This is what "tolerance" gets you...

[leib10]

What I can't understand is that some of you can't see the link between the two issues. It's as if you're deliberately ignoring the fact that there is a double standard here, and that in cases such as this there is NOT equality.

If not that, then, what is the real issue according to you? How do you propose that we cleverly ignore one aspect of it?

Update on the story:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/tensions-high-california-high-school-following-flag-flap/

 

[No Limit]

you're arguing dress code policy not the actual incident. it's up to the courts to decide if their freedom of speech has been violated or in the constitutionality of dress codes. however the court has already ruled on this and school boards are allowed to limit what people wear if there is a reasonable risk of offense and or a threat to school safety




but they can and the supreme court supports their right to do so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

Except in that case they didn't ban those symbols, they banned all arm bands. Totally different from what happened here. They didn't ban clothing with flags, they banned clothing with certain flags.

And I dont agree with that supreme court decision either but that's a totally different discussion.

 

[Shakermaker]

How ironic that the school administrator's actions heightened racial tensions in stead of cooling them down (if that was ever necessary).

Tolerance should be absolute imo, not conditional. As long as you act within the boundaries of the law, you should be able to utter whatever nonsense or wear any butt ugly T-shirt you want.

 

[Eejit]

What I can't understand is that some of you can't see the link between the two issues. It's as if you're deliberately ignoring the fact that there is a double standard here, and that in cases such as this there is NOT equality.

You have failed to show any double-standard.

 

[CptStern]

Except in that case they didn't ban those symbols, they banned all arm bands. Totally different from what happened here. They didn't ban clothing with flags, they banned clothing with certain flags.

And I dont agree with that supreme court decision either but that's a totally different discussion.

because the clothing would provoke or cause offense. it's the same thing as the armbands: they caused offense; it was anti-vietnam war

What I can't understand is that some of you can't see the link between the two issues. It's as if you're deliberately ignoring the fact that there is a double standard here, and that in cases such as this there is NOT equality.

what ****ing double standard. what the hell are you rambling on about? it's as if you havent a clue as to what this issue is about despite the fact you started a thread on it. this isnt about tolerance or racism or double standards it's about whether or nota principle wa sjustified in invoking a policy set by the board of education or not. YOU are the only framing this as an issue of race, most likely to suit an agenda

If not that, then, what is the real issue according to you? How do you propose that we cleverly ignore one aspect of it?

what ****ing other aspect? you're a lunatic who sees a threat to white america behind every bush

 

[Mogi67]

Cinco De Mayo isn't even a holiday in Mexico

 

[CptStern]

and that matters because ..... ?

 

[No Limit]

because the clothing would provoke or cause offense. it's the same thing as the armbands: they caused offense; it was anti-vietnam war

The point is they didn't just ban armbands with the peace symbol, they banned all armbands. If they banned all flags I wouldn't have as much of a problem, but they banned american flags while allowing mexican flags.

 

[CptStern]

no they didnt. they said they couldnt wear american flag clothing on that day to those particular students. it wasnt annouced on the PA the day beforehand. it wasnt sent as a notice to the parents. it was in response to what the principle determined to be a real threat to school safety

the armband ban was unconstitutional and they were allowed to wear it:

The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

and the armband without the peace symbol is still a symbol; it's widely recognised symbol for death and mourning

 

[Krynn72]

but they can and the supreme court supports their right to do so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, 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.

Who will win?

EDIT: Wait, what is your link supposed to prove? That the Supreme Court supports the constitutionality of wearing something inflammatory? Because they said there needs to be proof that something bigger than controversy would occur, which I dont think they have.

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,"

 

[CptStern]

no one because the students werent suspended

The boys really had no choice, and went home to avoid suspension.

 

[Eejit]

Who will win?

EDIT: Wait, what is your link supposed to prove? That the Supreme Court supports the constitutionality of wearing something inflammatory? Because they said there needs to be proof that something bigger than controversy would occur, which I dont think they have.

They believed a fight would occur, apparently, which is bigger than controversy. I'm not sure how this would be proven though.

 

[No Limit]

no they didnt. they said they couldnt wear american flag clothing on that day to those particular students. it wasnt annouced on the PA the day beforehand. it wasnt sent as a notice to the parents. it was in response to what the principle determined to be a real threat to school safety

the armband ban was unconstitutional and they were allowed to wear it:



and the armband without the peace symbol is still a symbol; it's widely recognised symbol for death and mourning

Yes, they banned those american flags on a certain day while allowing mexican flags. You are kind of splitting hairs here and I dont get were you're going with it.

