American flag shirts banned at school on Cinco de Mayo

kaylaluv

ketsuko
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

You haven't addressed the question of the Hispanic students who were wearing American flags. What about them? Are they self-loathing for wanting to wear American flags?

I didn't see any reference to Hispanic students wearing the American flags, but if they are half-Hispanics, then I guess they are ashamed of the Hispanic part of their heritage. That would be too bad, because there is nothing to be ashamed of.

One of the students was Hispanic and one was part Hispanic. They decided to celebrate by wearing the American flags. It has nothing to do with being ashamed of being Hispanic and everything to do with being proud of being Hispanic and American.

What part of being Hispanic means you have to traipse around with the Mexican flag on Cinco de Mayo if you live in the US? There are plenty of Americans who sneer at the thought of wearing the American flag on the 4th because they consider it jingoistic.

And sadly, you answered my question ... You do consider them self-loathing. How sad.

When you look at the history that is the root of celebrating Cinco de Mayo, it could even be considered pratriotic to wear the Mexican flag on that day for Americans.

Had Mexico not been able to stop the French incursion and takeover of Mexico, like another poster pointed out, they would have had the power and resources to disrupt the Union blockade of the Confederacy and ship in the support they promised the Confederacy in their war against the Union.

And half of us would be considering the Stars and Bars t-shirts instead of the Stars and Stripes....or even worse, had they become more adventurous (after all, the French don't have a lot of wins in their history, that may have emboldened them) we might be singing the French national anthem on this day of celebration.

I think this is more an indictment of history education than any violation of Constitutional rights. We owe Mexico for their stand against the French whether you believe it or not. Pick another day to war against illegal immigration, but on this day, we should be thankful that the illegal immigrants weren't a French invasion force bent on splitting our union.

(if you are still sore about the loss of the Confederacy, that is a different story entirely! Considering the current state of the Union, I might be more agreeable).

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by doompornjunkie

 

Intent is irrelevant when referring to Constitutional Rights.

Intent is everything. Please, take some time to better understand the United States Constitution. An approach like that is how a living document and guide to our nation can become a tool for absolute tyranny. If read, 100% literal to every line and clause? The Constitution of 1776 wouldn't be a document we COULD live under today. It adapts, it is interpreted and we have a 3rd branch of Government specifically created for nothing but that purpose, as it's chief duty. It's headed by the Supreme Court that specifically carries out that duty.

In one example that GREATLY restricts the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, you cannot yell anything you'd like. You will go to jail if you do so, wrongly believing intent doesn't matter. Specifically....If you yell FIRE!! at the local Conservation range? Expect to hear gunshots downrange to paper, fun had by all and a good day all around. If, on the other hand, you yell FIRE!! in a dark movie theater or crowded amusement venue, you have committed a serious crime and will be held to account for the chaos and panic which may well follow.

You have, physically, done precisely the same thing. Your vocal chords formed precisely the same sounds at precisely the same volume and for precisely the same reason. To vocalize the word fire for as many people as possible to hear. Only one thing changed between the start of a fun day and the start of your time in the county jail.

Intent.

Intent is all that changed..and intent means EVERYTHING. It always has, does and is what defines context. That little something that makes life what it is, or isn't.

edit on 1-3-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Start dissecting and analyzing the constitution to suit your needs and pretty soon there won't be anything left. The thing was intentionally made to be vague and all encompassing so that it COULD SURVIVE AS IT IS WRITTEN throughout the decades. You can't argue that 'according to how I read it' it should say (blank). Its pretty damn plain simple clear english.

Intent never has been successfully argued as party of the 1st amendment. (cz its not part of it, sorry)

reply to post by lakesidepark


Personally, I think both flags are perfectly valid to wear on that day.

What people seem to be missing is that it was the School district FEARING tension that banded it.

It was pre-preemptive,

This was in Ca, San Jose is Super liberal.

Quick to blame the Hispanic students I see, nice to see the divide and conquer strategy at play, and in full force over at fox.

Lets place blame where blame is due.

The liberal Progressive administrators pushing their "tolerance" agenda, and not the people they do it in the name of.


As a HISPANIC american, I take nothing but pride in what this nation is supposed to stand for and view myself as an American that happens to be Hispanic.

ETA: the Pre-preemptive was on purpose, Ca is quick to ban anything that might even cause upset feelings, that lead to some kind of danger.

It seems to be the MO of the state, I can sight several examples of ca Pre-banning things just incase.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by doompornjunkie

 

Intent is irrelevant when referring to Constitutional Rights.

