-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
reading comprehension is really not your strong point?
this and the recount of slurs are events that happened in 2009, not in 2010. they were cited in the trial by the school system representatives as evidence that there was a history of racial and ethnic tension, and also that one of the Caucasian students had been personally involved in such. this speaks toward the credible threat of bodily harm the kid faced, that the school authorities sought to prevent.
did you also fail to read the footnote on page 5 of the court ruling?
2 We use the ethnic and racial terminology employed by the district
court (Caucasian, Hispanic, Mexican). For example, the district court at
times referred to students of Mexican origin born in the United States and
students born in Mexico collectively as “Mexican.” We adopt the same
practice here, for the limited purpose of clarifying the narrative.
or are you just conveniently leaving out facts so your case for idolizing a flag sounds better?
this and the recount of slurs are events that happened in 2009, not in 2010. they were cited in the trial by the school system representatives as evidence that there was a history of racial and ethnic tension, and also that one of the Caucasian students had been personally involved in such. this speaks toward the credible threat of bodily harm the kid faced, that the school authorities sought to prevent.
did you also fail to read the footnote on page 5 of the court ruling?
2 We use the ethnic and racial terminology employed by the district
court (Caucasian, Hispanic, Mexican). For example, the district court at
times referred to students of Mexican origin born in the United States and
students born in Mexico collectively as “Mexican.” We adopt the same
practice here, for the limited purpose of clarifying the narrative.
or are you just conveniently leaving out facts so your case for idolizing a flag sounds better?
A
To start with, it would help a lot if you wouldn't spread your information over multiple posts using a larger font. I'll cease for the moment of other criticisms I have of your style to address the argument.
Of course there's a history of enmity from the pro-Mexico La Raza identity contingent. I said as much in my last post stating:
"Many of Mexico's citizens, attending public schools in the U.S., have formed into Hispanic gangs fomenting an anti-American racist La Raza identity that create a great deal of problems for school officials and other students up to and including large scale riots on campus.
Illegal alien minors from these gangs have gone so far as to actually hunt down and murder non-Hispanics (an example: Pedro Espinoza murdered Jamiel Shaw). From Florida to California, Nevada to New Jersey, even as far away as the state of Washington these incidents involving pro-Mexican gangs against American students continue to rise.
As Eugene Volokh, a University of California Los Angeles law professor and nationally recognized expert on the First Amendment, noted:
'Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. The school taught its students a simple lesson: If you dislike speech and want it suppressed, then you can get what you want by threatening violence against the speakers. The school will cave in, the speakers will be shut up, and you and your ideology will win. When thuggery pays, the result is more thuggery. Is that the education we want our students to be getting?'”
The solution isn't to codependently side with the violent pro-Mexican La Raza identity contingent that's threatening and attacking American students who stay loyal to the U.S. as you wrongly assert.
Their actions are seditious, criminal and/or bordering on criminal depending on the specific situation, and totally out of alignment with the values and behavior U.S. students should be held to in the U.S. public school system to the point it's serious enough that deportation should be initiated for the illegal aliens engaging in it while the disloyal citizens acting out in that manner against the nation and its loyal citizens for another disciplined.
And I continue to refute your ignorant "flag idolization" false assertion. As I said, "This isn't a case of 'nationalistic fear mongering' to 'idolize the flag' so it can be 'codified as a sacred object' as you falsely assert in your great ignorance but rather an important case involving important issues that transcend even the critical points I made in post #6, which refute your idiotic statements, as well as the first amendment issues involved."
For someone who likes to accuse others of having poor reading comprehension (while simultaneously making it difficult to even understand what they are writing because they spread out their information over multiple posts and don't follow the rules of grammar and composition well), I'm having to repeat that last point for the third time.
Of course there's a history of enmity from the pro-Mexico La Raza identity contingent. I said as much in my last post stating:
"Many of Mexico's citizens, attending public schools in the U.S., have formed into Hispanic gangs fomenting an anti-American racist La Raza identity that create a great deal of problems for school officials and other students up to and including large scale riots on campus.
Illegal alien minors from these gangs have gone so far as to actually hunt down and murder non-Hispanics (an example: Pedro Espinoza murdered Jamiel Shaw). From Florida to California, Nevada to New Jersey, even as far away as the state of Washington these incidents involving pro-Mexican gangs against American students continue to rise.
