the "Bonny Blue" flag. Or the Japanese flag

It hasn't changed since the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:44 AM

93. Yes you should be able to fly a swastika

wherever you want to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:42 PM

19. Good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:10 PM

25. I disagree with the school

I am not an ACLU liberal only when it suits me.

And yes, that flag is RACIST AS FUCK. That's what makes it controversial, and civil rights only apply to things that are controversial because things that are not controversial require no protection.

The school's argument is probably that the symbol creates racial tension and would threaten order. (Even incite violence.) And that's not an unreasonable line of argument.

And the parking lot is part of the school... but to say you can drive the car anywhere you want but then can't park it at school is, quite literally, "shedding their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door" (except not literally making it to the door) which is the guts of the supreme court decision that bears on this.

When the supreme court said that students could wear armbands to protest the Vietnam war that also created tension and incited violence (for real -- it was a passionate issue), but I supported it at the time and still do.

This case has some valid arguments on both sides, but the real bottom line is that if the state that controls what kind of car decorations you can drive on the roads with says this is okay for a car then this is just the nature of the student's car. He's a creepy RW kid and his car has a confederate flag on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:18 PM

32. Agreed. Popular speech needs no protection- it's popular.

It's unpopular speech that is most in need of protection.

I tend to side with Voltaire's general principle (if not a direct quote)- "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:25 PM

36. How do you feel about schools that don't allow the word "fuck" on school grounds?

How about the n-word? Isn't that the same thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:31 PM

37. Well...

Do you mean like when they take SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE and HUCK FINN out of school libraries for containing those two f and n words, respectively?

I've never been a fan of that.

So do we get to a standard where kids cannot say things that they read in the school library?

Just not a fan of word bans. There are some words I don't use myself, but that's my call to make.

I have, and will continue to call George Allen a flat fucking racist for the fact that his car in high scool had a confederate flag. There's no ambiguity there. But I would support his right even today to drive around Virginia in his confederate flag car, and to run for office. And would I then say he couldn't park at a school he was speaking at, as former governors sometimes do?

And why should George Allen have more first amendment rights than a student simply because he is outside the schools power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:57 AM

89. How about a shirt that says "fuck the police" on it.

I can understand the sentiment behind the shirt, but I would not be upset if my child's school forbade the shirt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #89)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:11 PM

108. The "fuck" thing is a red herring

I should have answered you straight on instead of going off on a tangent.

Whether or not I agree with banning a word, in practice the ban on "fuck" is considered content neutral. (I could make an argument that using a banned word is content in itself, but that's a distraction.)

A student couldn't have a shirt that said Fuck the Police or Fuck Obama or Fuck Romney or Fuck Homework.

In this case, a banner saying Fuck the USA and a banner saying Fuck the Confederacy would have the same standing. Both banned.

It is unlikely that there is any sanction for having an American flag on your car.

If your point is that students do not have full first amendment rights, that's granted. Of course they don't. But that does not mean that schools are allowed to discriminate based on content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:18 PM

121. "In this case, a banner saying Fuck the..."

In this case, a banner saying Fuck the USA and a banner saying Fuck the Confederacy would have the same standing. Both banned.


That is a pretty good argument. I wasn't thinking along those terms.

I was thinking the word "fuck" is offensive to many, and the Confederate flag is offensive to many, so banning them both was consistent. Banning one offensive symbol, "fuck," sets the precedent to ban other offensive symbols.

I agree with your argument, but I think my argument has merit as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #121)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:04 PM

124. Your argument has much practical merit

I would expect the school to win this case if it was in court, just not on the merits of the views implied by the confederate flag.

They have a lot of leeway to tamp down potential violence and to not have a hostile environment for minority students.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:49 AM

52. But a more current Supreme Court, a few years ago,

ruled against that kid flying a 'Bong Hits for Jesus' flag OFF of school grounds, after his school sanctioned him for it. I still don't get that opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TransitJohn (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:56 AM

54. Yes. That's why I added

in a later post down thread that I believe the school would presumably win this easily. (Unless I was on the court... but I ain't)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:35 AM

60. I think parking at school is considered a privilege

I think if they give drug tests to people who park at school, I think they can also ban the flag from his truck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pstokely (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:22 PM

110. the privilege thing is a red herring

Can the school ban Obama stickers from cars in the school parking lot?

