News Is Free Speech Being Confused with Hate Speech in Schools?

[WhoWee]

Is this hate speech - or maybe just ambitious campaigning?


http://american3p.org/establishment-news/black-panther-kill-white-babies/

 

[WhoWee]

Is this free speech or hate speech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DQAOZlNrO8&NR=1

 

[Char. Limit]

If a German wears a Nazi symbol - it's ok?

If a German wears a Nazi symbol, he goes to jail. Nazi symbols are banned in Germany.

 

[WhoWee]

If a German wears a Nazi symbol, he goes to jail. Nazi symbols are banned in Germany.

I was limiting the events to the US - but good point.

 

[Char. Limit]

I was limiting the events to the US - but good point.

Not many Germans live in the U.S. A lot of German-Americans, though.

 

[WhoWee]

Not many Germans live in the U.S. A lot of German-Americans, though.

It's been my experience that a German-American (1-2 generations removed from WWII) would be more likely to display a Nazi symbol than a German.

 

[russ_watters]

Here is a direct connection.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/news?slug=dw-confederateflag100906[/I]

Jeez, what is it with people not explaining themselves tonight? A link to/quote from an article is not an explanation of a connection.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?!

 

[WhoWee]

Jeez, what is it with people not explaining themselves tonight? A link to/quote from an article is not an explanation of a connection.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?!

Very tired (last post of the evening) - I'm basically in agreement with you regarding the symbol vs the person with the symbol.

In the case of Nascar "Yet NASCAR doesn't want to alienate its loyal base, many of whom view the waving flags in the infield as a symbol of honor, history and traditional Southern pride."

Taking away the Confederate flag is like taking (ownership of) the sport away from many Southern fans - the flag brands the sport as Southern - it's not a racist statement. However, a Confederate flag painted on the rear window of a pick up truck owned by a young fellow in a Great Lakes city - might be (a racist statement).

 

[russ_watters]

Now, I am no history revisionists who will say slavery no part, because it did. It played a large part in the southern states' decision to succeed from the union along with a myriad of other reasons. The south was wrong in it's reasons for succeeding.

The US government rejected the legality of succession. (succession is mentioned no where in the constitution). In this respect I'd say the north was wrong in declaring that succession was illegal despite the constitution's silence on the matter, as the US is a group of states that willingly joined together in union.

This is where the confederate flag was created, as a symbol of the confederate states and their right to succeed from the union. Nope, it had nothing to do with slavery.

Um...so you acknowledge the war was at least partly about slavery and the flag was a symbol of the Confederate side of the war, but somehow that equals "nothing to do with slavery"? That's completely illogical.

Regardless...

I'm still not getting the racism, even taking into account your misunderstandings, I mean considering that persons of all races, including whites were slaves, and that slaves were mainly imported through the north?

Cop outs, all of them. What fraction of slaves were white? And whether the north participated in slave trade or not, it was the north that fought to end it.

Are you being serious here?

I'd be wondering the same about you, but I know these are common misdirections from people making this argument. I've seen them many times before and they never get less illogical as they are repeated.

But please, you tell me why the government of Georgia chose to put the Confederate Battle Flag into their state flag during the height of the civil rights movement.

Anyway, more misdirection:

The confederate flag was created during the civil war, as a symbol of the southern states.

You must be aware that that sentence does not reference the flag we're discussing. The flag we are discussing is the Confederate Battle Flag. Say it: "BATTLE". This seems like intentional misrepresentation of the issue for you to not use the word "battle". You're improperly labeling the flag in order to misrepresent what it stands for.

The flag that represents the Confederacy, a symbol of the southern states themselves (and not specifically the war), that was created at the start of the Civil War, is this one:

Just so we're understanding each other - you believe that the creation of the Confederate flag did not symbolize the confederate states, or the southern Us, but the advocation of slavery [snip]

Say it: BATTLE. The Confederate Battle flag is a symbol of the Battle. The war. (duh?)

Ponder this - does the American flag mean racism or slavery to you? I mean, the north had slaves almost just as long as the southern states did...

The American flag was not created as a symbol of a fight to preserve slavery.

...the southern states were just behind in getting rid of them.

That is a misrepresentation of the reality: until the Civil War happened, the South had no intention of getting rid of slavery. They were actively fighting against it.