As Eugene Volokh, a University of California Los Angeles law professor and nationally recognized expert on the First Amendment, noted:
'Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. The school taught its students a simple lesson: If you dislike speech and want it suppressed, then you can get what you want by threatening violence against the speakers. The school will cave in, the speakers will be shut up, and you and your ideology will win. When thuggery pays, the result is more thuggery. Is that the education we want our students to be getting?'”
The solution isn't to codependently side with the violent pro-Mexican La Raza identity contingent that's threatening and attacking American students who stay loyal to the U.S. as you wrongly assert.
Their actions are seditious, criminal and/or bordering on criminal depending on the specific situation, and totally out of alignment with the values and behavior U.S. students should be held to in the U.S. public school system to the point it's serious enough that deportation should be initiated for the illegal aliens engaging in it while the disloyal citizens acting out in that manner against the nation and its loyal citizens for another disciplined.
And I continue to refute your ignorant "flag idolization" false assertion. As I said, "This isn't a case of 'nationalistic fear mongering' to 'idolize the flag' so it can be 'codified as a sacred object' as you falsely assert in your great ignorance but rather an important case involving important issues that transcend even the critical points I made in post #6, which refute your idiotic statements, as well as the first amendment issues involved."
For someone who likes to accuse others of having poor reading comprehension (while simultaneously making it difficult to even understand what they are writing because they spread out their information over multiple posts and don't follow the rules of grammar and composition well), I'm having to repeat that last point for the third time.
A
It's because of people like you posthuman that 68.8% percent of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. state that Mexico comes first in questions of loyalty (see Zogby poll commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies link below).
https://cis.org/ZogbyPoll-EffectsOfAmnesty
Furthermore, even though the United States paid handsomely for the land it acquired and Mexican President Santa Anna was only too happy to oblige, an earlier June 2002 Zogby International Poll showed that 58 percent of Mexicans in the U.S. polled agreed that the "territory of the United States Southwest belongs to Mexico." That's "belongs to Mexico" as in the present and the future. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the deep and serious enculturation problem with that statistic.
The Mexico-first attitude dominating much of the Hispanic youth in the U.S. and the gangs they form has taken years of codependence to cultivate, aided primarily by liberals such as yourself and the deliberate misinformation from groups like Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) which explicitly tells them to reject the notion that Hispanics should assimilate into the American melting pot.
Miguel Perez, President of Cal-State Northridge's MEChA chapter, said, "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled and opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."
Hudson Institute report 'America’s Patriotic Assimilation System Is Broken' April 2013: https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/Final04-05.pdf
It's in this context that you've then attempted to minimize the threat to the nation and loyal American kids as occurred in Morgan Hill in which groups of Hispanics run around high school campuses carrying Mexican flags threatening to violently assault patriotic students for wearing t-shirts with the American flag.
And let me tell you that it was NOT this pronounced before. As a kid, I used to box and wrestle at the Boys Club with Hispanics (e.g. some prefer Latino which is fine) who were LOYAL AMERICANS that proudly flew the American flag. I served with them in the U.S. military. The older Hispanics I know aren't haters but were hard workers who made a life here. They either fly the U.S. flag or both flags. I LIVE in Southern California.
This rabid anti-American, racist, pro-violent, gang-oriented, La Raza ("all for La Raza none for anyone else") promotion of Reconquista and ethnic cleansing springing from Hispanic militant hate groups has only been around since the 1960s and though its members were always bad apples didn't gain the traction with respect to numbers that it has today among the youth until fairly recently.
The problem has arisen primarily due to the systemic breakdown of the immigration system that was designed to adequately enculturate incoming immigrants. Waiving the amnesty wand over millions of people that remain unenculturated to the point of hating you and the nation giving them "free" amnesty doesn't solve anything. In fact, it makes things worse because it makes it possible for them to stay and tear down your culture and hurt you.
We need to bring discipline to bear in a way that favors those loyal to the United States and begin finally enculturating all of these misinformed anti-American Hispanic anchors and illegals that are roaming around claiming their U.S. public school campuses for Mexico and threatening American kids.
https://cis.org/ZogbyPoll-EffectsOfAmnesty
Furthermore, even though the United States paid handsomely for the land it acquired and Mexican President Santa Anna was only too happy to oblige, an earlier June 2002 Zogby International Poll showed that 58 percent of Mexicans in the U.S. polled agreed that the "territory of the United States Southwest belongs to Mexico." That's "belongs to Mexico" as in the present and the future. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the deep and serious enculturation problem with that statistic.
