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.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Stormdancer777
We're being a bit dramatic, aren't we?
It was a sticker and even though these students were "offended", I doubt it would carry-over to being a media frenzy.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o
How exactly is the 1st Amendment on life support? Can you name ONE law that has been passed, EVER, that infringes on your 1st Amendment rights?
"Free speech" zones?
en.wikipedia.org...
areas set aside in public places that are used to restrict the ability for American citizens to exercise their right of free speech in the United States by forcing them into these zones. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.
If that, by itself, doesn't indicate a massive assault on the First Amendment, then I honestly have no idea what the purpose of the First was when it was initially penned.
The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.[citation needed]
originally posted by: Restricted
Free speech is dead.
originally posted by: Passerby1996
a reply to: IAMTAT
Yes, but there's a fine line between what's "politically incorrect, but not dangerous" and "politically incorrect AND potentially dangerous".
To use an extreme example: If a person joked on Facebook about blowing up a hospital, that's not just politically incorrect but potentially dangerous.
Although not as "dangerous" per se, having a confederate flag ANYWHERE out in a public place in the United States is troubling. The flag owner either has no idea the soured history behind the flag, is delusional to the point of believing the flag is a POSITIVE symbol, or knows full-well what it means and doesn't care. Let me tell you now the last two scenarios are much more likely.
I'm sure you already knew this, but the Confederacy broke away from the U.S. due mainly to one sticking point: Slavery. So when you show your support for a bygone era of racism and forced-servitude by raising the Confederate flag, it's telling of a person's frame-of-mind.
Usually when we talk about "too much political correctness", it's usually reference to a particularly dark joke made on the media or internet. Showing this flag is NOT a case of political correctness. It represents the worst aspects of american history. You might as well have a flag on your car with the motto "I hate n****rs and think they should be enslaved." Don't act like this isn't what the Confederacy stood for.
To conclude, there's a difference between perceived incorrectness and downright inflammatory political statements.
EDIT: I forgot to mention what the studrnts made him do probably wasn't the best idea. However, this doesn't mean the Confederate flag isn't a symbol of hate and shouldn't be frowned upon in public places.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
***Hyperbole and Red Herring alert***
Get over it he complied willingly.
Stop being so offended by people who are offended.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So what was done wrong in this situation? Again the man WILLINGLY removed the flag from his truck with ZERO complaints.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: DBCowboy
HE GAVE UP his free speech! No one denied him that. Good Lord!
originally posted by: peck420
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So what was done wrong in this situation? Again the man WILLINGLY removed the flag from his truck with ZERO complaints.
I find this part extremely interesting.
Mostly since it would have been a breach of contract for the campus staff to speak to the sub trade directly, all communication would have gone through the prime.
Ergo, we have no idea what the reaction of the individual in question would have actually been.
I have been through my share of 'willing compromises'...that came out of multi-hour, yell-fest meetings. The end client doesn't need to know, nor do they really care, how a task gets accomplished, just that it does get accomplished.
If I had to guess, the school is now paying the contractor, who will be paying the sub, for a new sticker once the job is complete. I know...seems trivial, but subs get money however they can, as they are usually at the receiving end of the stick, in most disputes. But, that is how the majority of minor disputes get settled. No mess, no real fuss, everybody is happy for the price of a Big Mac meal.
In a follow-up email Tuesday, Knudson clarified the university had asked for the flag's removal while the truck was on campus, and the driver "willingly complied." She said she would continue to defend free speech and work to guard students' "right to live and be educated free from hatred."
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yet all of this is guess work considering all that was reported in the article is that the man removed it willingly. All the contempt for this story is centered around people inventing a narrative in the story that wasn't reported. You may be right with what you said here. I can't say for sure since I don't have much experience dealing with contractors as a business owner, so I can't say if what you said can't be true or not. All I can say for sure is what was reported or not. Everything else is circumstantial.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408
What's incorrect is to say that the Confederacy didn't secede from the union to protect slavery. Saying such is history revisionism. It's actually spelled out in the very speeches used for secession that they seceded for reasons involving protecting slavery. The idea of "State's Rights" is just a politically correct way of saying "defending the right to own slaves".