If you consider the confederate flag to be solely a symbol of racism, do you at least admit that the US flag can be thought of as a symbol for slavery in the same way, along with the flags of several other nations?

I never used the word "soley", nor does your attempt to include the Amereican flag have any logic behind it.

Why do you insist that it is all that the flag symbolizes?

You're mischaracterizing what I said. I never used the words "soley" or "all". I used words like "predominantly" and "mostly".

Why does it symbolize that at all? Does the US flag represent discrimination to you? Or does it represent the proud inhabitants of the country and the pride they have for where they live?

Repeating yourself doesn't make it better. In any case, you still have not provided an example of what "heritage" you think the Confederate BATTLE Flag ACTUALLY stands for. Not providing the alternatives implies to me that you don't know of anything else it stands for.

 

[Char. Limit]

Very tired (last post of the evening) - I'm basically in agreement with you regarding the symbol vs the person with the symbol.

In the case of Nascar "Yet NASCAR doesn't want to alienate its loyal base, many of whom view the waving flags in the infield as a symbol of honor, history and traditional Southern pride."

Taking away the Confederate flag is like taking (ownership of) the sport away from many Southern fans - the flag brands the sport as Southern - it's not a racist statement. However, a Confederate flag painted on the rear window of a pick up truck owned by a young fellow in a Great Lakes city - might be (a racist statement).

I've seen Confederate flags in neighboring Idaho. It's not Southern, but it might as well be, considering the culture. Are they reflecting Southern pride or racist statements?

 

[WhoWee]

I've seen Confederate flags in neighboring Idaho. It's not Southern, but it might as well be, considering the culture. Are they reflecting Southern pride or racist statements?

I'm not familiar with the culture of Idaho? However, IMO, there is a correlation between Southern and rural - that is why I used the Great Lakes City - Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, or Buffalo to make a point.

 

[russ_watters]

Exactly! The use of the Confederate flag is to express a little more hate against even more people.

Yes: for the KKK it is blacks all the time and sometimes the government too.

The message being sent by a symbol depends on the context in which that symbol is used; not the symbol itself.

I agree in theory, but in reality, certain symbols are inexorably linked with certain causes. The Confederate Battle Flag is inexorably linked with the Civil War and the slavery it was fought to preserve.

The reality is - allowing a symbol to be consistently misused distorts the symbol's meanings to whatever the new users want it to mean. Having people misuse a symbol should tick off people who actually respect that symbol more than anyone else.

I'm not actually sure to what you are referring. Are we still talking about the Confederate Battle Flag or Che Guevara t-shirts?

For example, I'm surprised when I hear people defend the students that wore US flag T-shirts to protest a Cinco de Mayo celebration. That's not what the US flag was intended for, it's not even appropriate to wear the US flag as apparel, and it leads to idiotic reactions such as telling a kid he has to stop displaying his flag because it's Veteran's Day.

I'm less interested in misuse of a generally benign symbol than with use (or misuse, doesn't matter) of a well-established "bad" symbol.

 

[BobG]

Actually, when you really look at it, the Confederate flag is, at a minimum, a statement of hatred for the United States. It celebrates the days when the South was free of the United States and it, and the accompanying statement the South will rise again, offers the promise that someday the South will be free of the United States once again.

Considering why the South hates the United States and why the Confederate flag suddenly became popular again in the 50's, I could see people interpreting this as a statement of white supremacy as much as a statement of hatred for the United States.

Just a quick sampling of declarations of causes for seceding from the United States:
Texas Declaration of Causes
South Carolina Declaration of Causes
Mississippi Declaration of Secession

Texas, in particular, sounds like its declaration of causes were written by white supremists.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law.

Texas's declaration is a far cry from the US Declaration of Independence.

The idea of the Confederate flag as a legitimate expression of heritage and pride are more believable the less closely one looks at its real heritage.