The Mexico-first attitude dominating much of the Hispanic youth in the U.S. and the gangs they form has taken years of codependence to cultivate, aided primarily by liberals such as yourself and the deliberate misinformation from groups like Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) which explicitly tells them to reject the notion that Hispanics should assimilate into the American melting pot.
Miguel Perez, President of Cal-State Northridge's MEChA chapter, said, "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled and opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."
Hudson Institute report 'America’s Patriotic Assimilation System Is Broken' April 2013: https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/Final04-05.pdf
It's in this context that you've then attempted to minimize the threat to the nation and loyal American kids as occurred in Morgan Hill in which groups of Hispanics run around high school campuses carrying Mexican flags threatening to violently assault patriotic students for wearing t-shirts with the American flag.
And let me tell you that it was NOT this pronounced before. As a kid, I used to box and wrestle at the Boys Club with Hispanics (e.g. some prefer Latino which is fine) who were LOYAL AMERICANS that proudly flew the American flag. I served with them in the U.S. military. The older Hispanics I know aren't haters but were hard workers who made a life here. They either fly the U.S. flag or both flags. I LIVE in Southern California.
This rabid anti-American, racist, pro-violent, gang-oriented, La Raza ("all for La Raza none for anyone else") promotion of Reconquista and ethnic cleansing springing from Hispanic militant hate groups has only been around since the 1960s and though its members were always bad apples didn't gain the traction with respect to numbers that it has today among the youth until fairly recently.
The problem has arisen primarily due to the systemic breakdown of the immigration system that was designed to adequately enculturate incoming immigrants. Waiving the amnesty wand over millions of people that remain unenculturated to the point of hating you and the nation giving them "free" amnesty doesn't solve anything. In fact, it makes things worse because it makes it possible for them to stay and tear down your culture and hurt you.
We need to bring discipline to bear in a way that favors those loyal to the United States and begin finally enculturating all of these misinformed anti-American Hispanic anchors and illegals that are roaming around claiming their U.S. public school campuses for Mexico and threatening American kids.
Last edited:
to me, this is about a thread whose title is an out-and-out lie, and a complete mis-characterization of what actually went on in the case, and i wanted the facts to be set straight.
as Nautilus pointed out, what happened in court actually makes sense and is reasonable once you know the actual facts of what went on, and the nationalism and anti-Hispanic racism is stripped away.
i perceive now that to you, this isn't about what actually went on in the school, or the courtroom, or why the school authorities or the circuit court and appeals courts came to the unanimous decisions that they did.
for you, it's about a whole lot of things that are completely immaterial to the court case - about the way you personally feel about Latinos, about the way you personally feel about the American flag, about the way you personally perceive our national heritage is, and your opinion of what it should be.
we're not even talking about the same things. you're talking about immigration and ethnic strife. i'm talking about the facts of the case and the deception in the thread title, the original post, and your attitude about them.
maybe you should start a new thread called "why i love the American flag and what i don't like about Hispanic people" -- and i promise i'll stay completely away from it.
as Nautilus pointed out, what happened in court actually makes sense and is reasonable once you know the actual facts of what went on, and the nationalism and anti-Hispanic racism is stripped away.
i perceive now that to you, this isn't about what actually went on in the school, or the courtroom, or why the school authorities or the circuit court and appeals courts came to the unanimous decisions that they did.
for you, it's about a whole lot of things that are completely immaterial to the court case - about the way you personally feel about Latinos, about the way you personally feel about the American flag, about the way you personally perceive our national heritage is, and your opinion of what it should be.
we're not even talking about the same things. you're talking about immigration and ethnic strife. i'm talking about the facts of the case and the deception in the thread title, the original post, and your attitude about them.
maybe you should start a new thread called "why i love the American flag and what i don't like about Hispanic people" -- and i promise i'll stay completely away from it.
i rather think that that's got more to do with anti-Latino sentiment than it does people who stand up for the truth.
the poll numbers don't show any causal relationship, but it would be interesting to compare that statistic over time with the amount of anti-immigration politicking the Republican party has done. i bet there's a positive correlation.
