News American School Makes Boy Remove American Flag From His Bicycle

  • Thread starter Thread starter mugaliens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bicycle School
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around a school incident where a student was asked to remove an American flag from his bike, sparking debates about constitutional rights and school policies. Concerns were raised about educators being out of touch and prioritizing student complaints over constitutional protections, particularly the First Amendment. The ban on flags was reportedly implemented to prevent racial tensions after a Cinco de Mayo incident involving the Mexican flag. Participants argue that such bans infringe on national identity and expression, and that the school should not censor students based on complaints without substantial justification. The conversation reflects broader issues of free speech, cultural identity, and the role of schools in managing expression.
  • #31
Evo said:
That case was cited by the plaintifs and they lost. It's in paragraph 2.

I don't see how that is germane. You asked for cases overturned at the national level (in this context, as discussed above, this means the SCOTUS) and I gave one. That the 11th Circuit ruled in an apparently contrary fashion doesn't surprise me in the least. That it was citied is obvious -- it's cited in every such case...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #35
Last edited:
  • #37
Hepth said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
CRGreathouse said:
Precisely.
There is no district jurisdiction. Cases decided in Circuit courts apply the entire country.
 
  • #39
CRGreathouse said:
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/students-american-flag-t-shirts-are-protected-speech

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/homeowner-has-right-fly-historic-military-flag-aclu-arizona-says

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596540478031242.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aft...ledictorian-michigan-high-school-agrees-stop-
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
  • #41
Gokul43201 said:
Which are what?

Several times? Here, try these:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/students-american-flag-t-shirts-are-protected-speech

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/homeowner-has-right-fly-historic-military-flag-aclu-arizona-says

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596540478031242.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aft...ledictorian-michigan-high-school-agrees-stop-

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.
 
  • #42
Galteeth said:
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.
 
  • #43
Jimmy Snyder said:
There is no district jurisdiction. Cases decided in Circuit courts apply the entire country.

False.
 
  • #44
mugaliens said:
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)
 
  • #45
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #46
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.
 
  • #47
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • #48
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.
 
  • #49
BobG said:
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."
 
  • #50
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 accommodate 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.
 
  • #51
Al68 said:
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.
 
  • #52
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #53
jarednjames said:
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.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2988697&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.
 
  • #54
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #55
jarednjames said:
"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.


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.
You bet they'd better remove my child from harm. If it's something he/she is wearing or has on a bicycle, get rid of it. Nothing is worth harming my child. Safety first. Details can be figured out later.

When Evo Child was in middle school she wore a girls shirt with a pink teddy bear on it. When the school couldn't reach me to come get her, they made her wear it inside out. They had just placed a ban on clothes with symbols or logos on them. While this really didn't fit the ban, the teacher decided it would be nothing for anyone just so there wouldn't be any arguments. They are in school to learn, not to compare fashion. So while we laughed about how stupid it was, it made sense for having thirty 12 year old children in a room with a teacher. The school did let up on the decorations as long as they weren't obscene or inflammatory, since it was virtually impossible to buy girl's clothes for that age group that was void of designs.
 
  • #56
I went to a school with a uniform for exactly that reason. Makes sense to me why all children should be viewed equally within a school environment.

My problem is with the fact it was on his bike. He wasn't flaunting it around the school or at least it doesn't appear to be the case.

Again, removing your child from harm is best served by removing the person creating the problem, not the innocent victim.

Yes, initial action should be prevent the problem but it should be followed by immediate action regarding the offender.

This school is simply punishing this child for no good reason and then (from what it appears) allowing the people doing the threatening to go free.

You can't just airbrush the problem away. These people will see that threatening others works and they can get away with it and will use it again when they need to achieve their goals.
 
  • #57
jarednjames said:
I went to a school with a uniform for exactly that reason. Makes sense to me why all children should be viewed equally within a school environment.

My problem is with the fact it was on his bike. He wasn't flaunting it around the school or at least it doesn't appear to be the case.

Again, removing your child from harm is best served by removing the person creating the problem, not the innocent victim.

Yes, initial action should be prevent the problem but it should be followed by immediate action regarding the offender.

This school is simply punishing this child for no good reason and then (from what it appears) allowing the people doing the threatening to go free.

You can't just airbrush the problem away. These people will see that threatening others works and they can get away with it and will use it again when they need to achieve their goals.
You do know about the history behind this, the flag problem at the school on Cinco de Mayo that caused the ban? There was a large group involved, that there was no single "identified" threat to remove?
 
  • #58
Evo said:
You do know about the history behind this, the flag problem at the school on Cinco de Mayo that caused the ban? There was a large group involved, that there was no single "identified" threat to remove?

Not a clue. Just read about it, that is despicable. Pure vandalism there.

So they've all out banned flags there now or in all schools?

The fact this flag was on the kids bike for two months says it all for me. There shouldn't be an issue. If it's taken 2 months to react then it's clearly not been a problem until someone suddenly decided it was.

Regardless, I stand by my point. If you want to live in the US, don't expect the people in the US to accommodate you by changing their lifestyles.
I don't care who lives next door to me, but don't expect me to change anything about my life to accommodate you.

Unless this kid was specifically responding to something then I don't see any argument against him carrying a flag. The Cinco de Mayo thing is nothing more than an idiot acting up. I see no similar action here.

If there are people making threats, get rid of them. They are no different to the idiot above.
 
  • #59
I'm in complete agreement with jarednjames on this issue. Usually I don't share the same feeling about things with the folks in the UK. I would have no problem sending my child to school with the flag on their bike despite this madeup security concern.

Maybe kids should be wearing helmets and bullet proof clothing at all times in this case. I mean come on, it's the schools responsibility to keep our kids safe, right?

So and so is offended and may become voilent by a childs hairdo, ban the hairdo?
 
  • #60
Wouldn't it have been a lot less intrusive if the school simply informed the kids parents of the threat, so they could take whatever action they deemed appropriate (i.e., have kid remove flag if they thought safety was more important, or have kid not remove flag if they considered the freedom of expression more important)?
 

Similar threads

News Eye on Americans - the FBI's Database on YOU
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
10K