Idaho School Bans Confederate Flag On Student’s Car

Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svgWe have previously discussed the ongoing controversy over the confederate flag as well as past cases of student speech being curtailed. This story combines those themes after Jordan Beattie, a student at Cossa Academy in Wilder, Idaho was banned from flying the confederate flag that his girlfriend had given him. He was told that the flag was interpreted to be a gang symbol.


Schools officials said that they found an image of the flag on a gang site used by the local police but the Caldwell Police Department Gang Unit told the media that it was unsure as to where the school received that information. Caldwell Police Department Captain Frank Wyant said “We don’t look at the Confederate flag as a gang symbol. We don’t encourage anybody to take it down. Those are their rights and that’s what we’re here for is to protect and uphold those rights.”

Caldwell Police Department uses information from the website http://www.idahogangs.com. which lists the Confederate flag as an identifier of possible gang ties for “Aryan” gangs though it can also be simply a confederate heritage symbol.

I fail to see the basis for the decision. This is clearly not being used as a gang symbol and anyone with a Confederate flag could be similarly barred because some group happens to sometimes incorporate the symbol. It is also a symbol used by others for cultural or historical identification.

We have previously discussed cases where students were punished for displaying the Confederate flag, including cases involving flags on cars. There is a growing presumption against student free speech, particularly when it comes to unpopular or divisive symbols. This extends in this cases and earlier cases to symbols on cars in a parking lot — outside the school building or classrooms. I find that troubling from a free speech perspective.

What do you think?

Source: Scripps Media

164 thoughts on “Idaho School Bans Confederate Flag On Student’s Car”

  1. InalienableWrights

    Monopoly Public School Has Been Corrupted.

    Public school must be privatized because it has been corrupted.

    The Founders believed public education would be neutral and innocuous.

    History shows that neutrality of public education is impossible.

    Public schools are communist indoctrination centers.

    Public school must be privatized.

    —–

    WND
    Law schools dominated by Democrat professors

    (THE COLLEGE FIX) — Legal scholars educating the next generation of attorneys and judges are mostly Democrats, according to a wide swath of research, a troubling trend that some say hinders academic freedom, unduly influences judicial rulings and scholarly work, shortchanges students, and is antithetical to the notion of diversity.

  2. Olly,

    ———-

    Frederic Bastiat

    “The law has been perverted…”

    ———-

    I admit repeating myself. Indulge me one more time:

    People have to adapt to and live with their personal characteristics and the consequences of freedom.

    While the Founders mentioned in passing that “All men are created equal,” the founding documents do not

    mandate that government shall guarantee any outcome of the lives of citizens – it is for citizens to negotiate

    life.

    ———-

    Law cannot be infinite and must be basic.

    Violation of basic law (theft, murder, fraud, etc.) cannot be a consequence of freedom.

    Freedom of Thought is a natural right that precedes constitutional Freedom of Speech.

    Discrimination is the first step of freedom and racism is discrimination.

    Affirmative action is unconstitutional institutional bias.

    Opinion and bias are consequences of freedom.

    The Constitution does not provide government with any power to dictate hiring, matriculation, commerce,

    etc., based on race or minority status.

  3. “It would be one thing if human nature had evolved passed infringing the natural rights of others but that will never be the case.”

    “I’d be interested to hear what that means. What is your ruling on the definition of a natural right? How are “natural rights” infringed?”

    forgotwhoiam,

    Progressives in general and our Progressive contributors in this blog specifically dismiss history as if the consequences resulting from our human nature are not repeatable. They equate the evolution in culture, technology and science as evidence of man shedding his evil nature as well.

    Man’s natural instinct is to preserve himself. Living in nature, man has the right to do anything necessary to secure his own life; this would include self-defense, the acquisition of property necessary for survival and of course the liberty to seek out safety and happiness. Those are examples of natural rights. Every other person on the planet has those same natural rights. And throughout history man has proven his natural lust for more than what he needs to survive has never changed. Ultimately, the security of those rights is what drove man from living in nature to living within a civil society.