A
That's because you're lost in your own fantasy world. The ACLJ did not lie when they formulated the title and the only mischaracterization is your misrepresentation.
The racism here, as has been clearly explained to you, is another piece of a much larger anti-American racist pro-Mexican La Raza identity crisis occurring mostly in the southwest with respect to young illegals and the anchors of illegals who entered the U.S. thorough a broken immigration system.
Your post shows that you've chosen to live in denial of the truth AFTER it's been explained to you.
It's true I don't share your talent for sticking your head in your sand and looking at things strictly through a myopic lens. I do look at the big picture and put events in their proper context.
And, I feel exactly about the American flag exactly as I should feel about the American flag. I'm an honorably discharged U.S. military veteran and loyal American. The fact that anti-American La Raza racists and their Hispanic street gangs do not stems from the complete lack of enculturation which they would have received if it weren't for people like you that voted for political candidates who went in the opposite direction ensuring that the desirable enculturation never occurred.
Now we have a problem. At least they have an excuse of sorts. You do not twice over.
Furthermore, your false ad hominem about the way I feel about Latinos is a lie out of your mouth. I already explained how I feel about Latinos in my previous post which you apparently ignored. I feel GREAT about the ones loyal to the U.S. and NOT so great about the ones trying to tear down my nation for Mexico and build a mythical Aztlan which they stated they intend to "cleanse" of non-Latinos.
Pull your head out of the ground and read some of the information being handed to you instead of fabricating lies about me.
I'm definitely talking about this case and how it fits into the big picture. I'm setting the record straight not you. You're just a passenger who has their headphone volume set to high so they can't hear anyone else but themselves.
The racism here, as has been clearly explained to you, is another piece of a much larger anti-American racist pro-Mexican La Raza identity crisis occurring mostly in the southwest with respect to young illegals and the anchors of illegals who entered the U.S. thorough a broken immigration system.
Your post shows that you've chosen to live in denial of the truth AFTER it's been explained to you.
It's true I don't share your talent for sticking your head in your sand and looking at things strictly through a myopic lens. I do look at the big picture and put events in their proper context.
And, I feel exactly about the American flag exactly as I should feel about the American flag. I'm an honorably discharged U.S. military veteran and loyal American. The fact that anti-American La Raza racists and their Hispanic street gangs do not stems from the complete lack of enculturation which they would have received if it weren't for people like you that voted for political candidates who went in the opposite direction ensuring that the desirable enculturation never occurred.
Now we have a problem. At least they have an excuse of sorts. You do not twice over.
Furthermore, your false ad hominem about the way I feel about Latinos is a lie out of your mouth. I already explained how I feel about Latinos in my previous post which you apparently ignored. I feel GREAT about the ones loyal to the U.S. and NOT so great about the ones trying to tear down my nation for Mexico and build a mythical Aztlan which they stated they intend to "cleanse" of non-Latinos.
Pull your head out of the ground and read some of the information being handed to you instead of fabricating lies about me.
I'm definitely talking about this case and how it fits into the big picture. I'm setting the record straight not you. You're just a passenger who has their headphone volume set to high so they can't hear anyone else but themselves.
A
I don't care about your smelly hippie liberal fallacious reasoning. That's what created the problem in the first place. I have many Latino friends and they are all patriotic U.S. citizens who are appalled at the situation.
Some of them used to be exactly like the violent racist pro-Mexican La Raza perpetuators of this evil. I went to Victory Outreach for four years which is a Latino gang church here in Los Angeles, CA. I know a LOT more about this than you. I didn't create the problem, people who think like YOU did. As I already explained to you:
"The problem has arisen primarily due to the systemic breakdown of the immigration system that was designed to adequately enculturate incoming immigrants. Waiving the amnesty wand over millions of people that remain unenculturated to the point of hating you and the nation giving them "free" amnesty doesn't solve anything. In fact, it makes things worse because it makes it possible for them to stay and tear down your culture and hurt you.
We need to bring discipline to bear in a way that favors those loyal to the United States and begin finally enculturating all of these misinformed anti-American Hispanic anchors and illegals that are roaming around claiming their U.S. public school campuses for Mexico and threatening American kids."
But that's never going to happen because of people like YOU. You're going to blame the victims and ensure the problem grows. That's what YOU are all about. I'm not but YOU are.
