American flag case: court sides with Morgan Hill school officials in flap over students' T-Shirts
Source: San Jose Mercury News
A South Bay high school did not violate the constitutional rights of students who were ordered to turn their American-flag adorned shirts inside out during a 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
In a unanimous three-judge decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Morgan Hill Unified School District, which had argued that a history of problems on the holiday justified the Live Oak High School administrators' decision to take action against the flag-wearing students.
Live Oak officials ordered the students to either cover up the U.S. flag shirts or go home, citing a history of threats and campus strife between Latino and Anglo students that raised fears of violence on the day the school was highlighting the Mexican holiday. The school's actions were reasonable given the safety concerns, which outweighed the students' First Amendment claims, the court concluded.
"Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence," 9th Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the panel. " The past events) made it reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real."
Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25240543/american-flag-removal-order-justified-u-s-court
Warning: Do not read comments section.
And do we wonder why public schools have such a negative image in America? Why so many people buy into right wing BS? Because they see bad things like this, they instantly hate hate HATE government and anything "progressive". ugh!
Oh yeah, most so-called "patriots" in America do not realize that if not for the Battle of the Puebla, the South would be speaking French.
aggiesal
(8,921 posts)is written in both Spanish and English, because they were both the official language of California at the time.
There is a lot of Latino heritage and history in California.
These kids only wore the shirts to antagonize the Latino students,
on a day widely known in this part of the country as a Mexican holiday
Cinco de Mayo.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 17, 2014, 10:42 PM - Edit history (3)
Spanish was only spoken in California prior to 1775 whenever Spain decided to send two Spanish speakers to California to make another claim to California. The language spoken in California prior to 1775 was native American languages (The actual move to settle California was in 1769, but no actual settlement till 1775). Now the Spanish had CLAIMED California since the 1500s and would land ships they every year (limit two and then from the Philippines on the way to Mexico, do to the Currents of the Pacific, it was faster to go North of Hawaii, hit Northern California, then sail south, you had the current and wind behind you on the entire trip.
On the way FROM Mexico to the Philippines it was faster to go SOUTH of Hawaii and take those currents to the Philippines. In fact the reason the US took over Hawaii had to do with these currents. US Citizens did not want to go to California via the Straits of Magellan (or Panama) and then to the Philippines and then to California. They wanted a quick way and the best way was to take currents to Hawaii, then cut north and catch the currents to California, in the days of sail it was quicker then going up the coast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_California
http://www.seos-project.eu/modules/oceancurrents/oceancurrents-c02-p04.html
Thus Spanish has been spoken in California only since 1769. The Spanish kept out the French and English but that ended with Mexican Independence in 1821. By the late 1820s most of the trade in what is now New Mexico and Arizona had been diverted to St Louis (The Comanche Raids on Texas and Mexico was a factor in this shift, for by going to St Louis via the Missouri you avoided the Comanche controlled area of Texas which extended to include the southern half of present day Nebraska.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comancheria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comancheria.jpg
After the 1820s, English Speakers started to head into California, coming into contact NOT with Spanish speakers but Russians (It fact Sutter's had purchased his famous mill from the RUSSIANS before gold was found at that location). Thus English was NOT spoken in California in 1821, it was spoken by at least 1840 and some say 1830. Thus Spanish has been spoken in California only 70-80 years longer then English and north of San Fransisco, English has been spoken longer.
Now, when the US took over what is now the US Southwest in 1848 from Mexico, except for Southern California and the Rio Grande Valley (and that includes NOT only the Rio Grande along the Texas Border with Mexico, but the Rio Grande Valley in present day New Mexico), English was the more spoken language, with French a close bu declining second (French had been the language of trade among Native Americans from about 1550s when the French first entered what is now Canada till the 1840s when English finally supplanted it).
Just a comment that the language of California being Spanish prior to 1848, is debatable. It was spoken only since 1769 and then only along the coast and from San Francisco bay south. Most people spoke native American Languages prior to about 1849 (When you had a huge influx of gold seekers most of whom spoke English). Prior to 1848, North of San Francisco, Russian was the most common language till it started to be replaced by English in the 1820s.
Igel
(35,332 posts)At first it was Spanish colonialism, but then Mexico inherited the imperialist mantle and continued the colonialism and imperialist expansionism apace.
Truly, something to be proud of. Notice that the presidio and mission system was there not to be welcomed with flowers but to play geopolitical games and further colonial expansion.
Of course, Mexican nationalism portrays their system as primarily one of fraternal love and solidarity, however those who suffered under it may have thought of it. It's highly insensitive to point out the utter hypocrisy of the portrayal.
Lost_Count
(555 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)While I hold that the burning of the American flag is freedom of expression, the mere wearing of one causing violence is not the problem of those wearing the flag. It's the problem of those who can't keep their emotions under control.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)Absolutely correct.
aggiesal
(8,921 posts)the students that are antagonizing that's the problem,
but the students that are being antagonized?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)situation we have when burning a flag. In your opinion, it's perfectly okay for those offended by such a display of freedom of expression to cause violence. Is that really how you feel or are you admitting to being completely inconsistent? And to be clear, yes, I'm blaming those who cause the violence - if they can't handle a piece of fabric, that's their problem.
aggiesal
(8,921 posts)they were intentionally trying to cause trouble on a mexican holiday,
at a school where they knew that there was tension.