Just because something is a privilege does not mean that it can be witheld for the excercise of a right that is not a privilege.

Driving in public is a privilege for all of us. We can withold drivers licenses from people who cannot see. We cannot withold them from people with Obama stickers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:10 PM

26. I don't agree with the school's decision (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:14 PM

29. Tough call for me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:52 PM

42. Well that's just ridiculous

If his school was 99.9% republican and they decided to kick him out for having an Obama sticker on his ride, how would we feel about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:03 AM

43. Arguments for the school's position on this:

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:20 AM - Edit history (1)

I've already said upthread that I disagree with the decision, but I also think the school would easily win any court case.

Their arguments would probably be

1) They have a responsibility to maintain order, and that responsibility is very high when you are in charge of people. (Students, prisoners, passengers, hospital patients...) The flag is reasonably likely to cause violence between students. See gang colors for precedents.

2) The flag is bullying black students. Note that few would question banning a car emblazoned with "Fags Must Die." There must be a ton of recent precedent on bullying bans.

There are others, but those are the two that seem legally strongest to me. (Something real obvious will probably occur to me later.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:27 AM

48. He lost parking at school rights.

The school didn't take away his ability to drive. They are not permitting him to operate or park the vehicle on their property.

He's welcome to promote whatever message he wants on his own time and his own land. Nobody else is obligated to provide him with a platform and a captive audience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:41 AM

49. A narrow point: The school doesn't own the parking lot

The local government owns the school. And the school parking lot. And the kid drives around the public streets with a condeferate flag without legal problems.

So property rights doesn't come into it.

I am not saying the school lacks the authority in one case, just drawing the point that the school is required some level of defference to student's civil rights while I do not have to defer one bit to the rights of someone who wants to fly his flag in my front yard.

On the other hand, there is nothing it is legal to wear in my front yard but not wear on the public sidewalk. (I said front yard because I cannot walk around nude in my front yard, though I might be able to in my back yard.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:53 AM

53. The school administers the parking lot. If he got in a fight in the parking lot, they'd punish him.

They probably use the lot for rallies and fire drills and who knows what else, and presumably keep those who don't have business at the school out. If it's like most public schools, it's not entirely open to the public, especially during school hours. Of course the conduct of students is subject to an unusual degree of regulation in order to facilitate a focused and safe environment for immature minds. We're talking, after all, about an environment where leaving a discussion to use the restroom requires written permission, which is a degree of conduct control few will encounter as adults without getting a free orange jumpsuit.

Like any number of other publicly-owned spaces, it's not a free-for-all for any and all public uses. I can't microwave a burrito in the middle of the public hospital's heart ward, he can't wave the stars and bars around someplace a diverse student body needs to feel safe to focus and learn. I'll live, so will he.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:56 PM

146. Schools have a right to limit student's free expression

As per the Supreme Court. I agree with this decision. Anything that is disruptive or which targets a students or a specific demographic of students, has no place on school grounds.

The Confederate Flag is hate speech, period. And I say that as a white Southerner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:14 AM

55. Odd

This story is missing some key stuff I would love to know. If it's just a ban on the flag on school grounds, I don't care. Flying that piece of trash is inherently disruptive to keeping order in the school, so banning it makes sense. You can argue the 1st amendment, but it has to be balanced against the purpose of the school, which is to educate in a controlled setting. It's kind of hard to do that when there's an uproar over Hillbilly, Jr. and his stupid flag.

I can't tell if he lost his license and if the school is somehow involved in the licensing process from this article. If he did lose his license, that's just ridiculous. Tell the kid to keep it off campus, discipline him if he disobeys, but that kind of penalty really would be an attack on speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:16 AM

56. The headline is terrible

The school "driving privelige" involved is just the right to drive to school and park there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:28 AM

57. That makes sense

If that's the entire deal, screw that kid. It's not a 1st amendment issue, but a question of running the school without having a riot over his idiot ass every other day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:34 AM

59. It is a first amendment issue

The only question is whether the school's interests outweigh the first amendment rights of the student.

They may well outweigh the studnt's rights, but students do have constitutional expressive rights at school. So it is a balancing test.