Even though you won't bother to read all of it and likely ignore it, I'm probably going to explain it more in detail from the perspective of political science and sociology, courses which I aced in college. I won't be doing it for you though. You're just the antagonist providing me the opportunity to get it down for the good of the board.
God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. That's me lol
.
Some of them used to be exactly like the violent racist pro-Mexican La Raza perpetuators of this evil. I went to Victory Outreach for four years which is a Latino gang church here in Los Angeles, CA. I know a LOT more about this than you. I didn't create the problem, people who think like YOU did. As I already explained to you:
"The problem has arisen primarily due to the systemic breakdown of the immigration system that was designed to adequately enculturate incoming immigrants. Waiving the amnesty wand over millions of people that remain unenculturated to the point of hating you and the nation giving them "free" amnesty doesn't solve anything. In fact, it makes things worse because it makes it possible for them to stay and tear down your culture and hurt you.
We need to bring discipline to bear in a way that favors those loyal to the United States and begin finally enculturating all of these misinformed anti-American Hispanic anchors and illegals that are roaming around claiming their U.S. public school campuses for Mexico and threatening American kids."
But that's never going to happen because of people like YOU. You're going to blame the victims and ensure the problem grows. That's what YOU are all about. I'm not but YOU are.
Even though you won't bother to read all of it and likely ignore it, I'm probably going to explain it more in detail from the perspective of political science and sociology, courses which I aced in college. I won't be doing it for you though. You're just the antagonist providing me the opportunity to get it down for the good of the board.
God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. That's me lol
.
A
"If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for peace sake to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered what peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine, and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors." -Locke, An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government, page 77.
I feel when America does stuff like this, it's a real slap in the face to the troops. "Yeah, thanks for risking your life for our freedom, but we're going to have to ban the American flag."
These men and women put their lives on the line so that America may prosper with freedom. Taking away a flag that someone shed blood for, is disrespectful to me. I can't believe Americans are willfully handing over their rights just to avoid offense or to be politically correct.
These men and women put their lives on the line so that America may prosper with freedom. Taking away a flag that someone shed blood for, is disrespectful to me. I can't believe Americans are willfully handing over their rights just to avoid offense or to be politically correct.
anything coming from the 9th circuit is anti-american anyway.
but what if there were no flags.
we would just find another symbol of how great we are.
there are people of the land, and people of the sea. people of the land can be nationalists without being fanatics.
people of the sea are not nationalists.
the west needs to believe its okay to be nationalists again. its not only okay, its important.
whats wrong with liking your country of citizenship and even your own race.
nothing. its ok to prefer your own traditions and history and country.
but not at the expense of others. if you dont like your own country, fix it. dont invade someone elses by illegalk immigration or otherwise.
and dont try to change the new country you came to. that shouldnt be allowed.
we need immigration policy now...immigration has to slow down and people have to assimilate with the basics and have one citizenship, one nation they choose.
but what if there were no flags.
we would just find another symbol of how great we are.
there are people of the land, and people of the sea. people of the land can be nationalists without being fanatics.
people of the sea are not nationalists.
the west needs to believe its okay to be nationalists again. its not only okay, its important.
whats wrong with liking your country of citizenship and even your own race.
nothing. its ok to prefer your own traditions and history and country.
but not at the expense of others. if you dont like your own country, fix it. dont invade someone elses by illegalk immigration or otherwise.
and dont try to change the new country you came to. that shouldnt be allowed.
we need immigration policy now...immigration has to slow down and people have to assimilate with the basics and have one citizenship, one nation they choose.
Last edited:
Please know there is ALWAYS two sides to every story. I hope this doesn't get lost in responses:
from the official court ruling:
As Rodriguez was leaving his office before brunch break,
a Caucasian student approached him, and said, “You may
want to go out to the quad area. There might be some—there
might be some issues.” During the break, another student
called Rodriguez over to a group of Mexican students, said
that she was concerned about a group of students wearing the
American flag, and said that “there might be problems.”
Rodriguez understood her to mean that there might be a
physical altercation.
A group of Mexican students asked
Rodriguez why the Caucasian students “get to wear their flag
out when we [sic] don’t get to wear our [sic] flag?”
Boden directed Rodriguez to have the students either turn
their shirts inside out or take them off. The students refused
to do so.
