General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Missouri student loses driving rights for flying Confederate flag [View all]onenote
(42,562 posts)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.