Register to reply

American School Makes Boy Remove American Flag From His Bicycle

by mugaliens
Tags: american, bicycle, flag, makes, remove, school
Share this thread:
Al68
#37
Nov14-10, 09:17 PM
P: 801
Quote Quote by Hepth View Post
Let me pose a side question, are Post Office employees REQUIRED to wear their uniform? If so, isn't that prohibiting free speech?
No, of course not: They are paid to wear it. The U.S.P.S. is composed entirely of volunteers.
Jimmy Snyder
#38
Nov15-10, 08:31 AM
P: 2,179
Quote Quote by CRGreathouse View Post
Precisely.
There is no district jurisdiction. Cases decided in Circuit courts apply the entire country.
Gokul43201
#39
Nov15-10, 01:57 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
Quote Quote by CRGreathouse View Post
I used to think the ACLU was a good group, but I've come to think that they support only speech which furthers their underlying political preferences.
Which are what?

I looked this one up in hopes that they would falsify my belief, but no such luck (nor the last several times I've tried).
Several times? Here, try these:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech...otected-speech

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/home...u-arizona-says

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/afte...l-agrees-stop-
BobG
#40
Nov15-10, 02:13 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
BobG's Avatar
P: 2,280
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
There is no district jurisdiction. Cases decided in Circuit courts apply the entire country.
Technically, that's not entirely true.

If a district federal appeals court renders a decision, it's binding on every lower federal court in that district. It's not binding on the state courts that may be located in the same region, nor on any military courts that may be located in the same region.

It's technically not binding on other federal appeals courts, but, in practice, precedents from other districts are commonly referred to if they cover the same, or very similar, circumstances. It's very common to see court decisions of other district appeals courts cited in federal apeals court decision. It's not very common for federal appeals courts to disagree with each other (i.e. - what you say is more or less true in practice). When they do disagree, it's almost a certainty the issue will be resolved by the US Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court is the only court binding on all lower federal courts, state courts, military courts, etc.
Galteeth
#41
Nov15-10, 04:11 PM
P: 320
I know a far left group who in fact, thinks the ACLU is a crypto-fascist organization since they regularly defend the free speech rights of bigots and ultra right wingers.

Point is, they have a pretty good track record of defending all speech, regardless of political content.
CRGreathouse
#42
Nov15-10, 10:55 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Quote Quote by Galteeth View Post
Point is, they have a pretty good track record of defending all speech, regardless of political content.
That's actually the point with which I was disagreeing.

I would love to test this (over future events, of course, to avoid selection bias) if you can come up with a good way to code events in terms of importance of position on the spectrum. PM me or start a new thread if you're interested.
CRGreathouse
#43
Nov15-10, 10:56 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
There is no district jurisdiction. Cases decided in Circuit courts apply the entire country.
False.
NobodySpecial
#44
Nov15-10, 11:06 PM
P: 474
Quote Quote by mugaliens View Post
No principal has the right to deny a child's properly-exercised Constitutional rights, and displaying our American flag is utterly proper.
Displaying it on the back of his bike is utterly improper

US flag code TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > 7 (b)
CRGreathouse
#45
Nov16-10, 12:11 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Quote Quote by Gokul43201 View Post
Several times? Here, try these:
Not useful; sampling bias. (I haven't looked at the articles.)

If you are interested in exploring this further (I am!) see post #42, where I extend my offer to include you as well. If we go forward with this it would be ideal if we could find someone with a stronger stats background on these boards; mine are passable only.
Gokul43201
#46
Nov16-10, 08:48 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
I wasn't looking for an unbiased sample. All I needed was one counter-example to falsify your belief, namely (emphasis mine):
"I've come to think that they support only speech which furthers their underlying political preferences."
Moreover, any test you design needs a well defined null hypothesis, which means you'd likely have to specify what underlying political preferences you are testing for. I asked before, and you didn't say what they were.

Nevertheless, in the context of this particular thread, the obvious and oft repeated precedent is the Cinco-de-Mayo case, which was the one I first looked for as I suspected it might be one of those things that you believed fell outside of the ACLU's preferences. The first link in my previous post describes the ACLU's arguments defending the display of the US flag in that particular case - a much more "risky" environment than that being discussed in this thread, IMO.
zomgwtf
#47
Nov16-10, 10:58 AM
P: 500
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
To be fair, I think this started as result of gang colors. If you wear blue in a red area [gang colors] you could end up dead or be the cause of a drive-by shooting. If one follows the dots, one finds that this is just another manifestation of the war on drugs, as this is ultimately what funds and motivates gang warfare.
Nah you're much more likely to be killed by people of the 'same gang'. It's much more complicated than a blue vs. red analogy that the media loves. Gangs that associate with the 'bloods'(red) kill each other far more often than fighting anyone else.
BobG
#48
Nov16-10, 12:43 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
BobG's Avatar
P: 2,280
The lesson to be learned from this?