Rodriguez met with the students and explained that he
was concerned for their safety. The students did not dispute
that their attire put them at risk of violence. Plaintiff D.M.
said that he was “willing to take on that responsibility” in
order to continue wearing his shirt. Two of the students, M.D.
and D.G., said they would have worn the flag clothing even
if they had known violence would be directed toward them.
School officials permitted M.D. and another student not
a party to this action to return to class, because Boden
considered their shirts, whose imagery was less “prominent,”
to be “less likely [to get them] singled out, targeted for any
possible recrimination,” and “significant[ly] differen[t] in
[terms of] what [he] saw as being potential for targeting.”
(Rodriguez is the school's assistant principle, Boden is the principle) so it appears in fact, the Hispanic students were not allowed to wear shirts with a Mexican flag & not even every student wearing an American flag shirt on it was asked to remove or invert it, but only a few of those involved in the altercation.
the court ruling goes on to describe how a couple of students who had been involved in the altercation - the ones with the prominent American flag shirts, who refused to take them off and went home for the day, were threatened by some of the Hispanic students via text messages and a phone call. the school has a history of gang violence in addition to racial tension - their parents kept them at home for the next 2 days, fearing reprisal. it was these students' parents who sued the school system.
it was these students whose safety the school had acted to protect. their parents apparently didn't see it that way, but the court did.
here's the whole court ruling:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...7/11-17858.pdf
isn't it better to have the facts?
*()*()*()*()*()*
the flag was not banned.
from the ruling:
officials did not enforce a blanket ban on
American flag apparel, but instead allowed two students to
return to class when it became clear that their shirts were
unlikely to make them targets of violence. The school
distinguished among the students based on the perceived
threat level, and did not embargo all flag-related clothing.
it's apparent from reading the ruling that the Latino students had been prohibited from wearing Mexican flag shirts, even though the school was sanctioning a Cinco de Mayo celebration that day. when do we hear about the lawsuit the Hispanic children's parents filed?
also from the ruling, addressing the free speech claim:
“conduct by the student, in class or out of it,
which for any reason— whether it stems from time, place, or
type of behavior—materially disrupts classwork or involves
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of
course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of
freedom of speech.” Id. at 513. Under Tinker, schools may
prohibit speech that “might reasonably [lead] school
authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material
interference with school activities,” or that constitutes an
“actual or nascent [interference] with the schools’ work or . . .
collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to
be let alone.” Id. at 508, 514; see also Wynar, 728 F.3d at
1067 (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508, 514.). As we have
explained, “the First Amendment does not require school
officials to wait until disruption actually occurs before they
may act. In fact, they have a duty to prevent the occurrence of
disturbances.” Karp v. Becken, 477 F.2d 171, 175 (9th Cir.
1973) (footnote omitted). Indeed, in the school context, “the
level of disturbance required to justify official intervention is
relatively lower in a public school than it might be on a street
corner.” Id
are you saying it would have been better to wait until a fistfight broke out before taking any action at all?
a number of students involved in the altercation that were wearing shirts with American flags on them were sent back to class without being asked to do anything about their dress. there was no school-wide ban on the display of the flag either on that day or on any other (although statements in the ruling lead one to believe there was an embargo on the Mexican flag).
3 students who were personally involved in a near-violent dispute centering over their shirts, a least one of whom had been intimately involved the previous year in a similar dispute, were asked to either change their shirts or go home with an excused absence.
seems fair to me. actually, what the principal did seems more than fair, it seems wise.
Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
(Proverbs 26:20)
what was the principal's alternatives?
do nothing, after being warned several times that there was a dangerous situation developing, wait until a fight breaks out and then punish everyone involved in the violence?
send every Hispanic student offended by the group of Caucasian kids home?
cancel school and send everyone home?
take some sort of punitive action against either or both groups of students, even though none of them had so far broken any school policy?
what the principal did was ask the students who were the focus of the controversy to either do something temporarily to remove the offense, thus avoiding conflict, or take the rest of the day off school without it affecting their grades or attendance records.
i think your patriotic fervor is obscuring the facts of the case.
the reason that these Latino kids were upset was that in their own words:
why do the Caucasian kids "get to wear their flag out when we don’t get to wear our flag?”
that statement wasn't challenged. those kids had a legitimate beef - why couldn't they wear a Mexican flag shirt?
they weren't going around threatening everyone in the school who was wearing an American flag. they weren't destroying flags. they were apparently being provoked by a group of white kids, some of whom had an established history of doing the same. the school officials did their best to stop a fight from happening, and i think that's the best we can ask them to do. they knew the history and attitudes of all the kids involved and acted in their best interests, without allowing a fight to break out, and without punishing anyone unjustly.