Why don't they wear those shirts on other holidays?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)They WERE making a statement - just one you don't appreciate. Unless you don't support our first amendment, that is. I do support the right of freedom of expression and the kids upset over a piece of fabric can kiss my ass the same way the people upset at flag burners can kiss my ass.
aggiesal
(8,921 posts)They were yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater!!!
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)a tshirt. Do you consider those who burned American flags the same way? That they're yelling fire?
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)...in Mexico is like yelling "fire" also?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Basically the court decided to defer to the School District when it came to decide HOW to avoid violence in the School. Violence was threatened and one was to avoid such violence was to restrict Shirts with huge American Flags (Two students whose shirts had smaller US Flags were permitted to stay in school). If that restrictions require removal of the T-shirts, the court said that was a decision left up to the School.
alp227
(32,044 posts)geez. and you thought the white students spitting on the first black students at the Little Rock Central High School were psychos.
sadly modern American kids grow up with NO fucking sense of empathy or critical thinking. they grow up to become admirers of the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh "you're either with us or against us" mentality that defined the dark days of George W. Bush and continues to live on among so-called "patriots".
i wonder if any of these kids even understand the way non-white people think or they just used this incident to confirm their prejudices that minorities are evil, anti-American cultural Marxists.
I am going to graduate from college at the end of the year. With the way our politics are going and the continued existence of bigoted assholes from media hatemongerers to MRAs to these Live Oak high schoolers and so many "adults" in the country I grew up in who think on an 11-year-old's level, I am considering getting a job outside the U.S.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)of the kids who were offended are teaching their kids that there is no constitutional right not to be offended. That's part of the American tradition of freedom of expression also.
alp227
(32,044 posts)Agree with your message though. Never have I defended the court decision. The ruling noted that one student accused one of the boys of disliking Mexicans, a question that is loaded but I wish they should have answered and exposed themselves for the bigots they are.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)which has exactly zero to do with the issue.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)little flowers to find out there is no right not to be offended. And just because you're offended, you don't get to commit violence and blame a piece of fabric. Unless, of course, you feel the same way about those who commit violence because the burning of the flag offends them. Just how consistent is your outrage?
alp227
(32,044 posts)But my moral stance is that these boys abused the flag as a dog whistle. And please refrain from using language like "delicate little flowers" on a progressive board. I think that phrase is right wing polite version of "bitch".
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I really don't care what you think about what I call people who are so freeking offended by a piece of fabric they simply cannot help themselves from becoming violent. I learned loooooong ago, just because people are trying to piss you off doesn't mean you have to oblige them.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Schools are a closed system and are generally allowed to exercise their own judgment in matters of security and student safety, as long as it's not a serious violation of civil rights. That includes some limitations on freedom of speech.
Used to be that ensuring student safety consisted of volunteer crossing guards from the student body and requiring the younger students to hold hands with a partner on field trips.
EDIT: I should have heeded your warning.
alp227
(32,044 posts)Haha. I went on the site and tried to reason with the commenters and got yet the same old shit echoed back at me for daring to challenge their POVs.
See me do battle with baggers & upvote me:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_25240543/american-flag-removal-order-justified-u-s-court#comment-1264090788
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_25240543/american-flag-removal-order-justified-u-s-court#comment-1263656745
A Federal Appeals court determines safety concerns trump the first amendment.
When do we apply that to the second?
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)to fly the Stars and Stripes in the US.
alp227
(32,044 posts)in some places there is no room to fly ANY flag. this is the kind of simple minded thinking that causes our nation to have so many right wing adults with the intellectual level of a 12 year old.
beevul
(12,194 posts)busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Cant you give the uber nationalist flaggers a day off..
You know damn well the flaggers arent interested in protecting what the flag stands for... just trying to stir some shit up...The entire right wing repubs. have been doing this for what seems forever..
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)burning a flag. Just trying to rile other up. Are you going to defend the rednecks who commit violence in that example?
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Rednecks certainly dont.. I have no idea what your talking about,,
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)whether or not people have freedom of expression. Plenty of people, like myself, on the left will support those who wish to burn the flag as that expression is covered by the first amendment even if it's going to piss off a lot of people. The supreme court has decided this issue several times. The people burning the flag are going for the same reaction the students wearing flag tshirts are - they're trying to rile people up. If people are going to commit violence because of a freeking scrap of fabric, that is entirely their problem and in no way should that violence be supported by those who also think you should be able to burn the flag. People don't have the right not to be offended - that's part of life. The students who don't like the American flag on cinco de mayo can kiss my ass - same as the rednecks who object to flag burning. Have I made it easy enough for you to understand?
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Simple enough to me... Mexican kids get to see a bunch of dumb white kids disrespect their holiday.