In practice the school would win if challenged. But the reason they would win is because the courts are RW dominated. Before the Scalia crowd got in the SCOTUS the student would have won this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:48 AM

61. Nope

Students do have 1st amendment rights, but the expression of those rights cannot interfere with the running of the school. That long predates Scalia and the rest. I say there's no first amendment issue because it's not implicated in a serious way. The kid is not allowed to fly the flag in one venue for the purpose of maintaining order in the school. I know I'm not technically correct in saying no first amendment issue, but it doesn't weigh heavily enough against the purpose of the school.

I don't view this as an ideological issue, but as a practical one. The kids in the 60s with the black armbands were silently expressing disapproval over a contentious issue of the day. Their stance carried emotional weight, but nothing on the order of the Stars and Bars. I see a clear distinction between that silent disapproval (ugh, I sound like Nixon with that phrase) and the overt message of discord signified by that damn flag. Hope that makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:05 AM

70. It makes sense, but it doesn't really hold up to analysis

His having a flag on his car in a school parking lot is no more or less "silent" than the wearing of an armband. Both are overt acts. Moreover, since the flag on the car isn't a constant presence within the classroom setting, one could argue that its less disruptive. As for the distinguishing the two based on the content of the speech -- well that's exactly what makes it a First Amendment issue. The state (as represented by the public school system) shouldn't be making distinctions based on content.

I should add that if a challenge to the school's action found its way to the Supreme Court, I'm fairly certain that the Court would side with the school, just as they did in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case. But like a lot of folks, I think that 5-4 decision was wrong and over the course of time a less reactionary court will restore a greater level of free speech rights to students. As it stands now, the Tinker case (Vietnam armband) almost certainly would have come out differently under this particular court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #70)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:25 PM

111. Thank you.

You covered my point well. The current courts, in the context of a genration of RW precedent, would not have found for the students in Tinker if that was a new case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #70)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:59 PM

123. I despise your analysis

The idea that content can't be subject to restriction is simply ridiculous. Yes, yes, I know it's commonly understood as the law, but it's the logical extension of a dumb idea that the 1st amendment prevents content restrictions except in certain limited cases. I find it repulsive because it ends up lumping legitimate speech alongside moronic speech and treating them both equally. Under modern theories, I highly doubt the doctrine of fighting words ever would have evolved because precious "speech" has to be protected even when it's clear it's nothing but incendiary grandstanding.

My distinction was based on content, in that one symbol had a history of violence and hate behind and the other did not. I think it's absurd to ignore the real world in the quest for some mystical formula of balancing rights. Quite simply, there is a clear distinction, based on their history, between those armbands and the flag. The armbands, as they were used, were a silent protest. That flag is not the symbol of silent protest. To borrow from Holmes, "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." It would be much simpler to acknowledge the simple distinctions rather than build castles in the air based on some notion of speech in the abstract.

I have no real problem with the state making the distinction based on content, in this context only, because high schools really aren't a forum for public speech. Even if one leaves their function aside, on a practical level, how many really provide an outlet for people to make their views heard? I think you have to separate the abstract, lawschool classroom view of the 1st from the reality on the ground. Rights in the abstract are great and all, but they don't mean anything in the abstract, either.

This might be a bit confused as it's kind of an off-the-cuff response to 1st amendment decisions. Hmm, I didn't realize I was quite so annoyed with the trend of the court, well except the neverending damn balancing tests, but there you go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #123)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:08 PM

125. The First Amendment intends to

lump smart speech (what you call "legitimate" speech) alongside moronic speech. It is a feature, not a bug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #125)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:20 PM

126. Heh

No, a succession of federal courts have intended to do that. I haven't seen evidence either way from the genesis of the amendment.

My concern is not smart speech vs. moronic speech (bad contrast really), but legitimate speech and inherently disruptive speech. Inherently disruptive speech is extremely limited. It essentially consists of actions/words/symbols/whatever being used for the purpose or effect of disruption. I'm not even sure it would apply to adults, to be honest. With adults, I can accept just about anything. In a school setting, I think the over-emphasis on "rights" is counter-productive to the function of the school. Yeah, don't take that last sentence as a new argument, it's just a bit of frustration from imagining the little bastard with the flag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:31 PM

127. I think the school would prevail

But the fact the school would prevail would, or should, have nothing to do with the merits of the confederate flag.

If a school has a gang problem they ban gang insignia which may be as neutral as one collor of bandana tied to a belt, versus another color.