 

[Hepth]

Being from and still living in Michigan, and a rural part at that (the majority of my relatives work for an auto company, watch nascar, hunt, have farmland, horses, listen to country, are republican and christian). None of them(to my knowledge) have ever displayed a confederate flag, nor do they sympathize with the south at all, but many of their friends do.
After meeting these friends, as well as a number of other confederate battle flag displaying (truck license plate, painted truck back window, etc) Michiganders I've come to realize that (for the majority of them):

1. They don't believe they are racist.
2. They don't look, nor do they think other people look at the confederate battle flag as anything more than a display of pride of the southern culture, let alone a symbol of racism.
3. They usually are a little racist, but in an ignorant way rather than a hateful one.

I think its one of those "ignorant of the common perception" actions; the flag is a symbol of support of slavery to a LOT of people. Many that are displaying it do not realize this, they truly (and mistakenly) believe it is merely a symbol of "southern heritage/culture".
The swastika is legitimately a symbol of luckiness; but it is perceived by many as a symbol of hate.

Regularly, the confederate flag is MISTAKENLY taken as a legitimate symbol of southern pride; but that doesn't mean those who display it for THIS reason are at fault for their mistaken attribution, nor EXPLICITLY believe its perceived racist agenda.

Just to clarify though, the case in question with the belt buckle is probably not a case of mistaken symbolism; but many will hide under that explanation to avoid persecution for their beliefs.

 

[BobG]

Just to clarify though, the case in question with the belt buckle is probably not a case of mistaken symbolism; but many will hide under that explanation to avoid persecution for their beliefs.

I don't believe she wore the buckle to show her support for Southern heritage and pride.

However, whatever lack of knowledge your relatives' friends may have about the Confederate flag is probably amplified when it comes to your average teenage girl in Michigan.

I think she may not consider it a symbol of anything.

One other note about the original post. As moving as the video of the gay student calling McDowell a hero was, the student actually didn't even go to the high school involved. I believe he may have legitimately been moved by the idea of a teacher standing up for gay students, but the video shouldn't be taken as a testimony about McDowell, himself.

All in all, the original post and article gave a horribly inaccurate picture of the entire incident.

 

[Char. Limit]

All in all, the original post and article gave a horribly inaccurate picture of the entire incident.

Especially since it implicitly stated that the student wearing the belt buckle was one of the students arguing.

 

[BobG]

Actually, given the history of this town, I think I might change my opinion about the students. It would be hard not to know why the Confederate flag was banned.

A Facebook hate group a year ago.

Anti-gay vandalism countered by vandalism defending gays 5 years ago.
Students Defend Gay Rights

The town celebrated Martin Luther King Day with an auction of KKK memorabilia.

The town was the home of KKK leader Robert Miles.
Exit the dragon: Klan sale goes quietly

For a town of 9,000, Howell's a pretty exciting place.

 

[Jasongreat]

Actually, when you really look at it, the Confederate flag is, at a minimum, a statement of hatred for the United States. It celebrates the days when the South was free of the United States and it, and the accompanying statement the South will rise again, offers the promise that someday the South will be free of the United States once again.

I don't see it that way, it may be a statement of hatred against what the United States had become, an involuntary association, but not against the original intent of the of the US. If we look at our founding document, it explicitly says: " — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. If you take a look at the http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/csaconstitution/" . I find it interesting that their miss-treatment coincides with their emancipation, in the north they are shunned and segregated, in the south they coexist and are allowed to even reach the same level. Once they were emancipated in the south, they were shunned and segregated. I think one could argue that it was emancipation that caused the violent treatment, by organizations like the KKK(they were formed originally to protect the whites votes during reconstruction when northern troops were keeping whites out of the voting booth), of blacks in the south and not slavery(which was a policy of the United States government, kept from their time as a colony of Britain, that somehow has the perceived moral high ground in this discussion)

Considering why the South hates the United States and why the Confederate flag suddenly became popular again in the 50's, I could see people interpreting this as a statement of white supremacy as much as a statement of hatred for the United States.

Why, their subjugation and elimination of the state's right to govern themselves except in those instances enumerated in the US constitution? The civil war was about slavery, not african slavery but state slavery and is why, imo, some southern states revived the flag when the US government started to do the same thing over again. If you consider following the founding principles of the US, love of our country, and going against the founding principles as hating our country. It is the south who loves, fought and died for the US. It was the north who hated, fought and died to subvert the US.

 

[Panwasbipolar]

I had a teacher in high school that preferred to reign with an iron fist, not standing for the pledge on religious grounds was fine, but if you brought up atheism or the laundry list of crap that was omitted in the texts we read it was classroom hellfire.