Intent is everything. Please, take some time to better understand the United States Constitution. An approach like that is how a living document and guide to our nation can become a tool for absolute tyranny. If read, 100% literal to every line and clause? The Constitution of 1776 wouldn't be a document we COULD live under today. It adapts, it is interpreted and we have a 3rd branch of Government specifically created for nothing but that purpose, as it's chief duty. It's headed by the Surpreme Court that specifically carries out that duty.

In one example that GREATLY restricts the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, you cannot yell anything you'd like. You will go to jail if you do so, wrongly believing intent doesn't matter. Specifically....If you yell FIRE!! at the local Conservation range? Expect to hear gunshots downrange to paper, fun had by all and a good day all around. If, on the other hand, you yell FIRE!! in a dark movie theater or crowded amusement venue, you have comitted a serious crime and will be held to account for the chaos and panic which may well follow.

You have, physically, done precisely the same thing. Your vocal chords formed precisely the same sounds at precisely the same volume and for precisely the same reason. To vocalize the word fire for as many people as possible to hear. Only one thing changed between the start of a fun day and the start of your time in the county jail.

Intent.

Intent is all that changed..and intent means EVERYTHING. It always has, does and is what defines context. That little something that makes life what it is, or isn't.

edit on 1-3-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

You're example is flawed. It is not an example of intent but of "cause and effect". That person is clearly triggering a crowds fight or flight instincts to cause chaos and panic. Just as a person calling on a crowd to conduct violence would be guilty of inciting a riot. He seeks to be the cause of the effect of violence on a large scale.

A person wearing an American flag T-shirt is a case of intent. The mexican students would have to interpret this action as a call to violence in order to react violently. They have to infer his intent which they could be completely wrong about. So they are at fault and would be unjustified in attempting to limit his freedom of speech. (edit) Now if his T-shirt read: 'Kill all Mexicans' then it go from a case of intent to one of 'cause and effect'.

I wrote the Principal and went off on him. Here is his email address if you want to do the same:

[email protected]

doompornjunkie
I did give you a reference, I told you to read the Constitution. The feds say 21 to buy a gun, my state says 18 to own one, some states are pushing for the age to carry to be 18! The Constitution grants the right to own and bare arms. Whats your point exactly...?

edit on 1-3-2014 by doompornjunkie because: (no reason given)

18? 21? Seem you agree that these rights are ROUTINELY limited to ADULTS. And those have not been struck down as unconstitutional limits? Can a 5-year old get a permit to carry a gun? No. And I doubt seriously a constitutional argument pushed to ANY court has a chance in hell of reversing that.

Constitutional rights are limited by age. In this case, the constitutional rights of the children to free speech have been over-ruled by the responsibility of the school system for a safe learning environment, and children have no rights to refute that. A fact you have already proven with the general Constitutional statemen of another right (one I give as an example) and the specific limits to it upheld by law (which you so kindly presented as proof of my point), so I need no reference, thank you for that. Now...try again.

And how old are you? Reading the Constitution and UNDERSTANDING the application of the rights in this country do require some wisdom and education. And arguing it on a message board requires logic and reason. All of these are attributes acquired thru the process of growing up.

So, no, I do not expect you to get the point - YET. Maybe in a few years as you mature. We can only hope for the sake of our country.

reply to post by lakesidepark


Actually no, legally constitutionality can be waived for something called the Public good.

It is under this legal precedent that students get rights violated, NOT BY AGE.

The need for administrators to maintain order in schools has been deemed MORE important due to safety, than some rights of the student.

This can happen to adults and has nothing to do with age, Things like extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation go down under similar legal doctrines. Thats on the extreme end, on the more common end a cop hears a sound in a house, he can search as getting a warrant might endanger the person who made the sound.

So Yes Constitutional rights can be suspended under some legal doctrines, just not really by age, every citizen maintains their rights unless one of these special criteria applies.

ETA:

Just as Voting and Arms, its deemed for the public welfare to wait to an age of majority where the person can reasonably be a responsible citizens.

I know its a technicality but it always behooves oneself to have a complete understanding of our rights.

reply to post by SonsOfTheMeek


My reply was precisely to what you said, and not pulling every side issue imaginable into it for cloudy relativism. You stated:

Intent is irrelevant when referring to Constitutional Rights. I have the right to free speech with the intent of defaming or discrediting anything I wish as long as it is not slander. Intent only matters in the emotional argument, not the real argument. Personally I hope it does go to higher courts. Not that I have faith in them, but would like to get a nice big clear picture of the true state of our union for all to see.

Your first statement there is absolutely, 100% and beyond question, false. Period. Full stop. Everything beyond that is interpretation, and for where intent isn't necessarily 'absolute' for context and circumstance. (That's the meat of the matter which courts define)

However, in the point of intent holding importance to how a Court decides an issue relating to it's open standing against a Constitutional principle? Intent isn't just a factor, it's often among the core factors if not the heart of a legal case. The Constitution is a legal document, and thus, all about legal principle and how this all works. Intent...is everything.