    All of those rights that man has in nature he brings with him into civil society. The conditions of acceptance into a civil society is captured in the social contract. Nothing within the social contract can legitimately remove or alienate one from their natural rights. Instead, what is agreed to is a disablement of certain individual expressions of the natural right in favor of enabling the establishment of a governing body that would more effectively secure for society what could not be secured by the individual. Our constitution describes the limits of that governing body and there is no other legitimate purpose for government.

    The Law, by Frederic Bastiat provides a sound defense for this purpose for government. Here is just one quote on this subject:

    “But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results? The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.”

  4. Olly

    “It would be one thing if human nature had evolved passed infringing the natural rights of others but that will never be the case.”

    I’d be interested to hear what that means. What is your ruling on the definition of a natural right? How are “natural rights” infringed?

    Americans can be free or enslaved. Citizens can make law or be dictated to. In the context of Lincoln, the Constitution was ignored and Lincoln seized power. According to the Constitution, Lincoln should have been impeached and convicted. Lincoln simply believed himself superior to the law. That was criminal. Lincoln began with the crimijnal act of suspending Habeas Corpus and all of his subsequent acts and posthumous acts are, to this day, unconstutitonal.

    It’s like the “anchor babies” of illegal aliens. A criminal shall not benefit from the conduct of a criminal act, nor shall any benefit accrue to an accomplice, participant or other person related, in any way, to the conduct of a criminal act.

    Lincoln’s first act and all subsequent acts are criminal and unconstitutional.

    The only legal course is the legal acknowledgment of the fact that Lincoln’s acts are null and void and repeal of the “Reconstruction Amendments” and all of Lincoln’s laws, amendments and proclamations.

  5. IW and Ross,

    However it should be noted that those amendments to the constitution are the result of the culture transforming towards the vision of those principles identified in the DoI. Had the framer’s put forth for ratification a constitution recognizing “equality” and “unalienable rights” for all inhabitants, it would have never been ratified. The DoI got it right and the constitution provided the means to eventually get the culture and the law right with it.

  6. InalienableWrights:

    Good point! The great thing about America is bad traditional only survives until a citizen-plaintiff can successfully challenge it’s constitutionality in court.

    Women believed they should have the right to vote and articulated their case in court using the U.S. Constitution. For decades the system didn’t work but they successfully changed the meaning of the U.S. Constitution through court challenge – not by the voters.

  7. The number of USEFUL IDIOTS produced by government schools is not surprising. But the number that have continued into adulthood without rectifying the lies that they were taught is surprising.

    People think that if they just keep on repeating the non-sence that the war was about slavery that it will somehow become true. The fact that slavery was legal in the North before and during the war does not even enter into their tiny reptilian brains…

  8. There are “Voter issues vs. Court issues” – Congress and state legislatures cannot pass any legislation they want to. For example: if 90% of voters in a state wanted to repeal women’s voting rights or reinstate slavery – that is “out-of-bounds” constitutionally – even if 90% of the voters suported such a law.

    Congress and state legislatures can pass legislation that defines and clarifies what the letter & spirit of the U.S. Constitution means (ex: what is a violation of law? what are the range of penalties for violators? what constitutes a misdemeanor vs. felony?). The First Amendment has subordinate federal, state and local statutes that define things into law like defamation, libel, etc. The U.S. Supreme Court provides the constitutional boundaries that Congress and state legislatures must operate within (ex: high court recently ruling that longterm cellphone tracking without a judicial warrant is illegal for police officers – it violates the 4th Amendment) – Congress and state legislatures are required by law to follow that ruling by creating legislation.

    Unless we amend the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies their interpretation – public school officials (government entity) don’t have any authority over students (private citizens) exercising their First Amendment rights on their own private property. Public schools could do away with all parking lots and provide free bus service accessing all relevant neighborhoods. Public schools could also provide free school uniforms banning 10% of tee shirts but they can’t cherrypick which (legal) free speech exercises they like or dislike – they don’t have that authority.