I understand it's somewhat relative to the time we live in but it appears to me this was more about ego rather than anything else.

Political correctness can work both ways I guess.

If they really wanted to be crafty they'd run around yelling , "Hail Caesar!"Cheers!

 

[WhoWee]

The civil war was about slavery, not african slavery but state slavery and is why, imo, some southern states revived the flag when the US government started to do the same thing over again. If you consider following the founding principles of the US, love of our country, and going against the founding principles as hating our country. It is the south who loves, fought and died for the US. It was the north who hated, fought and died to subvert the US.

Ideology had a part, but money also had a lot to do with it.

Slavery did not happen in a vacuum and it didn't occur overnight.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htm

It's unfortunate that cooler heads did not prevail. If Lincoln had the communication capabilities available today - we would probably have a different history.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335189,00.html

It's hard to imagine the conditions after the war (from all perspectives). The first question for the recently freed slave (after a short celebration) must have been "what now?".
http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/douglass/part5.html

 

[BobG]

Ideology had a part, but money also had a lot to do with it.

Slavery did not happen in a vacuum and it didn't occur overnight.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htm

Very good article. There's a difference between political ideology, economic ideology, and cultural values. In any stable culture, cultural values build up over time to support a lifestyle that works and preserve's a culture's ability to maintain that lifestyle in the face of outside pressure. A side effect is that cultural values become so deeply ingrained that they take on a life of their own outside any relevance they may have to that culture. The culture's environment changes; but it's cultural values keep the culture from changing.

There's plusses and minuses to that. It would be interesting to see if there are some basic cultural values that help cultures in a changing environment or if it's pretty much random chance - that some cultural values help a culture survive in one given change of circumstances while the same cultural values result in the culture collapsing completely in a different situation of change. In other words, are there truly good cultural values and bad cultural values, or does it just depend on the environment the culture happens to live in.

I think that with the difficulty of trying to study ancient cultures and the relative newness of cultural anthropology that that's a question one couldn't give a good answer to today. (It would be a very relevant question to have answered, since we've reached a point where the conditions of the world's civilizations tend to change constantly and rapidly and our response is just to guess which of our old cultural values still have relevance.)

Slavery had reached the point of being a cultural value. It was developed because of the economic necessity of slavery, slavery was still relevant to the economy, but it had reached the point where that cultural value would survive much longer than its economic necessity, even if slavery hadn't been prematurely cut off by the civil war.

As the article mentioned, it had a somewhat negative effect in the economic development of the South. The cultural integration of slavery made the civil war both more likely to occur and less likely to succeed.

 

[FlexGunship]

So what do you guys think? I think that the teacher should not have been suspended. First off, these kids were obviously causing a disruption in class. I have seen kids being sent out for much worse. [...] Schools should be safe fro bullying and abuse.

Responding directly to the OP here.

Frankly, this is a scary trend, and it's good that they came down so hard on the teacher. There is no constitutional right to not be offended. People seem to this this exists. You, in fact, have every right to be completely offended, and people have every right to offend you. The line is drawn at targeted harassment. I don't see evidence of that here except for the teach harassing the students.

Actually, when you really look at it, the Confederate flag is, at a minimum, a statement of hatred for the United States. It celebrates the days when the South was free of the United States and it, and the accompanying statement the South will rise again, offers the promise that someday the South will be free of the United States once again.

Considering why the South hates the United States and why the Confederate flag suddenly became popular again in the 50's, I could see people interpreting this as a statement of white supremacy as much as a statement of hatred for the United States.

Not to nitpick, but it's possible that the Confederate Flag is just a symbol for denouncing federalism (and the battle flag, of General Lee fame, is the obnoxiously loud version of this). It seems that you link it with white supremacy, and that's fine. But that might not be what it means to everyone.

 

[FlexGunship]

In any case, you still have not provided an example of what "heritage" you think the Confederate BATTLE Flag ACTUALLY stands for. Not providing the alternatives implies to me that you don't know of anything else it stands for.

I know you're not addressing me, but I feel there is an opposing side to your view, Russ, and it's not being well defended here by the individual(s) you are addressing. I'm going to try to defend the public display of the Confederate Battle Flag (and Nazi Swastikas by proxy) here.

