American flag shirts banned at school on Cinco de Mayo

kaylaluv

doompornjunkie

What if the non Hispanic students find that the Cinco De Mayo clothing (mexican flag and what not) to be disruptive or offensive given these racial tensions? Taking sides is insane. It has to be all or nothing. In this case it is divided amongst racial lines. No American flag then no Mexican flag.

We are talking about ONE DAY in the school. At home, you can wear what you want. All the other days in the school, you can wear the American flag shirt to your heart's content. How is that not fair to the non-Hispanics?

Why do the Hispanics care? They are wanting so much to be Americans now, aren't they?

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by doompornjunkie

 

Although I do enjoy your posts and the effort you put into them, I do disagree here.

What you stated would be comparable to an American in Mexico being upset because Mexicans were wearing Mexican flags on the 4th of July.

Wanna celebrate a Mexican holiday without any foreign influence??? try celebrating it in Mexico.

You apparently failed to read what I said. I know I can be long at times, but I also choose my words and wording with great care and actually have been known to rewrite paragraphs a half dozen times, over little wording and implied meaning issues I didn't think were clear enough.

Mexicans wearing flags on the 4th is *NOT* comparable in any way. I don't care what Mexicans wear on the 4th...we didn't fight a bloody war and bitter losses with Mexico for that day to have meaning ..and in fact, never fought Mexico directly for OUR right to be a nation (Texans may understandably feel different...but it was the Republic of Texas back then, not the United States, per say and details define the topic). The direct comparison is a Brit wearing a Union Jack on the 4th, and wearing it with attitude of protest.... That is, across the board, the closest comparison for how I could imagine a Mexican would feel to see a US flag on a day..and perhaps one of the only days...That symbol is absolutely NOT what they most want to see for the purpose of the day.

Now of course, Cino De Mayo is technically to commemorate the defeat of the French in 1862, not the battles with the newly forming United States of the time. However, France is a several thousand miles East and not one much thought of these days for current headlines of strife and conflict, especially between Mexicans and Americans.

Into this..steps a Bozo or two who figure the flag isn't just a symbol I'd fight and die for the principles behind, but a weapon to clobber other students with on their day of celebration. Well... The kids can stuff their protest choice. I respect the flag more than I do their right to shove it in other people's faces to piss them off........whatever babbling the kids used to justify doing just that.

That's my take...I believe protest morphs into starting a fight, when it's not even about anything but "I can do this...because *I CAN* and if you'r offended...GOOD!!". That is all I see having been said by this "choice of protest".

Ok.. say it is in protest, is it not a peaceful protest? If the Mexicans want to get violent over the issue then they are in the wrong. Peaceful protest and assembly is still protected.

I didn't think I had misread your post, my bad.

reply to post by ketsuko


Thanks.. I am very aware of what event Cinco De Mayo is to commemorate, vs. it being strictly about Mexicans and Americans.

You've noticed, perhaps, there is a civil war raging in Mexico at the moment, it turns out we helped create and build to a large extent.....conflict laden border crossing issues and very high/real tensions between both the peoples of our two nations AND their national leaderships at the moment?

Given that.... Wearing a US Flag to protest on the day of celebration for Mexican students ...was starting a fight and with every intention of it. Pick up a 2x4 and start a fight with meaning, I say. Don't use a flag so many good men have died for. That craps on everything that flag is there to represent.

I can't put my feelings any clearer.....and it's not ignorance. It's a different view VERY VERY strongly held here. The flag isn't a toy, weapon or tool or protest to tweak the noses of fellow students.

ketsuko

kaylaluv

doompornjunkie

What if the non Hispanic students find that the Cinco De Mayo clothing (mexican flag and what not) to be disruptive or offensive given these racial tensions? Taking sides is insane. It has to be all or nothing. In this case it is divided amongst racial lines. No American flag then no Mexican flag.

We are talking about ONE DAY in the school. At home, you can wear what you want. All the other days in the school, you can wear the American flag shirt to your heart's content. How is that not fair to the non-Hispanics?

Why do the Hispanics care? They are wanting so much to be Americans now, aren't they?