    1. Ross you come close to describing how they system is supposed to work but the reality it has never worked. Thousands of our rights are violated by the “Republic” that is supposed to protect the rights of the minority.

  9. DBQ and IW,

    What would motivate an individual to argue against the security of their own natural rights? Wouldn’t the natural tendency be to defend liberty instead of finding a way to give it up to someone or something else? When, in the history of EVER did that work to improve the freedom and prosperity of society?

  10. The ENTIRE issue regarding unalienable rights is whether each individual is secure in them. Your progressive, administrative state has been eating away at that security for over 100 years and it’s because people like you have this unimaginable belief that government can legitimately be directed by a majority to infringe these rights.

    Exactly

    UNalienable rights exist with or without government. As the Founders of our Constitution noted, the function of Government is to secure those rights. Not to grant those rights but to SECURE them for the people. The government can’t GRANT Unalienable rights because the exist and it is not within the power of governments to grant something which is already granted by natural or UNalienable right.

    If the Government is not securing our rights and maintaining our safety and instead is infringing upon our rights, we have the right to choose another government. As stated in the Declaration of Independence the people have the right and government derives from the will of the people to submit to the government, not the other way around where Government dictates the will of the people and forces the people to submit and give up their rights..

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — 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……..

  11. “Without a well functioning society there would be no individual rights, inalienable or otherwise.”

    You apparently can read Isaac, it’s your comprehension that is remarkably lacking. Unalienable rights exist with or without a “well functioning society”. They exist with or without a well-functioning government. The ENTIRE issue regarding unalienable rights is whether each individual is secure in them. Your progressive, administrative state has been eating away at that security for over 100 years and it’s because people like you have this unimaginable belief that government can legitimately be directed by a majority to infringe these rights.

  12. Bigfatmike

    I’m OK with the militia and the participants keeping their weapons at home. Switzerland exemplifies the perfect application of the 2nd Amendment. Their citizens are obligated to undergo training and touch up their skills once a year for a central period of their lives. They keep their military weapon at home at the ready, in case the UN was to send in troops to take over their country. They could also get together if the central government were to send in jackbooted storm troopers. They have the ‘well regulated militia’ composed of individuals and their rights to bear arms. However, they don’t wander around armed to the teeth, transgressions are severely treated, and each and every person with a gun has been sufficiently scrutinized regarding their rights, obligations, and more importantly the safety of society. Without a well functioning society there would be no individual rights, inalienable or otherwise. Unless, of course, one works from a religious perspective and history as well as the present illustrates the effects of that.

    The only difference is that they don’t let anyone who is not deemed competent own an arm. They educate and regulate the possession of these arms. They simply do the US 2nd Amendment as it should be done. The US doesn’t do much of anything when it comes to gun ownership. History, statistics, data, and all the other stuff that in overwhelming force is hard to pervert, tells us this. Those of us who can read, that is.

    1. Sad to see another American that does not have a clue as to what a right is.

      Issac how would you like the government “regulating” your right to have children or choosing what job you can take? (i.e. turning a right into a government granted permission)

  13. When John Henry was a little baby,
    He was sitting on his daddy’s knee.
    Well he stuck out his hand and he grabbed a piece of steel,
    Said,”It’s gonna be the death of me, lord lord, yes it’s gonna be the death of me.”

  14. HenryH is referencing the same points that a FORMER weekend blogger is elsewhere.

  15. Paul says –

    HenryH – There are a variety of courses you can take for your Humanities credit, it does not have to be Art or Art History

    Completely. Missing. The. Point

  16. Ha! This poor kid will also have to avoid all Art History courses. Turns out it was the pictures that upset him so.

    Talk about your “Taliban” candidates…

    1. HenryH – There are a variety of courses you can take for your Humanities credit, it does not have to be Art or Art History.

Comments are closed.