Terrorism works!

Parraz says the supervisor had information that Cody Alicea's safety was at risk because of the flag. Some students had complained about it and had apparently made threats.

"The last thing we wanted was to deny Cody his rights," said Parraz speaking about the boy's wish to fly the American flag.

Parraz said national flags were banned from campus after a Cinco De Mayo incident when tensions escalated between students displaying the Mexican flag and those waving the Stars and Stripes. Recently, several students complained and there was even one threat.

"I think it would be irresponsible of us if we kind of shined it on and let him have the flag and he got jumped or something like that and got hurt," said Parraz.
To be fair, the school's response wasn't radically different than the response of the US government to 9/11. Protect people's safety, even if it denies them their rights.

At least initially, anyway. Given time to figure out which reactions make sense and which are simply irrational knee jerk reactions, one would hope that most would do the same as the school and come to the realization that at least some of their initial reactions were wrong.
Al68
#49
Nov16-10, 12:54 PM
P: 801
Quote Quote by BobG View Post
Protect people's safety, even if it denies them their rights.
No doubt that reminds many of the famous Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
JaredJames
#50
Nov16-10, 01:11 PM
P: 3,387
If people don't like seeing the US flag, why would they live in the US?

This is nonsense. If you want to live and benefit from the US then get used to seeing these things.

It wasn't so long ago that a council in the UK requested someone take down their Christmas decorations from the outside of their home so it wouldn't offend neighbouring immigrants.
The reaction was simple, people said tuff. You want to live in a country, get used to their traditions and such. If you don't want to integrate that's up to you, but it isn't down to those already there to alter their lives to accomodate you.

If people are going to threaten someone, especially for something as ridiculous as simply displaying the flag, they don't deserve to be in that country.

Sorry for the rant, but it's things like this that really infuriate me.
Evo
#51
Nov16-10, 01:17 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,557
Quote Quote by Al68 View Post
No doubt that reminds many of the famous Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You think schools were more lenient in Ben's time? The schoolmaster probably would have beaten the kid with a stick or boxed his ears for causing trouble.

We're talking about child safety on school grounds here, let's keep it about the actual circumstances please.
JaredJames
#52
Nov16-10, 01:38 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
You think schools were more lenient in Ben's time? The schoolmaster probably would have beaten the kid with a stick or boxed his ears for causing trouble.

We're talking about child safety on school grounds here, let's keep it about the actual circumstances please.
I have to say, there should never be a question of safety when it comes to something like this.

Any child who threatens another should be removed from the school. Once again they are making allowances for bad behaviour and showing that it does pay off.

We won't remove the person(s) threatening to use violence, we'll punish those who have done no wrong. I personally won't stand for this kind of attitude.
Evo
#53
Nov16-10, 01:41 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,557
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
I have to say, there should never be a question of safety when it comes to something like this.

Any child who threatens another should be removed from the school. Once again they are making allowances for bad behaviour and showing that it does pay off.

We won't remove the person(s) threatening to use violence, we'll punish those who have done no wrong. I personally won't stand for this kind of attitude.
Did you read Bob's post about the sequence of events? It's unlikely they even knew who might be a threat.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...7&postcount=48

Seriously, if my kid was harmed or killed because the school failed to take immediate action to protect my child, there would be hell to pay. Nothing comes before my child's welfare and while at school, the school is responsible for my child's welfare.
JaredJames
#54
Nov16-10, 01:48 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Did you read Bob's post about the sequence of events? It's unlikely they even knew who might be a threat.
"Some students had complained about it and had apparently made threats."

If they've complained, someone must know who they are. Especially if it's gone this far.
Seriously, if my kid was harmed or killed because the school failed to take immediate action to protect my child, there would be hell to pay. Nothing comes before my child's welfare and while at school, the school is responsible for my child's welfare.
Certainly, but would you want the school to remove the child being threatening or penalise your child for doing nothing wrong?

By penalising the child for not doing any wrong all you do is show these children that violent and threatening behaviour gets your own way.

I speak as a person who has never been on the "violent and threatening" end of things. I'm part of the group that behaviour is aimed towards.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
American in a European Grad School? Academic Guidance 5
Are South American/Central American countries pro/anti emigration? Current Events 5
American Flag General Physics 3
Remove mass from bicycle General Physics 6
American soldiers shooting American civilians Current Events 19