It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Teen Banned From Prom For Wearing Confederate Dress Sues School District

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   


What the hell are you going to do about it eh? Did I offend you and your 'southern sensibilities'? Well why don't you cry about it then.


Yes, you did and I don't often cry, but if I had the opportunity I'd provide you with a complimentary attitude adjustment.

You make me sick.




posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You make me sick.

Why? Merely because I consider people like Lee traitors? What is so unreasonable about that?



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Nygdan, Lee didn't fight for the confeds, he fought for Virginia, if Virginia had stayed in the Union he would have fought for the United States of America. He was loyal to his state, not the whole CSA.

But yes, it was treason. And yes, if Washington had failed, the Stars and Stripes would not be flown today. Hell, some states in the CSA still fly the Stars and Bars. Is it right to be so proud of slavery and treason and starting a war that killed millions because the North didn't approve of owning other humans?(Not just blacks, but poor whites, hispanics, also owned) Sorry if all you proud southerners are mad you can't support treason.(ever notice the CSA supports the NEW republican party? the one who would take us back to the 1300's where the church made the rules?)



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   
You might be surprised to learn that the South bought their slaves from Northern Shipping Companies. You might also consider that the South seceded because of differences of interpretation of the Constitution and the intentions of the Founders regarding State sovereignty, etc. So to secede from what they considered to be a perversion of the Constitution is hardly traitorous and the South did not want to destoy the Union. They wanted to co-exist peacefully, without interference of an overly intrusive Federal Government.

I would think that those who post to this site would rather admire the South for its intrepidity, but then, I guess, when you've been lied to all your life, your critical thinking skills are somewhat diminished. If you would like to consider the truth about the South and the reasons the Confederacy was formed and why the South chose to fight against the Union, read this collection of works by Richard M. Weaver.

Or, you can just live in ignorance and have people feel sorry for you.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   
The civil war was a sad time in American history for BOTH sides....
Americans were well meaning on both sides, yet the serious issues that caused and influenced this conflict needed to be resolved, unfortunatly it nearly tore us in 2.

Slavery was NOT exclusive to the south, nor was it the reason for the war.
People that want this flag to go away ARE trying to revise and sanitize history and it is shameful.

This flag IS associated with a negative connotation for several reasons, mostly due to its use by radical fringe groups, but as part of our shared history, should not just be burnt and discarded. It needs to be understood in the context of history, but it is HISTORY and we should all unite around our stars and stripes.

Were southerners traitors? yes and no...as i stated before, noone really wanted to fight over the issues of the day, both sides interpreted the rise of federalism here in different ways, and because of the fundamental nature of the argument, a fight ensued.

The girl will lose this fight....its not a speech issue, the school is responsible to educate and protect all students equally. They can and do set boundaries for acceptable behaivior that is more restrictive that the general culture because we are dealing with children (minors for all you teen-centric people). Children are not afforded the same rights as adults.

If this was happening on a college campus id say she'd win, but in high school, she loses.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I was born and raised just north of the Mason-Dixon line, and I can't understand anyone calling the men from the South traitors.

I happen to think the Confederate flag is a cool design. I feel the same about the Union Jack.

When I see the Confederate flag, slavery does not jump to mind, but the memories of some of my good ole boy buddies from the south do.

So she made a dress fashioned after the flag. So what? When rock stars wear shirts fashioned after the stars and stripes, no one seems to mind.

CazMedia was right, if this was a college campus, she'd win. It being a high school, she'll lose this one.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Nygdan

You will refrain form calling people bastards, scumbag traitors, and so on if you can not talk about a entire region of America with calling them all a bunch of childish names don't post at all. Grady has already received one or as much as I agree with his sentiments I would have gave him one too.
We were no more vile lying terrorist scumbags then George Washington and the other revolutionaries

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Two things strike me about her claim.

First off I'm British, and I don't understand the symbolism of the confedearate battle flag, but having read the posts here I'm getting the gist of what's going on.