Russ, it is possible that the Confederate Battle Flag might mean something politically significant to an individual. Specifically, it could stand for the ideal that fighting against militarily-enforced federalism is both prudent and respectable. Now, you don't have to agree with that stance, but I'm sure we can both recognize it's existence.

Furthermore, we can readily agree that this interpretation is not, perhaps, the common view. In fact, we could probably agree that the Confederate Battle Flag is borderline inflammatory! It sure seems to carry a lot of baggage with it. However, generating this emotional response in the public as a forum for discussion is the specific goal.

There's no reason to protect speech that everyone agrees with; everyone agrees with it. You don't have to agree with the folks that display the Confederate Battle Flag and you don't even have to respect them. But you certainly do have to tolerate it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Frankly, this is a scary trend, and it's good that they came down so hard on the teacher. There is no constitutional right to not be offended. People seem to this this exists. You, in fact, have every right to be completely offended, and people have every right to offend you. The line is drawn at targeted harassment.

No, it is not.

The courts have ruled more than once (as has been cited in this thread previously) that schools have the authority to place some restrictions on first amendment rights in the interest of preventing a demonstrable and significant disruption to the school's ability to function smoothly. Where the line is drawn for the broader public or the government is different from where it is drawn for public schools.

 

[FlexGunship]

The courts have ruled more than once (as has been cited in this thread previously) that schools have the authority to place some restrictions on first amendment rights in the interest of preventing a demonstrable and significant disruption to the school's ability to function smoothly. Where the line is drawn for the broader public or the government is different from where it is drawn for public schools.

(Emphasis added.)

Gokul, I concede the point. You are correct about public schools. Since attendance is mandatory, different rules apply. However, can we agree there is a conflict of interest? A public school teacher is fundamentally a government employee.

I was applying societal ideals to a non-ideal environment (public schools). If attendance at school was optional (like a private school), then it would not be a problem. They would simply lose business by allowing "disruptive" types to enroll.

 

[zomgwtf]

...Sure they can ban stuff that's disruptive but it would appear to me that it's kind of hypocritical.

What seems to have happened here was the TEACHER disrupted the class over the students belt-buckle. If this is an area where many people fly use this flag as symbolism of whatever they believe then it would probably be socially acceptable in this local area to do so. How would this be disruptive?
Something that DID disrupt the classroom (after the teachers initial disruption) was the fact that the teacher wore a symbol for anti-gay bullying. Surely this means that anti-gay bullying symbols are going to be banned from schools in the area?

Of course not because in good-old-'Merica it's not really 'freedom' and minorities without support from the majority are hardly ever protected. (as they should be in a democracy)

 

[Gokul43201]

If this is an area where many people fly use this flag as symbolism of whatever they believe then it would probably be socially acceptable in this local area to do so. How would this be disruptive?

And what if they believe that gays and blacks deserve lynching?

Did you miss BobG's post (#67) above?

 

[Gokul43201]

Since attendance is mandatory, different rules apply.

Is that the basis for the existing case law? I'm not sure without looking it up.

 

[FlexGunship]

And what if they believe that gays and blacks deserve lynching?

Did you miss BobG's post (#67) above?

You can't legislate a belief to make it illegal. That's called thought-crime and it was discussed handily in Orwell's book 1984.

You can make lynching illegal (and it already is!). But you can't make the personal motivations and thoughts of an individual illegal.

 

[FlexGunship]

Is that the basis for the existing case law? I'm not sure without looking it up.

It is regarding the forced recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I cannot speak specifically for cases involving Confederate Battle Flags.

 

[Gokul43201]

You can't legislate a belief to make it illegal.

I'm not saying you can. My response was aimed at the question raised by zomg: "How can this be disruptive"" I was specifically addressing that query.

 

[zomgwtf]

And what if they believe that gays and blacks deserve lynching?

Did you miss BobG's post (#67) above?

What if they believe that treating gays as equal will require punishment of the entire community and possibly end up with an eternity in hell?

This is rediculous, you can not support certain types of possibly offensive symbolism over any other simply because it's not in accordance with the majority belief system, or your own personal belief system.