*()*()*()*()*()*
not mentioned in the OP:
a school in northern California that had had a history of altercations & violence among the student body on Cinco de Mayo due to strong racial divisions between white & latino groups told students that came to school on that specific day wearing American flag t-shirts to either turn their shirts inside out for the remainder of the day, or return home for the day.
a Federal court ruled that the schools need to protect the safety of the students outweighed the students right to free speech, after a group of parents sued the school system.
speech is not free when it incites violence.
to say that the court "banned the American flag" is completely deceptive.
link to the Associated Press article: Court: School can ban US flag shirts for safety
from the official court ruling:
As Rodriguez was leaving his office before brunch break,
a Caucasian student approached him, and said, “You may
want to go out to the quad area. There might be some—there
might be some issues.” During the break, another student
called Rodriguez over to a group of Mexican students, said
that she was concerned about a group of students wearing the
American flag, and said that “there might be problems.”
Rodriguez understood her to mean that there might be a
physical altercation.
A group of Mexican students asked
Rodriguez why the Caucasian students “get to wear their flag
out when we [sic] don’t get to wear our [sic] flag?”
Boden directed Rodriguez to have the students either turn
their shirts inside out or take them off. The students refused
to do so.
Rodriguez met with the students and explained that he
was concerned for their safety. The students did not dispute
that their attire put them at risk of violence. Plaintiff D.M.
said that he was “willing to take on that responsibility” in
order to continue wearing his shirt. Two of the students, M.D.
and D.G., said they would have worn the flag clothing even
if they had known violence would be directed toward them.
School officials permitted M.D. and another student not
a party to this action to return to class, because Boden
considered their shirts, whose imagery was less “prominent,”
to be “less likely [to get them] singled out, targeted for any
possible recrimination,” and “significant[ly] differen[t] in
[terms of] what [he] saw as being potential for targeting.”
(Rodriguez is the school's assistant principle, Boden is the principle) so it appears in fact, the Hispanic students were not allowed to wear shirts with a Mexican flag & not even every student wearing an American flag shirt on it was asked to remove or invert it, but only a few of those involved in the altercation.
the court ruling goes on to describe how a couple of students who had been involved in the altercation - the ones with the prominent American flag shirts, who refused to take them off and went home for the day, were threatened by some of the Hispanic students via text messages and a phone call. the school has a history of gang violence in addition to racial tension - their parents kept them at home for the next 2 days, fearing reprisal. it was these students' parents who sued the school system.
it was these students whose safety the school had acted to protect. their parents apparently didn't see it that way, but the court did.
here's the whole court ruling:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...7/11-17858.pdf
isn't it better to have the facts?
*()*()*()*()*()*
the flag was not banned.
from the ruling:
officials did not enforce a blanket ban on
American flag apparel, but instead allowed two students to
return to class when it became clear that their shirts were
unlikely to make them targets of violence. The school
distinguished among the students based on the perceived
threat level, and did not embargo all flag-related clothing.
it's apparent from reading the ruling that the Latino students had been prohibited from wearing Mexican flag shirts, even though the school was sanctioning a Cinco de Mayo celebration that day. when do we hear about the lawsuit the Hispanic children's parents filed?
also from the ruling, addressing the free speech claim:
“conduct by the student, in class or out of it,
which for any reason— whether it stems from time, place, or
type of behavior—materially disrupts classwork or involves
substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of
course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of
freedom of speech.” Id. at 513. Under Tinker, schools may
prohibit speech that “might reasonably [lead] school
authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material
interference with school activities,” or that constitutes an
“actual or nascent [interference] with the schools’ work or . . .
collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to
be let alone.” Id. at 508, 514; see also Wynar, 728 F.3d at
1067 (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508, 514.). As we have
explained, “the First Amendment does not require school
officials to wait until disruption actually occurs before they
may act. In fact, they have a duty to prevent the occurrence of
disturbances.” Karp v. Becken, 477 F.2d 171, 175 (9th Cir.