The school would say, "kids wearing this leads to fights and we have a legitmate interest in reducing fights."

That interest outweighs the legitimate first amendment rights of the students, it doesn't nullify them.

And it would not be based on whether the Crips and Bloods are good or bad.

Just a practical decision to reduce violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #127)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:47 AM

150. Paralleling me

I guess I did a poor job explaining because what you wrote is pretty similar to what I'm thinking. Given the incendiary history of that flag, it's entirely reasonable and right to ban it on school grounds. You're couching it in less direct language, but we are reaching the same result. I would prefer the more honest and direct approach, even if it offends, because it keeps the analysis grounded in reality.

I never said nullify the 1st amendment. I simply find it to be of minimal to moderate weight in a school setting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #123)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:48 PM

133. The great thing about the First Amendment is that you are free to despise my analysis

without fear that the state could punish you for doing so (just as they can't punish me for my analysis).

I tend to agree with the view expressed by Justice Douglas over 60 years ago (not a recent trend): "the function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.

Or, as Justice Brennan wrote a couple of decades later: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

My disagreement with your position is that I don't think a distinction can be drawn between the threat of disruption in Tinker and the threat of disruption posed by a student having a confederate flag on their car in a school parking lot. In many places in the US during the Vietnam War, any expression of opposition to the war (or solidarity with those objecting to the war) was regarded as tantamount to the expression of a treasonous view. But even within the school setting, I would argue that we should not allow the heckler's veto to override one's right of expression.

Again, the great thing is that we can disagree about this, even to the point where we would get so disruptive in our behavior that the mods shut down our discussion, but the state could not take action against either of us.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #133)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:00 AM

151. I can agree...for adults

Well, I don't need the 1st amendment to despise your analysis. I only need my own mind for that. If I want to express what I think, then the 1st is handy. Ok, enough of being argumentative just to be argumentative.

I agree with you for adults. Children aren't adults. If I've been unclear in my posts about my dislike of applying adult-oriented 1st amendment analysis to a school setting, that's my fault. Given the lesser value/weight/you pick the word of the 1st amendment in a school setting, it's not unreasonable to examine the content and conduct of the speech at issue. Is a black armband with nothing more directly said, though I'm sure questions could be and were asked, incendiary in its own right or is there something more to be considered? What about the Confederate flag? Outside of re-enactors and historical displays, how often is that flag flown for an innocuous purpose? Are the kids wearing the armbands intending disruption or acting recklessly? I would prefer to see these questions asked by a judge because I find them to be less sterile and more rooted in Brennan's opinion that a court always had to be cognizant of the outcome. Cases aren't decided in a vacuum and abstract classroom analysis just promotes the fantasy that they are.

I realize I've kind of moved the goalposts some, but it's really not intentional. I said that this was kind of off the cuff in an earlier post, so forgive me for refining as I go.

I went back and looked at Tinker and realized that I really agreed with Hugo Black's reasoning, even though I don't agree with his disposition of the case. That's kind of funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:59 AM

63. I think this is a free speech issue. He should be allowed

to be the biggest asshole in the universe if he wants to.

and, besides...It makes them easier to identify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:53 AM

65. Shouldn't it be an act of treason?

After all, that flag was flown by a "nation" that was formed as an act of treason.

I don't understand why this isn't pointed out more.

Oh, and just look at the town. I believe this says so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xmas74 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:00 AM

68. Not under the Constitution of the United States

Maybe somewhere else where people don't have the freedom of speech we have here. (Sadly, that is a nation that a number of DUers apparently would prefer).

I recommend you pull out your copy of the Constitution and read the clause relating to "treason."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:33 PM

135. I live in the same state where this case happened

(and where there is a fight on a regular basis about flying the Confederate flag). There are plenty in this area who believe that the only "real" flag is the Confederate flag and who will gladly raise that above our own flag. To this day I still hear stories about "Northern aggression" and "how dare the government get in their business", yet if I make one comment about how things are done in other countries, I'm a "treasonous bitch" who "needs to be deported".

