posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:04 PM
Now I read both articles. The first one on the principle who banned the flags, did it in the correct way. He banned ALL FLAGS from being worn, and
his reasons were to protect and prevent violence on the student body. He is doing such as that is his responsiblity, showing no favortism towards
either group, making sure that both know that such will not be tolerated and to keep the peace. If you are a parent you would expect that when your
child goes to school, they are going to be safe, and kept safe while there, or you would be all over the school and the adminstration on such. That
is part of the public schools mandate, and especially in Colorado, where the Colombine school shooting shocked the country. If the principle can
prevent such violence and do it in a way where no favortism or claims of racisim is shown, then more power to him.
The second article on banning flags at a campsite, that is discrimination and violated the first Admendment rights for freedom of speech. If you want
to know why, it is because there is limits of freedom of free speech on school property. If you want a peaceful society, it has to start with the
children, but however, if a person in their private vehicle or camper has a flag in the window, then it is the same if you are in your own private
residence and have such on your wall or in your window, and that is a statement, that is protected by the freedom of speech.
What I find that is interesting is that the flag ban that got national attention in California, here recently, it is the immigrant groups that are
protesting and waving mexican flags, as the vice principle decided to ban one side, instead of banning all flags. They are now protesting and people
wonder why illegale immigrants are not liked, especially when they are waving mexican flags and screaming racism.