1973) (footnote omitted). Indeed, in the school context, “the
level of disturbance required to justify official intervention is
relatively lower in a public school than it might be on a street
corner.” Id
are you saying it would have been better to wait until a fistfight broke out before taking any action at all?
a number of students involved in the altercation that were wearing shirts with American flags on them were sent back to class without being asked to do anything about their dress. there was no school-wide ban on the display of the flag either on that day or on any other (although statements in the ruling lead one to believe there was an embargo on the Mexican flag).
3 students who were personally involved in a near-violent dispute centering over their shirts, a least one of whom had been intimately involved the previous year in a similar dispute, were asked to either change their shirts or go home with an excused absence.
seems fair to me. actually, what the principal did seems more than fair, it seems wise.
Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
(Proverbs 26:20)
what was the principal's alternatives?
do nothing, after being warned several times that there was a dangerous situation developing, wait until a fight breaks out and then punish everyone involved in the violence?
send every Hispanic student offended by the group of Caucasian kids home?
cancel school and send everyone home?
take some sort of punitive action against either or both groups of students, even though none of them had so far broken any school policy?
what the principal did was ask the students who were the focus of the controversy to either do something temporarily to remove the offense, thus avoiding conflict, or take the rest of the day off school without it affecting their grades or attendance records.
i think your patriotic fervor is obscuring the facts of the case.
the reason that these Latino kids were upset was that in their own words:
why do the Caucasian kids "get to wear their flag out when we don’t get to wear our flag?”
that statement wasn't challenged. those kids had a legitimate beef - why couldn't they wear a Mexican flag shirt?
they weren't going around threatening everyone in the school who was wearing an American flag. they weren't destroying flags. they were apparently being provoked by a group of white kids, some of whom had an established history of doing the same. the school officials did their best to stop a fight from happening, and i think that's the best we can ask them to do. they knew the history and attitudes of all the kids involved and acted in their best interests, without allowing a fight to break out, and without punishing anyone unjustly.
*()*()*()*()*()*
not mentioned in the OP:
a school in northern California that had had a history of altercations & violence among the student body on Cinco de Mayo due to strong racial divisions between white & latino groups told students that came to school on that specific day wearing American flag t-shirts to either turn their shirts inside out for the remainder of the day, or return home for the day.
a Federal court ruled that the schools need to protect the safety of the students outweighed the students right to free speech, after a group of parents sued the school system.
speech is not free when it incites violence.
to say that the court "banned the American flag" is completely deceptive.
link to the Associated Press article: Court: School can ban US flag shirts for safety
that would indeed be tragic if that had been what had actually happened.
but it's not what actually happened.
the thread title is a lie.
i'm not interested in debating the merits of patriotism - our citizenship is in heaven - and i'm not interested in talking about the problems that immigration and ethnic diversity pose for the country.
just in clearing up the completely deceptive way in which this case has been represented in the media and in this thread. it's the truth about what actually happened here that i care about; that's all.
i don't blame you AOK for being deceived. that's on the media's head. it'd be nice though if you could at least acknowledge that you were mislead. your persistence in pridefully ignoring my correction is causing other people to read this thread and also be deceived by it.
K
I don't know how or why this happened, if Mexican kids were threatening Caucasians or if they were just wearing the Mexican flag with no malicious intent, but I still don't see why banning the American flag would be the solution. If anyone is causing problems, simply warn those kids that there will be consequences, and if they don't heed the warning, expell them. No one should accomodate to the wrongdoers, that creates a culture of crime and entitlement.
As to why Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, I can understand why, though at first I didn't and I'm still trying to make sense of it. It's not even a national holiday in Mexico, and to be honest, no one celebrates it there except the state of Puebla (where the historical Battle of Puebla happened). Since California has Mexican roots, I can see why they started celebrating it given the historical context provided...though I don't know if they should make it an official celebration since not every Californian has hispanic roots, and also not every hispanic is Mexican. Just my opinion.
As to why Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, I can understand why, though at first I didn't and I'm still trying to make sense of it. It's not even a national holiday in Mexico, and to be honest, no one celebrates it there except the state of Puebla (where the historical Battle of Puebla happened). Since California has Mexican roots, I can see why they started celebrating it given the historical context provided...though I don't know if they should make it an official celebration since not every Californian has hispanic roots, and also not every hispanic is Mexican. Just my opinion.