In that way? We have the most basic of questions. Should the United States Flag be used as an object of division, hate, protest and intellectual weapon....or should it symbolize unity, cooperation and the melding of cultures? It's a big question, and larger than this topic. However, these kids chose it as a symbol of division, given the topic, context and day. That would even have worked. They chose a place it wouldn't, though.

Unfortunately for them, they did it in a place where Constitutional rights have been found to require balance taken with the purpose of the setting for undistracted education and concentration. Given that, their intent was entirely incompatible with their purpose and the setting. Outside the school? Well...I said this in my first post, but they may get confrontation far less legalistic than a school official ...and it wouldn't be a regulatory or legal issue there for the conflict of purpose.

It kinda (well..no kinda about it) gets complex for all this, and why it took no less than the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, no doubt.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yelling fire in a theater is an example of getting your First blocked for public welfare.

BECAUSE of intent, it is an intent to cause a stampede and hurt people.

Incitement laws are another example where intent matters a great deal.

ETA:

I was trying to find the court case, but Flag burning being allowed is a perfect example though of the flag being allowed to be used in such a way.

lakesidepark

doompornjunkie
I did give you a reference, I told you to read the Constitution. The feds say 21 to buy a gun, my state says 18 to own one, some states are pushing for the age to carry to be 18! The Constitution grants the right to own and bare arms. Whats your point exactly...?

edit on 1-3-2014 by doompornjunkie because: (no reason given)

18? 21? Seem you agree that these rights are ROUTINELY limited to ADULTS. And those have not been struck down as unconstitutional limits? Can a 5-year old get a permit to carry a gun? No. And I doubt seriously a constitutional argument pushed to ANY court has a chance in hell of reversing that.

Constitutional rights are limited by age. A fact you have already proven, so I need no reference, thank you for that. Now...try again.

hahaha no the Constitution still has no age limits. I had my first gun when I was 4, I just bought my niece her first gun (she is 4) my FFL had no problems doing this knowing the gun was for her. I was just simply stating that other entities are the ones that TRY to make age restrictions. As of yet, there are still no specific limits on free speech or protest. Go back to Russia or something.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SonsOfTheMeek

 

My reply was precisely to what you said, and not pulling every side issue imaginable into it for cloudy relativism. You stated:

Intent is irrelevant when referring to Constitutional Rights. I have the right to free speech with the intent of defaming or discrediting anything I wish as long as it is not slander. Intent only matters in the emotional argument, not the real argument. Personally I hope it does go to higher courts. Not that I have faith in them, but would like to get a nice big clear picture of the true state of our union for all to see.

Your first statement there is absolutely, 100% and beyond question, false. Period. Full stop. Everything beyond that is interpretation, and for where intent isn't necessarily 'absolute' for context and circumstance. (That's the meat of the matter which courts define)

However, in the point of intent holding importance to how a Court decides an issue relating to it's open standing against a Constitutional principle? Intent isn't just a factor, it's often among the core factors if not the heart of a legal case. The Constitution is a legal document, and thus, all about legal principle and how this all works. Intent...is everything.

In that way? We have the most basic of questions. Should the United States Flag be used as an object of division, hate, protest and intellectual weapon....or should it symbolize unity, cooperation and the melding of cultures? It's a big question, and larger than this topic. However, these kids chose it as a symbol of division, given the topic, context and day. That would even have worked. They chose a place it wouldn't, though.

Unfortunately for them, they did it in a place where Constitutional rights have been found to require balance taken with the purpose of the setting for undistracted education and concentration. Given that, their intent was entirely incompatible with their purpose and the setting. Outside the school? Well...I said this in my first post, but they may get confrontation far less legalistic than a school official ...and it wouldn't be a regulatory or legal issue there for the conflict of purpose.

It kinda (well..no kinda about it) gets complex for all this, and why it took no less than the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, no doubt.

Well Glenn Beck says # everyday with the intent of showing people the true powers and politics at hand. This is no doubt harmful to their agenda. Should he be shut up? What about those obnoxious girls from the View? I freaking hate just about everything they say! Yet I recognize their right to say what they want and I brush it off. Lets start limiting free speech based on its intent... sounds like big brother.

Were the kids at the school trying to cause division? I still haven't been able to specifically confirm that fact either..

ketsuko


One of the students was Hispanic and one was part Hispanic. They decided to celebrate by wearing the American flags. It has nothing to do with being ashamed of being Hispanic and everything to do with being proud of being Hispanic and American.

