We 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
Issac, what I’ve found interesting is that Olly and David who also believes in unalienable rights disagree on what is an unalienable right. A few weeks ago they both disagreed on a specific “unalienable right”, one thought it was and one thought it wasn’t. So who gets to decide which rights are unalienable? Why does Olly think he was right and David was wrong and vice versa? Maybe because the so called unalienable rights are in the mind of the beholder.
Annie
They aren’t ‘inalienable’ rights any more. Please use the non hateful term ‘undocumented’ rights.
Olly
What you and others allow to slip aside is that it was people that described these unalienable rights, made laws, changed laws, and continue to interpret where needed what unalienable meant, means, will mean.
The desires often clash with a specific moment and/or are confounded by the ambiguity intended and/or a result of the difference in moments. The 2nd Amendment is, accepted by enough to need clarification time and time again, ambiguous. It includes two parts which are conveniently separated, linked, or ignored depending on one’s point of view. Recently the ‘well regulated militia’ part has been ignored by armed groups or gangs in Ferguson and Wyoming who focused on the ‘individual’s right to bear arms’ part. Who regulates these gangs of armed men and women who visit their individual rights on communities without the permission of those communities let alone regulation by the community?
It seems that the perversion or interpretation of the 2nd Amendment can be seen from either side as a perversion or interpretation. Unfortunately it is only one side that is causing the problem. Check your statistics and you will see.
Unalienable rights have changed in their interpretation and application as times have changed. You cannot be so obtuse so as to not be able to see that.
Issac
With all your Second Amendment knowledge its almost like you have never heard of the Heller decision.
Don’t let the well regulated militia clause worry your pretty little head. We have to stop interpreting original intent dontcha know.
“With all your Second Amendment knowledge its almost like you have never heard of the Heller decision. ”
One of the great confusions of our time is that there is some contradiction between the individual right to weapons of the type used by the militia and the fact that the purpose of the right is to ensure the militia can arm itself and form during times of need.
Consider the question of a state considering national affiliation. State representatives might reasonably consider the possibility that arms for the militia could be seized from their storage locations in armories leaving the state defensless.
A simple expedient would be to allow individuals to possess the weapons and confer a right to keep those weapons. That right would assure that no power could legally seize the weapons necessary to raise a militia. Further distributing the weapons to the individuals who would form the militia would make it impossible for any power to seize all the weapons of the militia in a single action. Any attempt to seize weapons of the militia would alert other citizens and lead to the formation of the militia to defend the state.
The supposed contradiction between the purpose to form a militia and individual right to keep and bear arms does not stand up to scrutiny – unless one is trying to convince citizens to give up their fire arms.
Bigfatmike
I guess that’s why old John Henry is a mouldering in the grave and many restrictive gun laws came about to prevent black people from carrying guns post bellum.
Issac doesn’t like seeing black people open carrying guns in Ferguson or white people in Wyoming because he doesn’t discriminate.
Isaac,
You clearly do not understand that no law is just if it infringes unalienable rights.
Olly, I’ve answered your questions, I’m sorry that you don’t seem to understand the answers.
Why do you continue to dodge the questions asked?
There are no accommodations for racist employees, unless they can prove they are mentally ill perhaps.
Olly, if the employee’s racism would affect their ability to treat minority co workers or clients, or customers fairly and decently, they would not be an employee that could do the job. An employer has the right to fire an employee that cannot adequately do the job the employer expects. You seriously can’t figure this out for yourself?
How would an employer be legally justified in firing an employee based on the photo you posted Annie?
The only thing your comments and that photo tell us for certain is YOU Annie are the only person that sees black when you speak of the President.
Idea: ban cars built with parts from Mexico… Oh… right?
Speech has consequences. Having consequences doesn’t take away the right of the speaker. They are free to speak all they want.
Olly, do you really have such a limited imagination that you cannot envision an employer firing someone they deem as a racist? It’s the employer’s right not to have racists working for them, no? How about if one of those ignorant yahoos worked for the some agency that deals with mainly black people? You don’t think that perhaps their mugs planted on the front page of the newspaper might just get them in hot water at their jobs? How can such a racist jerk treat minorities in a unbiased manner? How about alienating people one might actually care about? Extended family members who may be minorities? Oh my, so many scenarios.
Oh please. They wave the Confederate flag on the parade route of the first black President of the USA? The great majority of us support their right to assemble and makes asses of themselves with their Confederate flag.
So Annie, you didn’t actually “give it some thought” before tossing out that throwaway line and thus have no answer to the question. Got it.
HenryH,
What’s quite clear is they are waving a flag that has some meaning to them; I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to claim I know what is in their hearts. For all I know, the guy holding the American flag might be Annie’s “ignorant racist”. What I do know is I support their unalienable right to assemble and speak freely.
Olly, I’ll give you a hint, think, “unintended consequences”.
Olly, my Trump comment was not directed at you, nor was it intended to answer questions you pose about how ignorant racists’ comments might just backfire on them. I’m pretty sure if you give it some thought you can figure out how ignorant racist rhetoric could hurt the speaker.
Conservative students at Duke refuse to read assigned graphic novel “Fun Home”.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/25/duke-students-alison-bechdel-fun-home
It’s hard for me to recall any progressives presenting lists of banned books to librarians.
As to those idiots waving the confederate battle flag – it’s quite clear what they are saying. They’re your team, Olly. You’re welcome to them.
HenryH – I read the article about Duke in another paper and what amazed me was that the President of the University was surprised they were upset about reading a graphic novel about a lesbian and her gay father. There are 100s of books written every year, but why pick this one? And a graphic novel? Somebody had an agenda.
The question was, “How would the first amendment “backfire on ignorant racists”?”
I’m not certain Trump has seen any of his speech backfire because I’m not convinced of his objectives. But don’t let that distract you from answering the question.
*his misogyny burned his bridges to Fox News*