They care because of the intent behind the action. The intent is to insult and belittle them and their heritage on the one day in America that they celebrate their heritage.

reply to post by kaylaluv


I get what you're saying and agree with you 99.99%. In California and other border States, Mexicans are the indigenous people, it's rude and unpatriotic for anyone to use the American flag in such a manner as to taunt Mexican-Americans on Cinco de Mayo. However I don't agree with the court ruling on this. I think there's a more appropriate way to discipline those kids. Like maybe a 1,000 word essay on the battle, what lead up to it and what resulted from it.

kaylaluv

ketsuko

kaylaluv

doompornjunkie

What if the non Hispanic students find that the Cinco De Mayo clothing (mexican flag and what not) to be disruptive or offensive given these racial tensions? Taking sides is insane. It has to be all or nothing. In this case it is divided amongst racial lines. No American flag then no Mexican flag.

We are talking about ONE DAY in the school. At home, you can wear what you want. All the other days in the school, you can wear the American flag shirt to your heart's content. How is that not fair to the non-Hispanics?

Why do the Hispanics care? They are wanting so much to be Americans now, aren't they?

They care because of the intent behind the action. The intent is to insult and belittle them and their heritage on the one day in America that they celebrate their heritage.

This is not an emotional issue, it is an issue about the school and a federal court taking liberties with rights granted to them by the Constitution of the United States of America. Call it protest or free speech, it may be an emotional issue on the outside for some, but it still boils down to Constitutional rights. Intent is irrelevant.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Then what about the feelings of the students who were part Hispanic and Hispanic who wore American flags on that day? It's their day to celebrate, so do they have no rights to celebrate by wearing American flags?

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?

reply to post by ketsuko


Were they asked to turn in their shirts, and did they fight it to the high court of appeals?

If not...that's relativism brought in to frame what the thread is actually about.....in using something it's not.

I'll stick to the Americans wearing bright American Flags on a day the Mexican students were unusually sensitive to such symbolism. The school admin saw it for what it was, as quickly or quicker than I did. Good for them...and we can debate this all day without changing each others minds. Likely would, too, by the look of things. The Court settled this, for now, though. We'll see what it looks like if it is taken higher.

Until then...as someone else mentioned, *INTENT* figured in there too. It's almost funny how we seem to want to surgically remove this element or that one from these topics as if they aren't a factor at all ...Well, intent is THE factor. Intent seems to have been established beyond question in the response, if not the original act of the kids that day.

They picked a fight. They got a fight and they lost it..spectacularly. Growing up is all about learning and these kids learned a hard lesson. The best cause on EARTH...still can't be used as a club to bludgeon others with, either physically or emotionally. Bah.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Except the Hispanic kids were asked to turn in their shirts and they ARE Americans.

No one is allowed to wear Americans flags, not white or Hispanic.

And all the kids who live in America are American. Isn't that what we're being told to believe?

As to the whole, you can wear your American flag every other day of the year ... well, I can, but so can every other person of every other national descent, even on the 4th. We don't pass laws barring that here because it's America. That's the concept that's missing and that these Hispanic kids need to learn.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Were they asked to turn in their shirts, and did they fight it to the high court of appeals?

If not...that's relativism brought in to frame what the thread is actually about.....in using something it's not.

I'll stick to the Americans wearing bright American Flags on a day the Mexican students were unusually sensitive to such symbolism. The school admin saw it for what it was, as quickly or quicker than I did. Good for them...and we can debate this all day without changing each others minds. Likely would, too, by the look of things. The Court settled this, for now, though. We'll see what it looks like if it is taken higher.

Until then...as someone else mentioned, *INTENT* figured in there too. It's almost funny how we seem to want to surgically remove this element or that one from these topics as if they aren't a factor at all ...Well, intent is THE factor. Intent seems to have been established beyond question in the response, if not the original act of the kids that day.

They picked a fight. They got a fight and they lost it..spectacularly. Growing up is all about learning and these kids learned a hard lesson. The best cause on EARTH...still can't be used as a club to bludgeon others with, either physically or emotionally. Bah.

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

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.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Were they asked to turn in their shirts, and did they fight it to the high court of appeals?

If not...that's relativism brought in to frame what the thread is actually about.....in using something it's not.

I'll stick to the Americans wearing bright American Flags on a day the Mexican students were unusually sensitive to such symbolism.

But why? Why are they so sensitive to the symbolism? Do they hate America that much even though it gives them a place to live their lives with opportunity and education? How can you live in a country that you hate so much?

doompornjunkie
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.

I agree, trying to argue intent when trying to argue for or against something covered by freedom of speech is a slippery slope.
Who can say what intent is? It's completely subjective and so it is irrelevant.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Don't be obtuse. An Irish guy (singular) isn't the same as an entire American school board banning a T-Shirt with the American flag. Even if you found a hundred Irish guy, the fact still remains that they are not an American institution.

