students get sent home for wearing American Flag on Cinco De Mayo

Bong hits 4 Jesus showed that you don't have First Amendment rights even in the general vicinity of a school, much less at it.

 

Since he was asking the students to go home WITHOUT suspending them, then perhaps he was just trying to do the right thing.

 

I told you where to go look for info and draw your conclusion and you are just too lazy.

It has very little to do with free speech.

 

Good luck trying to make this point.

These guys live in a make-believe world in which preschoolers can file a preliminary injunction against Story Time.

 

go back and read my posts dumbass - ive never made any kind of legal argument or called for anyone to be sued. ive never claimed the school cant arbitrarily send a kid home for a t-shirt (it actually happened to me once in that "fantasyland" otherwise known as public school). ive simply stated my opinion that i dont think what they did was right. you are the primary one in this thread trying to frame it as a legal argument. i certainly have not.

once again, you are arguing w/ someone about something they never said. i see you do this all the time - its pathetic - you have the worst reading comprehension of anyone on this board. as an "attorney", you should be embarrassed.

why are you getting your panties in such a wad over people expressing their opinion that what the school did was wrong? calling people buffoons and r****ds b/c they have a different opinion than you...you really need to grow up.

and maybe you are unaware, but the way the clutch fans d&d generally works is that someone starts a thread about some current event or political issue that is relevant and others post their 'opinion' on said thread.

Do you understand this samfisher ARe you able to comprehend it? Yes or no?

ive posed several questions and you have not answered one - how come you demand others to answer your queries but ignore ones you are directly asked? seems kind of snobby.

 

Ah yes, the DaDakota: "hey it's just my opinion so nobody can ever be proven right or wrong" defense.

Yep, I'm able to comprehend that defense and why you are forced to take it up.

I'm sorry though if you're offended by my harsh words. That was not my intent, and, as you told us a few pages back:

 

you are such a dumbass.

 

This.

 

again, you are arguing w/ someone about something they never said. i offered my "opinion" that i think what the school did was wrong. you need to get over yourself.

what defense am i taking up exactly? im simply pointing out your piss-poor reading comprehension.

not offended at all - i find you quite hilarious.

since when did use of the word 'intent' automatically imply that one is speaking legal terms?

 

Thanks for this post. I was hoping someone who went to that school could shed some much needed light on what really happened.

Not surprisingly....the local talk radio morons have it all wrong (as usual). The brat tore down a flag and threw it in the trash, then got suspended. End of story. The flag wasn't anywhere NEAR the US flag, much less flying over it.

I was on the road all day yesterday so I had a chance to listen to a little Joe Paggs (sp?) in the morning and Michael Berry in the afternoon. They are both saying that the Mexican flag was flying outside OVER the US flag and calling for the principal to be fired over this incident. Unbelievable.

 

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm having trouble reconciling the glaring difference in what Samfisher is saying (ie... the students having no case against the school) and the two lawyers quoted in the article stating the exact opposite...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/california-students-sent-home-wearing-flags-cinco-mayo/
Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California-Los Angeles, said the students are protected under California Education Code 48950, which prohibits schools from enforcing a rule subjecting a high school student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct, that when engaged outside of campus, is protected by the First Amendment.

If the school could point to previous incidents sparked by students who wore garments with American flags, they could argue that the flag is likely to lead to "substantial disruption," Volokh said.

"If, for example, there had been fights over similar things at past events, if there had been specific threats made," he said. "But if [school officials] just say, 'Well, we think it might be offensive to people,' that's generally speaking not enough."

Volokh said the students and their parents likely have a winning case on their hands if they decide to take the matter to court.

"Oh yes, it's almost open and shut," he said.

Lis Wiehl, a former federal prosecutor and a Fox News legal analyst, said the incident appears to a "blatant" violation of the students' First Amendment right to free speech. She noted that inciting violence is an exception to a First Amendment legal defense, but Wiehl said she saw no indications that the students provoked anyone.

"Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a blatant violation of the First Amendment," said Wiehl, adding that uniforms are not required at the public school. "And they're wearing, of all horrific things, the American flag."

 

how dare those two attorneys go against what samfisher said! after all, he is the smartest person on the internets©and he says there is no legal case so thats that. they are obviously nothing more than a couple slack jawed r****ds and i would expect them to be getting disbarred for being such buffoons.

 

Uh, Volokh is pretty much making the same argument I am, genius -citing the exact same legal doctrine which came from the Tinker case. Witness the bolded portion.

Where do you think we came up with "disrupt" from? You think it's coincidence? No, we are getting it from the Tinker case.

This other woman who is listed as a "Fox News Legal Correspondent" I have never heard of, and appears to have not read Tinker as Volokh has, at least from the quote, and seems like kind of an idiot. Anyway, I'm sure she'll race to the courthouse and file a suit and collect a hefty fee if she's truly correct here, right?

Anyway, jo mama, what's your argument? That Volokh and I are wrong and that school officials CANNOT argue that its within their purview to cite "disruption" as a means to prohibit otherwise protected speech?

Are you arguing for a change in the law?

 

my argument is that your reading comprehension sucks.

i have asked you several questions in this thread and you have not answered one. why should i take the time to answer your queries if you do not do the same for me?

 

Your questions don't make much sense (I don't know what Mexican school dress codes are, but i suspect they wear uniforms, again) and aren't that relevant to any of the issues (or actually the very narrow issue) I'm discussing, which once again is:

the simple point that no matter what gear the students are decked out in, be it a picture of a flag, a whale, or a whale waving a flag and sodomizing jo mama, a school official can ban it from school if it's disruptive to the learning environment.

 

I blame the garlic.
You can't grow all that garlic and not have some tears.

 

It's for that reason that some Americans are upset...how wearing the flag can be considered "disruptive".

If it isn't disruptive, then the principal was out of bounds.

 

It was only disruptive because some sensitive kids who know nothing about their heritage complained about it. Soon enough, somebody will complain about one thing, another sensitive Sally about another, and everything will become offensive that everything becomes regulated. So much for freedoms.

 

The story says that students complained about it. Hence, it was disruptive.

 

First of all, anyone that quotes Fox News to try to prove a point is just an idiot. Fox News looks at things from one side and one side only. The FAR RIGHT side. Well since we're on the subject of Fox News, the mothers of two of those students told them a day or two before that they INTENDED to wear those shirts on specifically CINCO DE MAYO. That right there should tell you that those kids wore those shirts for no other reason than to cause trouble. The school did not send those students home because they FELT some students would be offended. The students were asked to turn their shirts inside out due to SAFETY concerns after they had received several complaints regarding their actions. If the students would have simply turned their shirts inside out, they would've been sent back to class. They refused to do so because they wanted to show how PATRIOTIC they were and obviously didn't feel that a Mexican holiday should be celebrated at their school. They were sent home only after they refused to adhere to a request from the school principal. Let's say the students would've been sent back to class without having to turn their shirts inside out and a fight would've broken out and students got hurt. People would be complaining about why the school new that their were issues yet did nothing about it. Most of you complaining about them being sent home for wearing those shirts would probably want to beat me to death for wearing a Mexican flag shirt to a 4th of July celebration.