I didn't say I wanted it counted as treason but I did say that maybe we should give some a taste of their own medicine. Referring to everyone who doesn't agree with their good-old-boy attitude as treasonous bastards has become tiring. Maybe it's time to fight them with comments that hit closer to home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xmas74 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:07 AM

71. Isn't this the same town where the homeschool family got the book banned?

Just a few months ago. Pretty sure that was Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:13 PM

109. Yes

I don't think it was a homeschool family, though I could be wrong. It was just some guy, not even sure if he lives in the DISTRICT, got the books banned because they went against the teachings of the Bible. They banned Slaughterhouse Five and Twenty Boy Summer. There have been some other rather nasty stories coming out the Republic school system, which is quite near where I live. I am tired of cringing everytime something ugly comes out of Republic, MO. Here is the Guardian's version of that story. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jul/29/slaughterhouse-five-banned-us-school

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Genealogist (Reply #109)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 02:24 PM

118. Yes he's a homeschooler

He was interviewed on TV with his wife. They objected for biblical reasons even though their homeschooled children didn't have to read these books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:29 PM

134. The Vonnegut books?

Yep, that's the town.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xmas74 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:05 AM

97. Personally I think calling Confederates traitors is unfair

Just to put a human face on it, the President of the CSA was Jefferson Davis. He was indicted for treason.

He got a high powered group of northern lawyers to defend him and he demanded his public and speedy trial.

His defence was a simple one. Secession was Constitutional, and was Constitutionally done.

Therefore the north's invasion was an illegal invasion of a foreign country, so would the northern army kindly go home so he could get to work rebuilding his unhappy nation.

The federal government delayed his trial. Then it delayed it again. And again.

The problem was the issue was not at all settled law. During the debates before the vote to ratify the Constitution, one of the arguments used to ratify it was that if a state didn't like it, it could always leave. The Constitution nowhere says you can't secede and the Tenth Amendment (which was part of the Constitution back then) says a state has a power unless given to the federal government specifically in the Constitution.

So there was a real possibility that the Supreme Court could rule secession was legal.

What then?

Better to never hold the trial.

Eventually Davis was bailed out of jail and spent the rest of his life demanding his trial which he never got.

So, let's say you were indicted for child molestation. You are devastated and can only say you are absolutely innocent and will prove your innocence and gain your good name back when you're found innocent at the trial. What if the governemnt refuses to ever start your trial? What if they just leave you induicted for the rest of your life? What if the prosecutor refers to you as the child molestor anyway?

How would you feel if 10 years later, a newspaper still refers to you as the child molestor?

Yet here we are calling Davis a traitor over 100 years later. It's wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #97)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:00 PM

106. That's history for you,

it's complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #97)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:46 PM

131. The Supreme Court ruled secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

And yes, Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and the rest of the Confederates were traitors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #131)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:53 PM

137. That was after the fact

After the war ended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #97)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 05:48 PM

136. I'm not calling Jefferson Davis a traitor,

nor am I calling most Southerners traitors.

Who am I calling traitors? The same yahoos who I hear all the time whine about the good old days that they never lived, while showing off their Confederate flag tattoos, claiming that the South (which a few in my neck of the woods treat as if it's a different country) will rise again and take over all the workings, all while putting me in my place because I actually read a "traitorous, liberal paper", or some other crap like that.

There is a time and a place. 150 years later and we have some who would prefer to return us to that time and place. I live in the state where this news story is from. (For those who have forgotten, this is the same town just a few months ago that made national news for banning books in its library.)

There are people (a small, but vocal, group) who make comments to this day about secession. Back in 2002/2003 (right around there, story sticks out but not exact year) Governor Bob Holden banned the flying of Confederate flags in Missouri state cemeteries and stated that they are not to be flown on public grounds of any taxpayer institutions because of the sensitive nature of what they might represent. Groups of people shortly thereafter lost their shit and threatened to actually hang the governor. The threats also were made towards any state workers because "if you worked for the state you supported it". The issue still gets debated regularly around here and it's never pretty.

People seem to forget that Missouri was a border state. Things were split here and they got nasty. Outside of the state that's forgotten but in the state it's still all-to-apparent. Chances are this issue had been addressed before at the school. (20 years ago when I was in high school we were informed at a yearly assembly that Confederate flags were one of the many things not allowed on school grounds because it wasn't conductive to studying.) This kid knew what he was doing. He was inciting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xmas74 (Reply #136)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 06:56 PM

138. Just a note of interest

I got my Master's at New Mexico State University.

The Yearbook was called the Swastika.

Had been since 1912 or something. Zuni Indian sign for the sun.