I don't particularly care if they want to kill every last black person in the world. They are ABLE to formulate these thoughts and they have the RIGHT to formulate these thoughts. If a group of them gets together and has a symbol that represents their group they can SHOW this symbol just like all the other groups can.

This is of course just going with your assumption that they do want to kill blacks/gays. In no way did I get that from this story and in no way did the story suggest that the belt was disruptive for such a reason. It was not disruptive until the teacher made the disruption.

 

[Gokul43201]

What if they believe that treating gays as equal will require punishment of the entire community and possibly end up with an eternity in hell?

This is rediculous, you can not support certain types of possibly offensive symbolism over any other simply because it's not in accordance with the majority belief system, or your own personal belief system.

Irrelevant (at best, and a strawman at worst - I never claimed anything related to the notion that you are attacking). The only thing that is relevant here is whether or not the symbolism could reasonably be expected to cause a significant disruption. By law, even if the symbolism expressed was that we should all be tolerant of each other, it could be banned if it was reasonably expected to be particularly disruptive.

I don't particularly care if they want to kill every last black person in the world. They are ABLE to formulate these thoughts and they have the RIGHT to formulate these thoughts. If a group of them gets together and has a symbol that represents their group they can SHOW this symbol just like all the other groups can.

Out on the streets, they can. Inside a school, there are restrictions.

This is of course just going with your assumption that they do want to kill blacks/gays.

I made no such assumption. I posed a hypothetical. It may or may not be true, but given the history of the place, it is not a stretch to imagine that the symbolism may have expressed more than just "southern pride" in its most benign form (making the expectation of significant disruption plausible).

In no way did I get that from this story and in no way did the story suggest that the belt was disruptive for such a reason. It was not disruptive until the teacher made the disruption.

How do you know it was not disruptive? I've not carefully followed all the news reporting on this - are there first person accounts stating that it was not disruptive? Moreover, a strong expectation of disruption is all that is legally required for the school to take preventive measures.

 

[zomgwtf]

Precisely my point Gokul, so gay support should also be banned at schools. It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see that some could be disruptive about it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Precisely my point Gokul, so gay support should also be banned at schools. It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see that some could be disruptive about it.

It could be (as could support of smooth pebbles over jagged ones), as long as the school reasonably expects that it would lead to a significant disruption.

 

[FlexGunship]

I could be (as could support of smooth pebbles over jagged ones), as long as the school reasonably expects that it would lead to a significant disruption.

This is turning into a very slippery slope.

In my mind, the other option is to simply allow all forms of expression which don't directly endanger an individual and which don't constitute a type of individually customized harassment.

I define" individually customized harassment" as a type of expression which doesn't target a group, but rather targets an individual. "Democrats should die" versus "Jimmy should die." (Edit: the questionable area is when there is only one individual in a group... what if Jimmy is the only Democrat in a classroom?)

 

[Galteeth]

What if you are not explicitly inciting violence, but wear an emblem of those who did to show your support? (I'm not sure, seems like a grey area)

Like the american flag?

 

[WhoWee]

I wonder if anyone would be offended if the American flag was displayed on their food stamp card, or Medicaid card, or HUD documents, or student loans, or FDA inspected items? Maybe all welfare recipients should be required to wear an American flag pin - or fly a flag at their home - UNTIL THEY GET OFF THE BENEFITS?

 

[Al68]

I wonder if anyone would be offended if the American flag was displayed on their food stamp card, or Medicaid card, or HUD documents, or student loans, or FDA inspected items? Maybe all welfare recipients should be required to wear an American flag pin - or fly a flag at their home - UNTIL THEY GET OFF THE BENEFITS?

This would be far more appropriate:

And before anyone objects to this as representing the USSR, it more generally represents the "proletariat/peasantry" in socialist ideology.

 

[Galteeth]

I wonder if anyone would be offended if the American flag was displayed on their food stamp card, or Medicaid card, or HUD documents, or student loans, or FDA inspected items? Maybe all welfare recipients should be required to wear an American flag pin - or fly a flag at their home - UNTIL THEY GET OFF THE BENEFITS?

My proximal point was that all flags are a symbol of "violence." All nation states are founded on the notion of militarily protecting their borders and using violence or its threat to enforce their rules.