And please, find me an Irish group that actively seeks to see America under Irish rule.

Your arguments are that of a typical liberal who hasn't the ability to see past their own noses. The school board is in the wrong. It's as simple as that. No one said they couldn't celebrate the holiday, but everyone said that American flags were banned.

I propose we ban Mexican flags in America every day as I've decided it's going to start offending me.

I've lost count of the number of different national flags I've seen plastered on cars. None of these cars also has the American flag plastered on it. So what? They have the right to advertise their national ties. This is America, or at least it used to be before people decided that if they got mad enough, they could get something banned.

SonsOfTheMeek

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Were they asked to turn in their shirts, and did they fight it to the high court of appeals?

If not...that's relativism brought in to frame what the thread is actually about.....in using something it's not.

I'll stick to the Americans wearing bright American Flags on a day the Mexican students were unusually sensitive to such symbolism.

But why? Why are they so sensitive to the symbolism? Do they hate America that much even though it gives them a place to live their lives with opportunity and education? How can you live in a country that you hate so much?

doompornjunkie
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.

I agree, trying to argue intent when trying to argue for or against something covered by freedom of speech is a slippery slope.
Who can say what intent is? It's completely subjective and so it is irrelevant.

edit on 1-3-2014 by SonsOfTheMeek because: additional comment

It's even more simple than the fact that the intent is subjective, it's pure and simple intent just doesn't matter! Speech doesn't have to have intent in the USA. I could go around town rambling on about anything and everything simply because I want to. This is the cold hard truth people have seem to forgotten. The PC police are gaining ground and it's pretty damn concerning IMO.

reply to post by SonsOfTheMeek

But why? Why are they so sensitive to the symbolism? Do they hate America that much even though it gives them a place to live their lives with opportunity and education? How can you live in a country that you hate so much?

In fairness, why should that even be a factor to consider, aside from idle curiosity and a desire to understand others? I don't fully understand the cultural issues of the hispanic community and I grew up surrounded by it in Southern California. I attended school surrounded by it and my Dad worked in the middle of it as a cop in one of the most contentious and conflicted cities that state has (one of..) on this issue. I still don't understand or even try to understand...just what gets some offended and others blow it off.

Then, I don't have to. I need only know that it does, for whatever reason, offend them. At that stage, I have two choices as a person. I can choose to offend them and disregard why that is, because I feel I have the right to or my choice of symbol gives me the right ...or I can choose NOT to offend, because I'm aware that it has or does bring that impact.

In life, I generally choose NOT to offend other people ..unless it's a cause and a fight I've chosen to have and chosen, by whatever means necessary, to win. Occupy is an example I put everything I had into for the time I was with them. We also had this issue come up. Have you seen the Corptocracy flags with logos across the US Colors? It's a protest statement to how America has sold out to Corp interests ..and it makes a loud statement. We very nearly flew a BIG one at the entrance to camp, inverted, as the distress sign and for protest. Cooler heads (including mine) prevailed in using Old Glory as a cheap symbol of protest that way ...and we kept the Corp flag visible, but not inverted or showcased. We probably prevented a little war by doing that, too.

Who knows why some people take SUCH exception to some symbols..and others don't. When there is a specific time or period we KNOW it to be especially sensitive tho? Like....a Mexican independence day (sorta) celebration in a nation where people are regularly telling them (to their face) to go home and get out of their own nation (we haven't asked them for ID...and I won't assume illegal), then we have that choice again.

To Offend...or not to Offend. The children here chose.....poorly. They lost their fight, too. As they should have, IMO.

doompornjunkie

lakesidepark
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I agree. The Constitution does not apply to what is mandated at a school because in this case we are dealing with students - minors - those that have not reached adulthood.

The Constitution guarantees the right to vote - but NOT to minors. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms - but NOT to minors. The Constitution guarantees the right to privacy - but NOT to minors. And on and on. A child is NOT equal to an adult by no means.

Rights are not an issue here, but fairness is, so I would agree that the dress code should be stricter, and these children should learn that they only have basic rights, and all the rights of the Constitution will be afforded to them in due time, but NOT today.

Gat the point?

Did you even bother to read the article??????

"The three-judge panel unanimously decided the officials’ need to protect the safety of their students outweighed the students’ freedom of expression rights."

Looks to me that the judges did say that the students have freedom of expression. Also where the # in the Constitution does it say you have to be 18 for it to matter??

Got that point?

What you said regarding the 1st 2nd and 4th amendments is so incorrect and stupid its not even funny. Its sad and pathetic, especially if you are an American.. shameful.