The bottom line again is they said mexican flags ok, american flags not ok. I dont know of any supreme court ruling that would say this is fine nor do I understand how this isn't infringing on simple free speech rights.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, they banned those american flags on a certain day while allowing mexican flags. You are kind of splitting hairs here and I dont get were you're going with it.

it wouldnt have mattered had the flags been puerto rican or canadian. the intent was to be a disruptive douche; this is why they asked the kids to go home

The bottom line again is they said mexican flags ok, american flags not ok.

because you're framing it that way and making it an issue when the issue is violation of the dress code not that american flags are ok on some days and mexican flags not appropriate on another day

I dont know of any supreme court ruling that would say this is fine nor do I understand how this isn't infringing on simple free speech rights.

but the supreme court case that I posted earlier set the precedent for this. IF it went to court and IF the principle could prove he had reasonable grounds for asking them to change their shirts. if he had reasonable grounds then their only avenue of recourse is directly challenging the supreme court's decision. definately not an easy fight to pick

 

[Sheepo]

People stop pretending free speech exists. It doesn't. It's a nice slogan that gives the ignorant who should keep their mouths shut something to shout about.

Sounds like you should appreciate it more than anyone.

 

[Tyguy]

Interesting article from Ebert regarding the issue

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100509/OPINION/100509974

 

[CptStern]

The question is obviously not whether Americans, or anyone else, has the right to wear our flag on their t-shirts. But empathetic people realize much depends on context. If, on Cinco de Mayo, you turn up at your school with a large Mexican-American student population wearing such shirts, are you (1) joining in the spirit of the holiday, or (2) looking for trouble?

I suggest you intend to insult your fellow students. Not because they do not respect THEIR flag, but because you do not respect their heritage. That there are five of you in matching shirts demonstrates you want to be deliberately provocative.

Therefore, you and your buddies should try wearing the hammer and sickle on the Fourth of July. You could try it at a NASCAR race, for example.

ya pretty much

 

[No Limit]

but the supreme court case that I posted earlier set the precedent for this. IF it went to court and IF the principle could prove he had reasonable grounds for asking them to change their shirts. if he had reasonable grounds then their only avenue of recourse is directly challenging the supreme court's decision. definately not an easy fight to pick

But this is what your own link clearly states:

The court's 7 to 2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was "based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam." 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," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."[1] The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

So in that case the court ruled that this wasn't constitutional.

But lets put the law aside. Do you think what the administrators in this school did should be allowed?

 

[CptStern]

But this is what your own link clearly states:



So in that case the court ruled that this wasn't constitutional.

but only because it didnt fit the criteria

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," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.

he was trying to keep the peace. it sounds like the criteria is met in this case. I wasnt there so really cant comment on the threat was real or not

But lets put the law aside. Do you think what the administrators in this school did should be allowed?

my opinion is kind of meaningless because: a. I'm canadian, american bill of rights do not apply b. I worked in the system and understand the reasoning behind banning except from a canadian pov. c. we dont have constitutionally protected speech in the same sense as the US

that said I remember when my best friend had to go home because he wore a "Highway to Hell" t-shirt in catholic elementary school. fundamentally I dont agree with this sort of censorship however I understand why it's in place (not the ac/dc t-shirt incident because that's just stupid and isnt disruptive to anybody except moral ninnies)

 

[unozero]

Interesting article from Ebert regarding the issue

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100509/OPINION/100509974

he's a ****ing idiot

 

[No Limit]

but only because it didnt fit the criteria



he was trying to keep the peace. it sounds like the criteria is met in this case. I wasnt there so really cant comment on the threat was real or not

The school could have made the same argument in the case of the arm bands. They could make the same argument for banning Obama shirts while allowing McCain shirts. That continues to be the point.

So you don't want american flags on cinco de mayo because you think it might provoke a fight? Then ban all flags. Simple as that. Everyone gets treated the same and you aren't putting certain freedom of speech ahead of other freedom of speech.

my opinion is kind of meaningless because: a. I'm canadian, american bill of rights do not apply b. I worked in the system and understand the reasoning behind banning except from a canadian pov. c. we dont have constitutionally protected speech in the same sense as the US

that said I remember when my best friend had to go home because he wore a "Highway to Hell" t-shirt in catholic elementary school. fundamentally I dont agree with this sort of censorship however I understand why it's in place (not the ac/dc t-shirt incident because that's just stupid and isnt disruptive to anybody except moral ninnies)

I don't agree. If you think the kids will get their ass kicked because they are being douchbags then let them get their ass kicked and deal with it after the fact as you would with any other fight.

 

[smwScott]

Interesting article from Ebert regarding the issue

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100509/OPINION/100509974

Glaringly flawed point. He equates wearing an American flag on Cinco de Mayo with a Hammer/Sickle on the 4th of July. The difference is that the Hammer and Sickle is in direct opposition to the 4th of July. He might as well have compared it to wearing a swastika to a Bat Mitzvah. In reality a proper comparison would be wearing an American flag to a Bat Mitzvah ... apart from not being dressed appropriately I doubt many would take offense to the flags presence.

No Mexican living in America should be offended by the American flag whether it's on May 5th or not. If they are offended by it, then they probably shouldn't be here.

 

[No Limit]

Glaringly flawed point. He equates wearing an American flag on Cinco de Mayo with a Hammer/Sickle on the 4th of July. The difference is that the Hammer and Sickle is in direct opposition to the 4th of July. He might as well have compared it to wearing a swastika to a Bat Mitzvah. In reality a proper comparison would be wearing an American flag to a Bat Mitzvah ... apart from not being dressed appropriately I doubt many would take offense to the flags presence.