I notice from the original post that she acknowledges that some people would be offended by the dress. This being the case, she's gonna have a weak legal case. Having the right to 'free speech' doesn't also give the right to do as you please surely? There always limits, and probably the school sets the limits in this case?

Secondly, she is claiming $50,000 damages. Helluva lot. No doubt she spent a lot of time on the dress, and her prom was a one-off which was ruined, but come on! This is one of the things America is famous for abroad. It's catching on here too unfortunately.

She deserves nothing but a letter of apology at best.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   
May I ask if we know of her intent in creating the dress to begin with.

Was it not her intention to try and stir things up and to offend.

I don't know enough about the American constitution, Bill of rights...etc, but is she not free to be an antagonistic and ignorant facist and an attention seeker?

In Britain the Union Flag can be viewed in a very similar manner to the confederate flag, mainly because of our imperialistic history and also due to it being associated with the far right in the 70's and 80's. It seems to have gained in popularity during major sporting events, but more often than not the English Flag is used in England, as is the Scottish Flag in Scotland etc..



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   
I really do not know alot about the civil war and I admit have little interest in it, although my father is some what a scholar on the subject.

I do recognise what some are saying here about the reltionship between the flag and racism. I realise that many in the US percieve the falf as a symbol of racism. That is the trouble, it is a widely held perception. That is something, if looked at realisticly, is unlikely to change in the near future.

As for the law suit, I find the wanted amount is stupidly high. I am sure that if the girl really wanted to attend the event she could and should have gone home and changed. I agree that freedom of expresion is something to value, but stuburness is not. If dress codes were expressed before the event, then she should recieve no compensation. If it was not, then at most the cost of the dress should be reimbersed.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Back on TOPIC:
American justice:

US Supreme Court on limited speech
this Court assumes that Milford operates a limited public forum. A State establishing such a forum is not required to and does not allow persons to engage in every type of speech. It may be justified in reserving its forum for certain groups or the discussion of certain topics. E.g., Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 829. The power to so restrict speech, however, is not without limits. The restriction must not discriminate against speech based on viewpoint, ibid., and must be reasonable in light of the forum's purpose, Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 806. Pp. 5-6.
-the dissent-
Justice Stevens
A public entity may not generally exclude even religious worship from an open public forum. Similarly, a public entity that creates a limited public forum for the discussion of certain specified topics may not exclude a speaker simply because she approaches those topics from a religious point of view. Thus, in Lamb's Chapel we held that a public school that permitted its facilities to be used for the discussion of family issues and child rearing could not deny access to speakers presenting a religious point of view on those issues. See Lamb's Chapel, 508 U. S., at 393-394.

But, while a public entity may not censor speech about an authorized topic based on the point of view expressed by the speaker, it has broad discretion to "preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 836 (1976); see also Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 275, n. 6 (1990) (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("A school's extracurricular activities constitute a part of the school's teaching mission, and the school accordingly must make `decisions concerning the content of those activities' " (quoting Widmar, 454 U. S., at 278 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment)). Accordingly, "control over access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral." Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 806 (1985). The novel question that this case presents concerns the constitutionality of a public school's attempt to limit the scope of a public forum it has created. More specifically, the question is whether a school can, consistently with the First Amendment, create a limited public forum that admits the first type of religious speech without allowing the other two.


bold emphasis added

part I of 2



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   
2 of 2

The American Supreme Court case in part Ispecifically targeted to free speech that happens to have a religious based message. The message itself, if other than religious, is still important. It doesn't matter what the message is or was intended to be, what matters is that the message 'could be conceived' to be something.

A prom dress in Lexington, Kentucky (USA) may seem innocuous but that same dress may in itself can carry a message that is inciteful in the local community. Take note of the recent murder and fetus theft in another American city ( ATS thread). A young woman was murdered and her unborn child stolen. Now would it be inciteful to wear a T-shirt to school extolling the virtues of abortion? Would it be inciteful to go the young woman's funeral wearing a T-shirt promoting rat-terriers for sale with an Internet address displayed?(this is the presumed path used by the murderer to find the murdered woman).