It was changed in the early 1980's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #138)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:13 PM

140. That's interesting.

I'm sure there are other examples of that happening but you don't hear about them that often.

My high school grounds were a German POW camp during WWII. We were not allowed any type of Nazi symbolism since most felt that it would be "in poor taste."

I'm on the phone with a high school friend right now and we're talking about this. He said the same thing-we were told every year that we could not display any type of "hateful symbols" at the beginning of the school year and we were given a list. He said that he knows it's not the only high school in Missouri that made that speech to everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yupster (Reply #97)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:03 PM

147. I'm calling Davis a traitor, and Lee

And all the other generals and cabinet members. At the very least, Davis, his V and Cabinet, and Lee and all the General Staff should have served very long prison terms. I'm a Southerner, and they were traitors.

Yet Mary Surratt and Henry Wirz were hanged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #147)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:15 AM

149. Geeze - that's pretty tough

The Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens led the anti-secession forces at the Georgia secession convention.

But even the guys who thought they shouldn't secede still believed states had the right to do so.

So once Georgia seceeded, the Confederate Constitutional Convention thought Stephens would be a good moderating influence on the new country and could be a good man to negotiate a peaceful divorce from the union.

That's tough calling him a traitor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:10 AM

73. For fun ... ask a person who flies the Confederate Flag if its ok to BURN the US Flag ...

These folks are often see them selves as they greatest lovers of America ever. They see themselves as the most patriotic people in the country.

So in almost all cases, the folks who fly the Confederate Flag are also against flag burning. They think it is unpatriotic.

And so it is fun to point out how in one breath, the will defend the US Flag vehemently from burning, and yet they will honor and publically display the flag that was raised in war against that US flag.

Dopes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:12 AM

74. Confederates: YOU LOST! GET OVER IT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:16 AM

76. I wonder if the article should say "parking privilages", not "driving privilapges".

If its like the high school my son attended, you have to have "parking privileges" to park on their lot, and you are assigned a specific parking sopt.

And those parking privileges can be revoked for any number of reasons ... driving too fast in the lot, not following the correct path through the lot, smoking, bad grades, leaving the school campus without permission ... so on.

I suspect the kid can still drive ... he just can't park on the school parking lot.

If he had a brain, he drive to school with the racist identification flag flying, and then take it down when he reached school. Then he could put it back up when he left the school lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 08:18 AM

77. That was the first thing that hit me reading the headline

Why would the state suspend his DL over it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:00 AM

94. Another lost opportunity for a teaching moment.

The Stars and Stripes flew over and protected the institution of chattel slavery much longer than the Stars and Bars.

They should ban all flags and eliminate the notion of nations.

Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Midway Rebel (Reply #94)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:08 AM

98. The day Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated

there were seven slave states in the Confederacy and eight in the USA. And Lincoln was promising to anyone who would listen that he wouldn't mess with slavery where it existed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:44 AM

103. Why can't we all agree to use pirate flags?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:07 PM

107. Ah, heritage and a way of life

I didn't post it first, and I've forgotten who at DU did, but the best response I've seen is "Well, my great-great-great-granddaddy was in the 133rd Indiana Regiment (or whatever), and it's my family heritage and way of life to fire on any rebel sumbitch flying that traitorous flag."

As long as we're honoring everybody's personal family history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:22 PM

122. Well, if the police did that in Georgia,

there would be a lot of drivers off the road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 04:41 PM

130. And that noose hanging from his rear view mirror?

Why that's nothing more than an example of his knot-tying skills from the Boy Scouts. "It don't mean nuthin'."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 09:18 PM

144. I don't have a problem with people waving their Confederate flags

It lets me know who I should avoid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 10:03 PM

148. What I find most offensive is that apparently the school ...

... hasn't taught this young man enough history about the Civil War and the "way of life" that was being fought for, for him to be repulsed by the idea of flying the flag in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:34 AM

154. if you fly the confederate flag your a racist moron

all this talk about southern pride is bullshit.. in this day and age the confederate flag stands for racism. and to fly it is a way of advertising to the world that your a racist redneck moron

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:15 PM

156. In Missouri that action could cause one hell of a fight. I suspect the roots that lead back to the

civil war era and the hatred that erupted back then are still around. When I was doing family tree research there one of the things you found out was who was on which side of the issue. It was bloody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread