100,000 Protestors... Angry mobs of students... - Page 13

Alex · 04-05-2006, 12:43 PM

Hell, it is exactly because of the message of burning the flag (be it Mexican or American) that should give the act greater protection. If he was just buring random trash then it wouldn't matter all where or how he was doing it.

The message is what should give it free speech protections assuming that the act itself wasn't entirely reckless (through disregard for where the fire was started). Even if he was saying "I hate Mexicans." And yes, I'd say the same if he were saying through flag burning "I hate Americans" or "I hate ******s" or "I hate whitey" or "I hate Alex." Being a free speech absolutist means hearing an awful lot of things I don't like. As long as he wasn't significantly putting anybody at risk then I don't care what he was burning to make his statement.

I haven't read any of the articles so I don't know if any say where he started the fire and if any real recklessness was involved.

tracilicious · 04-05-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I hate the Mexican government. They are corrupt and are in fact the reason there is a huge illegal immigration problem in this country. Does this mean I hate Mexico? I don't know.

More importantly, does it mean you hate Mexicans? I'm guessing not, but I think that is the real issue behind the school thing. You are right that I'm assuming that the ROTC kid does. But it's an educated guess, definitely.

tracilicious · 04-05-2006, 12:52 PM

I agree with Alex, with the exception that it was on school property. Free speech doesn't exist in public schools. He was in violation of school rules, therefor, I believe suspension is in order.

Alex · 04-05-2006, 12:56 PM

As the Supreme Court said in Tinker v. Des Moines, students don't shed their constitutional rights when they walk in the door. I don't have a problem with administrative punishment from the school (and it is warranted). I have a problem with criminal punishment from the state.

innerSpaceman · 04-05-2006, 01:13 PM

First amendment rights might not extend to setting fire to things on school property.

I'm in complete agreement that flag-burning should have first amendment protection. Being on school grounds and lighting a fire, whether it's to communicate or not, is arguably a different story.

€uroMeinke · 04-05-2006, 01:22 PM

Huh? So when did I lose my 1st amendment rights when on school property? And more importantly why does it sound like ISM is okay with this?

Alex · 04-05-2006, 01:25 PM

Why? (and I ask purely from the criminal justice point of view; obviously it is different from the school administrators point of view.)

If an act is, or should be, protected (from criminal presecution) speech on the sidewalk in front of the school I see no reason it shouldn't be in front of the flag pole as well.

Though in an ideal world the kid would have taken the Mexican flag down and then burned another Mexican flag that he owned. Though I think the administrators are being dicks if they referred this for criminal prosecution I don't think it warrants anything more than vandalism charges.

So, just to reiterate my original point, I would be just as supportive of this guys defense fund regardless of whose flag was burned (or similarly important symbols such as if he burned a cross, even on school property).

innerSpaceman · 04-05-2006, 01:30 PM

I'm only in support of the no fires policy on school property trumping the free speech rights of students. Let them shout 'Down with Mexico' all during math class for all I care. But I can seriously understand a no-setting-fires rule applying to ALL circumstances.

The same might go for hospitals, post-offices, bus depots. Protest fires cannot just happen anywhere simply because they are protests. Fire poses a danger, and its use must be restricted under certain circumstances ... at school being one of them, imo.

On the other hand, I am fervently against the practice of locking down the schools so that kids cannot participate in protests. This has happened all over Los Angeles this past week, and I believe it is a violation of students' civil rights.

All in all, school administrators seem to be behaving like schmucks all over the southwest.

€uroMeinke · 04-05-2006, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Fire poses a danger, and its use must be restricted under certain circumstances ... at school being one of them, imo.

How about candlelight vigils?

tracilicious · 04-05-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Huh? So when did I lose my 1st amendment rights when on school property? And more importantly why does it sound like ISM is okay with this?

I'm not sure when, that's just how it is. Students can't distribute written materials without school approval, they can't wear what they want, teachers can't teach whatever they want, school libraries can't carry whatever books they want. I'm not saying that's how it should be, I'm just saying that's how it is. I think that makes the free speech issue here moot because free speech doesn't exist on school property.

04-05-2006, 12:43 PM	#121
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Hell, it is exactly because of the message of burning the flag (be it Mexican or American) that should give the act greater protection. If he was just buring random trash then it wouldn't matter all where or how he was doing it. The message is what should give it free speech protections assuming that the act itself wasn't entirely reckless (through disregard for where the fire was started). Even if he was saying "I hate Mexicans." And yes, I'd say the same if he were saying through flag burning "I hate Americans" or "I hate ******s" or "I hate whitey" or "I hate Alex." Being a free speech absolutist means hearing an awful lot of things I don't like. As long as he wasn't significantly putting anybody at risk then I don't care what he was burning to make his statement. I haven't read any of the articles so I don't know if any say where he started the fire and if any real recklessness was involved.
	Submit to Quotes

04-05-2006, 12:52 PM	#123
tracilicious avatar transition Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: in-between Posts: 2,487	I agree with Alex, with the exception that it was on school property. Free speech doesn't exist in public schools. He was in violation of school rules, therefor, I believe suspension is in order. __________________ And now Harry, let us step into the night and pursue that flighty temptress, adventure! - Albus Dumbledore
	Submit to Quotes

04-05-2006, 12:56 PM	#124
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	As the Supreme Court said in Tinker v. Des Moines, students don't shed their constitutional rights when they walk in the door. I don't have a problem with administrative punishment from the school (and it is warranted). I have a problem with criminal punishment from the state.
	Submit to Quotes

04-05-2006, 01:13 PM	#125
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	First amendment rights might not extend to setting fire to things on school property. I'm in complete agreement that flag-burning should have first amendment protection. Being on school grounds and lighting a fire, whether it's to communicate or not, is arguably a different story.
	Submit to Quotes

04-05-2006, 01:22 PM	#126
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	Huh? So when did I lose my 1st amendment rights when on school property? And more importantly why does it sound like ISM is okay with this? __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

04-05-2006, 01:25 PM	#127
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Why? (and I ask purely from the criminal justice point of view; obviously it is different from the school administrators point of view.) If an act is, or should be, protected (from criminal presecution) speech on the sidewalk in front of the school I see no reason it shouldn't be in front of the flag pole as well. Though in an ideal world the kid would have taken the Mexican flag down and then burned another Mexican flag that he owned. Though I think the administrators are being dicks if they referred this for criminal prosecution I don't think it warrants anything more than vandalism charges. So, just to reiterate my original point, I would be just as supportive of this guys defense fund regardless of whose flag was burned (or similarly important symbols such as if he burned a cross, even on school property).
	Submit to Quotes

04-05-2006, 01:30 PM	#128
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I'm only in support of the no fires policy on school property trumping the free speech rights of students. Let them shout 'Down with Mexico' all during math class for all I care. But I can seriously understand a no-setting-fires rule applying to ALL circumstances. The same might go for hospitals, post-offices, bus depots. Protest fires cannot just happen anywhere simply because they are protests. Fire poses a danger, and its use must be restricted under certain circumstances ... at school being one of them, imo. On the other hand, I am fervently against the practice of locking down the schools so that kids cannot participate in protests. This has happened all over Los Angeles this past week, and I believe it is a violation of students' civil rights. All in all, school administrators seem to be behaving like schmucks all over the southwest.
	Submit to Quotes