Jareth Cutestory 678 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 quote: Originally posted by Osprey23: quote: Originally posted by echo4papa:The flag of Japan is not an offensive symbol, but go ahead and wear it on December 7th to an Amvets local to have a beer and celebrate your right to free speach and freedom of expression. Ok, you and I have the right to do that. It's not smart, but no one is stopping you. Also, that involves seeking out people to antagonize. These students were simply going to their own school that is heavily populated by kids of the hispanic heritage. It also happened to be Cinco de Mayo, which happens to have something to do with hispanic heritage. Fixed. And I think we also have to look at the fact that these are high school kids. High school kids are dumb, naive, and aim to hurt other people. We are all guilty of once being dumb, naive, and hurtful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 quote: Originally posted by Osprey23: quote: Originally posted by echo4papa: quote: Originally posted by Osprey23:But the point still stands that at no point should the US Flag be deemed offensive by anyone with power to silence thought and expression. If the kids specifically meant to be offensive and cause a problem, it doesn't make the flag itself offensive, but using the flag in that manner does not absolve them of their offensive intent either. Well I'm glad we live in America then, because I have a right to offend people if I am abiding by my own rights and not infringing upon anyone else's. Most protests ARE offensive to someone. Students DO have the right to protest. Tinker v. Des Moines. But what are they protesting? The celebration of Cinquo De Mayo? Are they Jareth clones and taking their hatred of Mayonaise to an illogical extreme? In all honesty, I believe they were trying to cause problems, trying to be disruptive, and regardless of their right to protest, they do not have the right to be disruptive to the running of the school. According to the majority opinion written by Justice Fortas " The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," If the intent was to be disruptive, and if their actions were disruptive, then they have surpassed their right to protest, correct? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 quote: Originally posted by Osprey23: quote: Originally posted by echo4papa:The flag of Japan is not an offensive symbol, but go ahead and wear it on December 7th to an Amvets local to have a beer and celebrate your right to free speach and freedom of expression. Ok, you and I have the right to do that. It's not smart, but no one is stopping you. Also, that involves seeking out people to antagonize. These students were simply going to their own school. So, a group of students wearing the Dixie flag to school on MLK day are well within their rights and simply trying to peacefully protest and not specifically trying to cause a problem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Osprey 199 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 No, because their means of protest or pointmaking weren't inflammatory or offensive by nature. If they were wearing shirts that said "**** MEXICO" that would be one thing, the American Flag is completely different and open to interpretation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Osprey 199 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 quote: Originally posted by echo4papa: quote: Originally posted by Osprey23: quote: Originally posted by echo4papa:The flag of Japan is not an offensive symbol, but go ahead and wear it on December 7th to an Amvets local to have a beer and celebrate your right to free speach and freedom of expression. Ok, you and I have the right to do that. It's not smart, but no one is stopping you. Also, that involves seeking out people to antagonize. These students were simply going to their own school. So, a group of students wearing the Dixie flag to school on MLK day are well within their rights and simply trying to peacefully protest and not specifically trying to cause a problem? I know you haven't been in High School for awhile but kids wear Dixie flags to school all the time. You can choose to take action to your offense or you can choose to let it go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jareth Cutestory 678 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 quote: Originally posted by Osprey23:No, because their means of protest or pointmaking weren't inflammatory or offensive by nature. If they were wearing shirts that said "**** MEXICO" that would be one thing, the American Flag is completely different and open to interpretation. I think you're trying to justify this action simply because an American flag shirt was worn, and because we're Americans. But think of it logically Osprey. They wore THESE shirts and THESE bandanas (BANDANAS FOR PETE SAKE) on THIS day with all that is going on with immigration right now? It's not simply a coincidence. Nobody is denying the fact that it was wrong for them to be forced to take the shirts off, but their intentions for putting those shirts on was just as wrong to begin with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Osprey 199 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 quote: Originally posted by Jareth Cutestory: quote: Originally posted by Osprey23:No, because their means of protest or pointmaking weren't inflammatory or offensive by nature. If they were wearing shirts that said "**** MEXICO" that would be one thing, the American Flag is completely different and open to interpretation. I think you're trying to justify this action simply because an American flag shirt was worn, and because we're Americans. But think of it logically Osprey. They wore THESE shirts and THESE bandanas (BANDANAS FOR PETE SAKE) on THIS day with all that is going on with immigration right now? It's not simply a coincidence. Nobody is denying the fact that it was wrong for them to be forced to take the shirts off, but their intentions for putting those shirts on was just as wrong to begin with. Intention is almost meaningless when discussing First Amendment rights. Sure they wanted to piss some people off, but that's their right as an American. I get pissed off when I see people wearing Gator shirts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TreyTime 3 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 I can't say anything in this thread because my account will be suspended, so take from that statement what you wish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Hi-Top 791 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 quote: Originally posted by Osprey23:No, because their means of protest or pointmaking weren't inflammatory or offensive by nature. If they were wearing shirts that said "**** MEXICO" that would be one thing, the American Flag is completely different and open to interpretation. If their intent is the same, then what's the difference? Intent is key here because you do not have a blanket freedom of speech and right to protest in school. That right is limited, and if you exceed those limitations, you surpass the rights you hide behind and are open to punishment and actions taken. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Osprey 199 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 quote: Originally posted by echo4papa: quote: Originally posted by Osprey23:No, because their means of protest or pointmaking weren't inflammatory or offensive by nature. If they were wearing shirts that said "**** MEXICO" that would be one thing, the American Flag is completely different and open to interpretation. If their intent is the same, then what's the difference? Intent is key here because you do not have a blanket freedom of speech and right to protest in school. That right is limited, and if you exceed those limitations, you surpass the rights you hide behind and are open to punishment and actions taken. If I'm anti-Abortion and my intent is to get people to stop having them, would you prefer I discuss with people the facts and realities behind the procedure or plaster pictures of aborted fetuses all over the place? The intent is the same. Methods of conveyance VERY different. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhnole 153 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 Free speech can also be taken to extremes. If you simply say allow it with no exceptions then you get crackpots like these. http://www.aolnews.com/nation/...ral-protest/19422884 Whose rights are being infringed here? Should a hate group be allowed to protest the funeral of any servicemen? How about the rights of privacy for the families. Yet the 5th amendment allows this kind of display of hate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Osprey 199 Report post Posted May 6, 2010 quote: Originally posted by bhnole:Free speech can also be taken to extremes. If you simply say allow it with no exceptions then you get crackpots like these. http://www.aolnews.com/nation/...ral-protest/19422884 Whose rights are being infringed here? Should a hate group be allowed to protest the funeral of any servicemen? How about the rights of privacy for the families. Yet the 5th amendment allows this kind of display of hate. There are exceptions, the Clear and Present Danger Test is one means of limiting free speech, also called the "Fire in a Theater" test. Also, Libel and slander, while not federal crimes, are punishable in civil suits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