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

NO I didn't get that point. I got your misunderstanding of my point.

The schools have the right to decide what is disruptive, not the children.

The courts have upheld the limits of the Constitution applied to minors over and over again as seen by the references already added to this thread.

If these kids choose to express their freedom of speech in a disruptive way, they lose that right, as that right is not totally theirs to enjoy - YET.

Did you give a reference to where children have the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, and the unrestricted right to free speech??? NO. The rights of minors are routinely limited for their safety, because they have yet to learn how to exercize these rights responsibly, because their parents determine it is in their best interests, and there is no violation of the Constitution inherent in any of these actions. Now, what is STUPID about pointing out more OBVIOUS examples of Constitutional rights that are NOT granted to minors did you NOT understand???

That was my point, parents and guardians and society determine the limits to their rights, and will always do so until they reach the age of adulthood.

Only at THAT time do they enjoy the full freedoms this country should be affording them. This argument is NOT about limiting Constitutional freedoms, it is about what they are allowed to do in the school system to educate and protect the children who have yet to reach the age to exercize and defend their rights and do so properly.

Now to argue that their education and protection is not being done properly is a fair argument, but that argument is one that ADULT citizens of that school district have to take on with the school administrators. The court simply ruled that the administrators have the right to limit freedoms to maintain a safe learning enviroment.

If you dispute that, then argue THAT point, but its clear from other postings here that support my views, that this is NOT about limiting constitutionally-granted rights.

If you are a child, under 18, too bad, suck it up and learn like you are supposed to, but don't expect unfettered rights until you reach the age of adulthood.

Point made whether you got it or not.

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.

lakesidepark

doompornjunkie

lakesidepark
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I agree. The Constitution does not apply to what is mandated at a school because in this case we are dealing with students - minors - those that have not reached adulthood.

The Constitution guarantees the right to vote - but NOT to minors. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms - but NOT to minors. The Constitution guarantees the right to privacy - but NOT to minors. And on and on. A child is NOT equal to an adult by no means.

Rights are not an issue here, but fairness is, so I would agree that the dress code should be stricter, and these children should learn that they only have basic rights, and all the rights of the Constitution will be afforded to them in due time, but NOT today.

Gat the point?

Did you even bother to read the article??????

"The three-judge panel unanimously decided the officials’ need to protect the safety of their students outweighed the students’ freedom of expression rights."

Looks to me that the judges did say that the students have freedom of expression. Also where the # in the Constitution does it say you have to be 18 for it to matter??

Got that point?

What you said regarding the 1st 2nd and 4th amendments is so incorrect and stupid its not even funny. Its sad and pathetic, especially if you are an American.. shameful.

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

NO I didn't get that point. I got your misunderstanding of my point.

The schools have the right to decide what is disruptive, not the children.

The courts have upheld the limits of the Constitution applied to minors over and over again as seen by the references already added to this thread.

If these kids choose to express their freedom of speech in a disruptive way, they lose that right, as that right is not totally theirs to enjoy - YET.

Did you give a reference to where children have the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, and the unrestricted right to free speech??? NO. The rights of minors are routinely limited for their safety, because they have yet to learn how to exercize these rights responsibly, because their parents determine it is in their best interests, and there is no violation of the Constitution inherent in any of these actions. Now, what is STUPID about pointing out more OBVIOUS examples of Constitutional rights that are NOT granted to minors did you NOT understand???

That was my point, parents and guardians and society determine the limits to their rights, and will always do so until they reach the age of adulthood.

Only at THAT time do they enjoy the full freedoms this country should be affording them. This argument is NOT about limiting Constitutional freedoms, it is about what they are allowed to do in the school system to educate and protect the children who have yet to reach the age to exercize and defend their rights and do so properly.

Now to argue that their education and protection is not being done properly is a fair argument, but that argument is one that ADULT citizens of that school district have to take on with the school administrators. The court simply ruled that the administrators have the right to limit freedoms to maintain a safe learning enviroment.

If you dispute that, then argue THAT point, but its clear from other postings here that support my views, that this is NOT about limiting constitutionally-granted rights.

If you are a child, under 18, too bad, suck it up and learn like you are supposed to, but don't expect unfettered rights until you reach the age of adulthood.

Point made whether you got it or not.

Dude you are seriously misinformed. The Constitution does not have age limits. Go read the masterpiece then get back to me... I doubt you have ever even read it, you are just saying what you think it says.

Edit: 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...?

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.