My real point was that it is all very subjective, and it is indeed a slippery slope to ban forms of speech, symbolic or otherwise, for the perception of what they might mean or the ideas they advocate.

 

[Al68]

My proximal point was that all flags are a symbol of "violence." All nation states are founded on the notion of militarily protecting their borders and using violence or its threat to enforce their rules

Sure but "violence" in that sense encompasses the entire spectrum between purely defensive force and mass murder, rendering the word "violence" a fairly meaningless word to use in that context. And your second statement is true for most nations that are not nation states as well, like the U.S.

 

[Gokul43201]

My real point was that it is all very subjective, and it is indeed a slippery slope to ban forms of speech, symbolic or otherwise, for the perception of what they might mean or the ideas they advocate.

To the best of my understanding, schools do not possesses the authority to ban forms of speech based on the perception of what they might mean or the ideas they might advocate. They may only ban speech that is expected to significantly disrupt their ability to function smoothly - the perceived meaning of the speech is essentially irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

All nation states are founded on the notion of militarily protecting their borders

Nope. Not all.

Sez your Canadian friends to the North...

 

[Al68]

All nation states are founded on the notion of militarily protecting their borders

Nope. Not all.

Sez your Canadian friends to the North...

Galteeth specifically referred to nation states. There may be a counter-example, but Canada isn't one of them, since it's not a nation state.

 

[zomgwtf]

Galteeth specifically referred to nation states. There may be a counter-example, but Canada isn't one of them, since it's not a nation state.

I'm pretty sure he just misused the word. It seems he was responding to something that was said about America and America is not a nation-state, just like Canada.

 

[Galteeth]

I'm pretty sure he just misused the word. It seems he was responding to something that was said about America and America is not a nation-state, just like Canada.

Ok, I know this is venturing off topic, but how do you define "nation-state"?

Going by wikipedia, the US and Canada seem to qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

 

[Galteeth]

Sure but "violence" in that sense encompasses the entire spectrum between purely defensive force and mass murder, rendering the word "violence" a fairly meaningless word to use in that context. And your second statement is true for most nations that are not nation states as well, like the U.S.

I' be happy to discuss this further, but probably a new thread is appropriate.

 

[zomgwtf]

Ok, I know this is venturing off topic, but how do you define "nation-state"?

Going by wikipedia, the US and Canada seem to qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

Both USA and Canada are home to a huge amount of different ethnicities and religions. There are other reasons but I think those are the largest.

 

[BobG]

Ok, I know this is venturing off topic, but how do you define "nation-state"?

Going by wikipedia, the US and Canada seem to qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

Both USA and Canada are home to a huge amount of different ethnicities and religions. There are other reasons but I think those are the largest.

Nation-states refer to countries. Nations refer to people. Granted, common usage creates so much ambiguity in the terms, that it's almost easier to differentiate between nations and countries - especially if you want to get picky and differentiate between states (borders), nations (people), and decide that to be a nation-state, there has to be one nation (people) that coincides with the state borders.

You can have nations that overlap state borders (the Kurds, for example). You can have more than one nation within a country. China has the most nations using the social term. India, United States, Canada, and the old USSR used to fill out the top five. (In the US, those nations would consist of Iriquois, Navaho, Hopi, etc).

This was what he was referring to, using a tighter restriction on the term nation-states than is usually used (even if his usage might be the technically correct usage?)

 

[zomgwtf]

Nation-states refer to countries. Nations refer to people. Granted, common usage creates so much ambiguity in the terms, that it's almost easier to differentiate between nations and countries - especially if you want to get picky and differentiate between states (borders), nations (people), and decide that to be a nation-state, there has to be one nation (people) that coincides with the state borders.

You can have nations that overlap state borders (the Kurds, for example). You can have more than one nation within a country. China has the most nations using the social term. India, United States, Canada, and the old USSR used to fill out the top five. (In the US, those nations would consist of Iriquois, Navaho, Hopi, etc).

This was what he was referring to, using a tighter restriction on the term nation-states than is usually used (even if his usage might be the technically correct usage?)

Well it's not a tighter definition, it's the correct definition but yes... and I was just pointing out to Al68 that the original usage of this term in this thread wasn't one using that definition.