Thats the discussion I want to have.. You telling a bunch of Mexican kids that they can kiss your "ass" "tells me a lot about you.. Students = Mexicans in this story..
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)did I hurt your poor little feelings by pointing out we have a first amendment? And yes, anyone who wants to ignore the constitution on this matter can KISS MY ASS.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)But unlike you I do give a shit about a group of Mexican Kids who are trying to celebrate a fun holiday..but are confronted by a bunch of so called Good American Kids who probably use all kinds of derogatory towards their classmates..
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I'm also a minority. Maybe it's because I came from a family of lawyers or maybe it's because I was taught I needed to support the ACLU fighting for the rights of nazis to march in Skolkie, IL (a city with a very large Jewish population) that I know you don't get to decide who gets freedom of expression. We all have that right - even the right to make a disgusting display of ignorance. I suggest you learn to accept the reality of our laws.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)We obviously understand your point.. Its just the manner in which you express it...Mexican Kids can "kiss your ass".. I suggest" that you reexamine your briefing skills.. By the way I know you used the term school kids.. however they were Mexican School kids..
Have a nice day, Im done...
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)their being Mexican has anything to do with anything but whatever. Have a good weekend.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Much needed rain out here.. Feel like a little kid urging it on.. However, I am worried about homes
at base of mts..
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)in the very dry west and I really wish we would ship some of our incessant snow out there. At this point, I'm aiming for breaking the most snow record - we're only 15 inches short!! And we could get a foot or more on Monday!!! I have obviously lost my mind.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Didn't happen.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)What if they banned rainbow flag shirts to prevent violence from anti-gay kids? I see no good coming from banning the display of the US flag. This just creates more division. United we stand, divided we fall.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The rationale for banning the US flag shirts was the possibility of violence ("campus strife" that may occur as a result. The message from this is that if you want something banned, threatening violence if that thing is not banned will help you achieve that goal.
A heckler's veto occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is that of demonstrators (reacting party) causing a speech (given by the acting party) to be terminated in order to preserve the peace.
The term was coined by University of Chicago professor of law Harry Kalven.
......
In the United States, case law regarding the heckler's veto is mixed. Most findings say that the acting party's actions cannot be pre-emptively stopped due to fear of heckling by the reacting party, but in the immediate face of violence, authorities can ask the acting party to cease their action in order to satisfy the hecklers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)See Post #2
Yes by all means it is always great to silence speech we do not like because one side threatens violence.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)I do not like the "heckler's veto," as mentioned above. All that does is tell people that if there's speech or expression you don't like, just threaten enough violence against the speakers and you can get the speakers' speech curtailed. That's NOT what we're supposed to be about.
While some may applaud this decision because of who "won" and who "lost," they should bear in mind that the speech you don't care for may be curtailed today by a heckler's veto, but tomorrow speech you favor may also be curtailed by the same reasoning.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but in this case it does not sound like the school took the action they did in response to direct threats of violence from people whose goal was to have the display of the US flag suppressed. They did it because they had reasonable cause to think that violence might ensue, based on past events, and were trying to forestall it, which is somewhat different.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Perpetrate violence whenever you see speech that you don't like, so that the authorities will suppress that speech in the future to avoid a recurrence of that violence.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I might tend to agree with you. But I see no indication of that being the case, at least not from the linked article.
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)So the school system bends to the threat of violence and silences speech they do not like. I wonder how these students will deal with situations like this in the future? Really good Civics lesson there. Many people have died for that right not have violence steal what is rightfully theirs.
Vets
Unionist
Civil Rights Advocates
Anti War Protesters.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that this action was taken in response to direct threats of violence from people trying to suppress the display of the US flag, or that past violence had been perpetrated with the specific intent of getting the school to suppress such displays in the future, out of fears of a recurrence.
And there is also no indication that the school was suppressing speech that they "didn't like" or that offended them. If that were the motivation, it would be entirely different.
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)I am not really faulting the Court. I am not a big fan of them upholding a School systems power of censure.
That is why I was pointing out it was such a tragedy that the school system missed out on REAL life Civics lesson and bowed to violence. The Court referenced the Schools banning was due to safety concerns over violence.
alp227
(32,044 posts)in a town hall forum on campus the night before 5/5 where a parent of the US flag/anti cinco boys could debate a parent of a Mexican American student. So the white and latino boys' POV's could be cross examined and critiqued. What a missed chance to break down prejudice. We just can't have nice things in America.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)kiranon
(1,727 posts)It's not a matter of patriotism or which group will be offended by the display of an American, Mexican or Rainbow flag. It is a matter of a First Amendment right of free speech. What if the students' shirts had an American flag on the front/back and a Mexican flag on the other? Would the school ban one side of the shirt on one day but not another day? What if the student turned around whenever someone looked as if they were offended? Does the student twirl in place to protect his/her First Amendment rights? It gets kind of silly. It was a great chance to teach civics and respect for others heritage without banning one over the other. Is the decision ultimately based on the school's banning of gang colors with the flag shirt the beginning of a slippery slope to changing that policy? If so, they should have said so. The decision would then make more sense. Still would oppose the decision though.