The prom dress is not about the 'sanctity' of the southern cause, or some right to salute a flag with a cross of some saint on it, the prom dress is about wearing something incitful to a place (event) that clearly does not want to allow such displays.

Schools not only have rights they have duties. This young woman and her lawyer seem to forget about the rights of other people. The other children at the prom had a right to expect and enjoy a prom. The other children had no reasonable alternative to attend something else to avoid being offended. The prom dress wearer had lots of alternatives.

$50,000! Outrageous- four years to make a dress, gimme a break. I don't care if it took her twelve life-times. Make something knowingly inciteful then don't cry when others don't want to play the same game. If the maker wanted to make a religious or political statement a school prom is not the place (venue, forum) for such, if she chose her source of material because of its colors then she clearly made a wrong choice in the design of those colors.

The prom dress is a timely story. I find it humorous that some use this as a platform to further their own crabbed philosophies regarding American southern values and beliefs.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
I don't know enough about the American constitution, Bill of rights...etc, but is she not free to be an antagonistic and ignorant facist and an attention seeker?


I think there is an element of truth in what you've said, except the ignorant fascist part. Certain segments of the society can get away with anything and the white Southerners are getting the short end of the stick. Whatever her motivation, the issue is a hot button and it will be cases like this that will draw public attention to the matter.

Black students wore kenti cloths over their Master's hoods to my graduate school graduation in 1995. As garish as the gown is, I don't see a difference in the two. The difference is that if your black, you can do what you want. If you're a white Southerner, you better watch your step or the PC police, the NAACP, the ACLU, and a host of others will sue your pants off.

This case alone is inconsequential. What is important is that there is resistance. There used to be a song that went, "Save your Confederate money, boys. The South will rise again." I had begun to believe that was just wishful thinking, but maybe not.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:59 AM
link   
And pray tell Grady what will the south do once it has risen again?

I think I'll stick with my opinion regarding being ignorant and a facist.

IMO, her education has been heavily influenced by her parents, relatives and friends, who harbour deep resentment toward those of colour, she's lived a blinkered existence and is mentally incapable of seeing the other side of the coin. I admit I could be wrong, but I have had experience communicating with this type of person as, unfortunately, I bump into them here on ATS quite frequently.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   
What's next? Banning the display of the pre-revolutionary flags?

Sorry, but this is bull#.

This whole idea of the Rebel flag being racist is bull#.

I suppose next we ban re-runs of the Dukes of Hazzard as their car had one on the roof?

I hope she gets every damned penny....


This PC bull# continues to go further and further.... Sometimes people really need to take a step back and quit getting so damn offended. Quit being a bunch of pansies.... Great example, could "Blazing Saddles" be made today? Hell no! If people laughed at themselves more often, maybe they wouldn't get so offended at the smallest little thing....jeez!



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Nygdan, Lee didn't fight for the confeds, he fought for Virginia, if Virginia had stayed in the Union he would have fought for the United States of America. He was loyal to his state, not the whole CSA.

But yes, it was treason. And yes, if Washington had failed, the Stars and Stripes would not be flown today. Hell, some states in the CSA still fly the Stars and Bars. Is it right to be so proud of slavery and treason and starting a war that killed millions because the North didn't approve of owning other humans

The United States wasn't fighting the confederacy over blacks or slavery. It wasn't an abolitionist war. indeed, some states that refused to secede were slave holding states. And as GP pointed out, the slave trade, abolished soon after the revolution, was largely something that northern 'yankee traders' brought in. The southerners were merely the market. Recall, for example, that the 'Brits' had a 'triangular trade', slaves from west africa, taken to jamaica, exhanged for sugar and colonial products, sold in england for profit, to purchase slaves in africa, to bring to the colonies, etc etc. Also notice that many of the slave traders in the US were the old pre-colonial dutch merchants. But after the slave trade was shut down, it was a native population of reproducing slaves that fed it.

Irregardless the confederacy wasn't some monolithic instituion holding out over slavery against the rest of the world. And it certainly wasn't the only haven of bigoted racism. They used to say that Southerners hate the race, but love the individuals, having been around and largely raised by blacks, whereas Northerners would love the race, but hate the individuals, pushing them in to marginal roles and abusing them.