What part of being Hispanic means you have to traipse around with the Mexican flag on Cinco de Mayo if you live in the US? There are plenty of Americans who sneer at the thought of wearing the American flag on the 4th because they consider it jingoistic.

And sadly, you answered my question ... You do consider them self-loathing. How sad.

edit on 1-3-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

I'm Hispanic, my family has been in Ca since the catholic missionaries on my fathers side, on my mothers Texas when it was still mexico. I grew up in So Ca, among Hispanics, I had friends in school who where illegal, I've seen both sides of the fence so to speak.

And I have to say, I never really saw this "anti-american" Sentiment that the media likes to sell, YES I've seen idiots waving La Rasa BS, but the majority where Vocal Patriots of AMERICA not Mexico. I can't count the number of friends growing up who went on to become active duty soldiers .

That included the illegals, So it really doesn't surprise me that they underplay the fact that it was some HISPANIC students who had to turn in their shirts as well.

They sell Division first and foremost, and that alone should wake people up to the charade of it all, the only people you try to divide are your enemies.

If the mexican students resorted to violence because they didnt like the sight of the flag of the country they are currently in, then they need to leave, either voluntarily or by force.

Hispanics see race first and foremost, thats why the vote for anyone who promises to let more of their fellow hispanics in through our southern border.

They are detrimental to the future of the United States ,and need to be treated like the threat that they are.

reply to post by benrl


We have all been following this coverage or read more than just the one OP article to have the larger picture here, right? It's not that the OP link is by any means bias for this, and I don't mean that. There is more to this story though and I think I've been assuming for the degree of coverage it's been getting on the Court decision (precedent case in some ways), we'd all seen more.

Live Oak officials ordered the students to either cover up the U.S. flag shirts or go home, citing a history of threats and campus strife between Latino and Anglo students that raised fears of violence on the day the school was highlighting Cinco de Mayo. The school's actions were reasonable given the safety concerns, which outweighed the students' First Amendment claims, the court concluded.

"Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence," 9th Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the panel. "(The past events) made it reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real."

Source: San Jose Mercury News

Now it's easy to get hung up, as I have been too, on the overall right or wrong of this in the 'public square'. That's a fair debate too..and related, but not cause/effect here. FOX has such a bad rep (Op Source) that people don't believe them when they say the sky is blue these days. The above is back linked to the local newspaper of the town this happened in (Although calling San Jose a 'town' is relative I guess...).

The issue is very much about where, and well beyond what..they were doing. History of problems existed. Threats and conflict had, in fact, happened in the past. They intended to walk into that and play with it, at best for motives by how it reads for history.

reply to post by doompornjunkie

Well Glenn Beck says # everyday with the intent of showing people the true powers and politics at hand. This is no doubt harmful to their agenda.

Glenn Beck is a loudmouth and a buffoon. He's a master of Newstainment and as he used to honestly put it himself, the "fusion" of News and Entertainment. Did he wear flag shirts into this high school and was he the defendant on this case?

He's exercising his God given right to be a fool, regularly, in my humble opinion. These kids have that right too...when it isn't inciting situations inside controlled school grounds known for a history of trouble.

doompornjunkie


Well Glenn Beck says # everyday with the intent of showing people the true powers and politics at hand. This is no doubt harmful to their agenda. Should he be shut up? What about those obnoxious girls from the View? I freaking hate just about everything they say! Yet I recognize their right to say what they want and I brush it off. Lets start limiting free speech based on its intent... sounds like big brother.

Agreed. And further; Someone once said that offensive speech is the only speech that needs to be protected by the !st Amendment. No one is going to try to silence you for inoffensive speech. I doubt you'll get the 'powers that be' on your case for saying, "Child porn is wrong."

If I start protesting police brutality, odds are the cops will be offended. I might get, "You got something against cops?" or "What about all the good we do?" or "What? You think we can't handle our own internal matters?" They may even say I'm degrading the public's trust in the police force. Does that mean they have the right to silence me?

The more offensive speech is the more important it is to protect it under the First Amendment, just don't try to incite violence or cause a dangerous situation.

kaylaluv

eNumbra

kaylaluv
reply to post by eNumbra

 

Yes, you're right. The students wearing flag shirts were being very racist.

Oh, look at how clever you are.


Here is a list of other holidays everyone should remember not to wear an American flag shirt on.

Shows how clever you are. Cinco de Mayo isn't a national independence day for Mexico.

Your right, it isn't, it's even less significant; and yet we celebrate it anyway.

It's sad that we're so busy not offending people in the name of tolerance that we are forgetting to teach that we should tolerate the country that made all this wonderful tolerance possible in the first place.