No Mexican living in America should be offended by the American flag whether it's on May 5th or not. If they are offended by it, then they probably shouldn't be here.

You really think these kids were wearing the flag just to wear a flag? They weren't making a point in direct opposition to cinco de mayo?

 

[Solaris]

You rarely see Stern and No limit quote warring each other!!

 

[smwScott]

You really think these kids were wearing the flag just to wear a flag? They weren't making a point in direct opposition to cinco de mayo?

Do you think it matters? The imagery wasn't hateful or offensive in any way.

 

[Krynn72]

I really don't see how it would be in direct opposition. Wearing a shirt with the British flag on it during 4th of July could be seen as being in direct opposition. Wearing a communist t-shirt might be seen as being in direct opposition when worn on President's Day. But wearing an American flag shirt on Cinco de Mayo is about as much "direct opposition" as wearing an "Obama is a Muslim!" t-shirt on Thanksgiving. They're not related at all.

 

[unozero]

people just need something to be mad about.

 

[No Limit]

Do you think it matters? The imagery wasn't hateful or offensive in any way.

It doesn't matter as far as wether it should be banned or not, it shouldn't. But you are trying to pretend they weren't making the point that this is their country, not mexico. Somehow implying that by celebrating cinco de mayo you hate america.

I really don't see how it would be in direct opposition. Wearing a shirt with the British flag on it during 4th of July could be seen as being in direct opposition. Wearing a communist t-shirt might be seen as being in direct opposition when worn on President's Day. But wearing an American flag shirt on Cinco de Mayo is about as much "direct opposition" as wearing an "Obama is a Muslim!" t-shirt on Thanksgiving. They're not related at all.

Don't fool yourself. They were wearing american flag bandanas from what I read. The statement they were making was clear "**** your brown holiday, this is America!". If they were american clothing all the time it would be different, but that is not the case.

 

[Krynn72]

Well if people weren't idiots then they'd see that, in fact, their statement was not in opposition despite the kid's intents, and nobody would care. So the bigger issue is that anyone offended by those kids wearing those bandannas, are stupid.

 

[Blackthorn]

Well the kids were blatantly trying to be offensive, so anyone offended by them would be reacting quite naturally.

 

[No Limit]

Well if people weren't idiots then they'd see that, in fact, their statement was not in opposition despite the kid's intents, and nobody would care. So the bigger issue is that anyone offended by those kids wearing those bandannas, are stupid.

But the point is their statement was in opposition. So those kids wearing those flags were douchebags. And yes, many of the kids that got offended were idiots too.

 

[Krynn72]

Well the kids were blatantly trying to be offensive, so anyone offended by them would be reacting quite naturally.

Not really. Thats like saying some thin guy gets called a fatass, he should naturally be offended. No, he should naturally assume the other person is an idiot and just ignore them.

@ Warped, nobody is disputing the fact that those kids are douchebags. But, despite their intention of being in opposition, their actions (statement) weren't. Any mature person would just laugh at the morons.

 

[No Limit]

Not really. Thats like saying some thin guy gets called a fatass, he should naturally be offended. No, he should naturally assume the other person is an idiot and just ignore them.

That's quite different from saying "**** your brown holiday, this is Amerikkka!!!" to a bunch of mexican kids celebrating cinco de mayo.

 

[Blackthorn]

Not really. Thats like saying some thin guy gets called a fatass, he should naturally be offended. No, he should naturally assume the other person is an idiot and just ignore them.

Not everyone deals with situations like that. People's feelings shouldn't be disregarded because they have a different emotional response. It may be "smarter" to deal with this kind of situation by saying "Oh well, they're idiots", but for some the reaction would be to punch them in the face. What is an is not a socially acceptable response to being antagonised varies from person to person.

 

[Jintor]

It's like going into a church and not saying anything, not doing anything, but merely being aggressively Buddhist. Y'know, with the robes and the saffron and the meditation.

 

[smwScott]

That's quite different from saying "**** your brown holiday, this is Amerikkka!!!" to a bunch of mexican kids celebrating cinco de mayo.

Haha, and "**** your brown holiday, this is Amerikkka!!!" is quite a leap itself from wearing American paraphernalia on May 5th.

Were these kids douchebags? Yup. But it doesn't matter. Despite their intentions there was nothing offensive in their attire or demeanor from what I read in the article.

And they may have actually had a valid point (however unintentionally). If the sight of an American flag is so offensive to these people - and their offense carries enough weight to get the ****ing American flag banned ... then there may be a larger issue here. It speaks to the current climate of our society.

 

[unozero]

And they may have actually had a valid point (however unintentionally). If the sight of an American flag is so offensive to these people - and their offense carries enough weight to get the ****ing American flag banned ... then there may be a larger issue here. It speaks to the current climate of our society.

sums up my thoughts without my "offensive" undertones,bravo

 

[Mogi67]

That's quite different from saying "**** your brown holiday, this is Amerikkka!!!" to a bunch of mexican kids celebrating cinco de mayo.

Mexicans don't celebrate cinco de mayo

 

[Raziaar]

Yep, it's an American and Puebla holiday.