Slavery was an important context to the Civil War, and notice that no Non slave state seceded. Slavery was, as they say 'not a sufficient cause, but a necessary one'.


cazmedia
This flag IS associated with a negative connotation for several reasons, mostly due to its use by radical fringe groups

The stars and bars are associated with slavery because the confederacy was so wildly and hypocritically pro slavery, its not a modern figment.


jsobecky
I happen to think the Confederate flag is a cool design.

Indeed it is. The swatstika and hammer and sickle are also excellent designs.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I sent that U2U to you Amuk before reading this.

Originally posted by Amuk
You will refrain form calling people bastards, scumbag traitors, and so on if you can not talk about a entire region of America with calling them all a bunch of childish names don't post at all.

Since when are members of this board to refrain from such behaviour? I daily see people slander muslims, republicans, chinese, and a host of groups of people with no warning. The only time warnings are said to be issued are when a poster personally and directly insults or threatens an individual poster. If I call someone a lying bigot for saying arabs are genetically inferior and subhuman, I get the warning, and rightly so.

I have not refered to anyone here as a bastard or a scumbag (used condom) or a traitor nor have I even implied that all southerners are any of those things. The use of bastard in reference to the woman, as 'throw the bastard in jail' or whatever was off the cuff and perhaps unecessary, but the rest? THere is nothing in the board rules or actual behaviour on the board that demands that I not refere to the leaders of the confederacy as scumbags and traitors. If I can't refer to them as such, then how in the world can anyone be permited to call Bush a nazi or cheney evil?




Grady has already received one or as much as I agree with his sentiments I would have gave him one too.

I was neither personally insulted nor threatened by his posts and I request, as I have done in that u2u, that his warning be removed.



We were

You and no one else here was invloved in the southern rebellion.


no more vile lying terrorist scumbags

I do not beleive I refered to the confederates as terrorists


then George Washington and the other revolutionaries

Sam adams and the other rabble rousing merchants in the northeast most certainly were traitors and oath breakers to the crown. And as much as I admire and revere Cincinnatus there is not doubt in my mind that he, as a citizen of the royal colonies, and indeed sworn member of the british military, was commiting an act of treason against the crown and parliament when he took up arms against it.

Am i to be censured for refering to Benedict Arnold as a traitor now? Those benedict arnold's of dixie were as much traitors then as now.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
What's next? Banning the display of the pre-revolutionary flags?

Sorry, but this is bull#.

This whole idea of the Rebel flag being racist is bull#.

I suppose next we ban re-runs of the Dukes of Hazzard as their car had one on the roof?

I hope she gets every damned penny....


This PC bull# continues to go further and further.... Sometimes people really need to take a step back and quit getting so damn offended. Quit being a bunch of pansies.... Great example, could "Blazing Saddles" be made today? Hell no! If people laughed at themselves more often, maybe they wouldn't get so offended at the smallest little thing....jeez!


Blazing Saddles is one of my favourite films in the comedy genre, and believe quite sincerely that it could be made today and still receive the same reception.

As for knowing where to draw the line with regard to being PC, that can be quite difficult, but common sense and mutual respect is probably the best gauge to use.

Scenario
I've been invited to the US Embassy here in London for a formal dinner and have been asked to wear a tux, do you guys think I should wear my black tux or the one I have made out of the Iranian flag?



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
It's about time we Southerners can use our Confederate flag to proudly show our "southern roots" Those who continue to see it as a throw back to the days of slavery ARE NOT IN DIRECT TOUCH WITH MODERN REALITY and show that they really are single minded and not educated!



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by invent4u2
It's about time we Southerners can use our Confederate flag to proudly show our "southern roots" Those who continue to see it as a throw back to the days of slavery ARE NOT IN DIRECT TOUCH WITH MODERN REALITY and show that they really are single minded and not educated!


Educate me, what does the Stars and Stripes represent and what does the Stars and Bars represent? Honest question.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join