American flag T-shirt case: Federal appeals court refuses to rehear challenge out of Morgan Hill
Source: San Jose Mercury News
Rejecting free speech arguments from parents, Republican lawmakers and conservative groups, a federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to reconsider a ruling that found a South Bay high school had the legal right to order students wearing American-flag adorned shirts to turn them inside out during a 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals let stand its February ruling in favor of Live Oak High School administrators, who argued that a history of problems on the Mexican holiday justified the decision to act against the American flag-wearing students. Officials at the Morgan Hill school ordered the students to either cover up the shirts or go home, citing past threats and campus strife between Latino and white students that raised fears of violence.
Lawyers for the parents, backed by 20 Republican members of Congress, had asked the 9th Circuit to rehear the case with a special 11-judge panel. Three 9th Circuit judges dissented, saying they disagreed with both the court's ruling in the case and its decision to not grant a new hearing.
William Becker, the parents' lawyer, called the decision "outrageous" and vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court. " We) will not allow the politically correct judiciary to insult our flag," he said.
Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26552046/american-flag-t-shirt-case-court-refuses-rehear
Actual comment after the article, of course full of the usual DERP:
Unfortunately, cases like this get spread all over Fox and talk radio, and people generalize "liberalism" as censorship of True American(TM) values. The crazy voices are allowed to dominate while reason and thinking get shut down.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)They were told to not wear American flag shirts for fear that it could lead to tension and violence. In other words, they are held responsible for the violence that other people might commit because of clothes they wear.
So, by that logic, a school could ban girls from wearing skirts or tight pants because it might lead to groping or sexual assaults. If a school used that logic I'm sure there would be an explosion of outrage on DU.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)strawberries
(498 posts)I wonder if the supreme court will hear it
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)and not any other day of the year.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Just not on Cinco de Mayo, which, by the way, is not celebrated much in Mexico.
strawberries
(498 posts)that maybe they wear the shirts on other days too and Cinco de Mayo was just another day for them
alp227
(32,018 posts)unless Slutwalk or something like that is going on.
As much as I'd like to agree with you that what the high school did is a form of victim-blaming, I can't resist calling the boys' actions shady, either if they consciously chose their attire that day only or regularly wear it. If they consciously chose their attire that day only, they knew they had to be sugar-coating something bad, and if they regularly wore the clothes other days they should've been better informed of the consequences of their choices - but the average teenage brain isn't developed enough to understand consequences in the first place.
7962
(11,841 posts)Psephos
(8,032 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)... wearing such a symbol to such an event was a clear and intended provocation, and for that reason I agree with the court.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)That all one needs to do is to threaten violence against your exercise of free speech and your speech can and should be effectively shut off?
sendero
(28,552 posts)... so no amount of twisting of the situation to fit your opinion is going to hold much sway with me.
There are several limitations on "free speech" that have been clearly established by the judicial system. This is one of them.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)to wear their black armbands to protest the Vietnam War so long as some other group had threatened violence if they did?
Because that's what you're saying you allow.
(Edited b/c apparently we can't do HTML in reply titles)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...they were officially informed, even if they weren't smart enough to realize, that displaying the US flag might escalate tensions, and decided to do it anyway. Because patriotism, for sure.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You certainly didn't see the founding fathers chopping up flags to wear around.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)And I quote:
Paladin
(28,252 posts)Funny, you don't hear the right-wingers squealing about that too much, do you?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)i.e if you violate it, you are a bad girl or boy and that is all anyone can say or do on the Federal Level.
Now various states have passed laws WITH punishment if someone violates the Flag Code, but those were rules unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court on Freedom of Speech grounds.
Thus the Flag Code is a Guideline set by Congress on how to show respect for the Flag, but that is all, nothing more.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Hence the reason large rapacious corporations can shamelessly use the flag to promote their products even though that too is a violation.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The picture of the flag, as printed on a tee shirt, is not what the flag code is about.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)that was captioned "Share if you think the American flag should be allowed EVERYWHERE in our country!"
Um, dude, a T-shirt is not a flag.
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)This isn't a case about "free speech."
macone
(14 posts)...maybe you just don't like the message
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)Lonnie Anderson's hair. Yet, no matter if you advocate legalizing her hair, or oppose it on Amendment 2 grounds, your opinion is of no concern to me.
christx30
(6,241 posts)to not like Lonnie Anderson's hair. But when that person instigates violence over it, that person is in the wrong. It shouldn't be up to Ms. Anderson to shave her head to forestall the violence (Which would be a true crime to destroy that beautiful head of hair).
The kids that were instigating the violence should have been suspended.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)The high school just doesn't like the fact that it's a political form of speech, and the court let the school slide. Terrible ruling.
tclambert
(11,085 posts)Oh, the Establishment types hated that. Flag patches for back pockets especially, because then people would sit on the American flag. They campaigned to make it illegal to use the American flag as part of clothing. Then somebody made American Flag bikinis . . . and everybody said, "Oh, well, that's all OK then." (You may insert a joke about standing at attention here.)
7962
(11,841 posts)I doubt it. Bullshit ruling.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now the event involving a Mexican Flag was the year BEFORE this incident, but one of the students who had on an American Flag (and was permitted to continue to wear it for it was viewed as "Non provocative" by school officials) was the student who had had a Mexican Flag "shoved...at him" the year before.
The demand that T-Shirts with US Flags be turned inside out was to reduce violence, NOT the potential of violence, but actual violence. The recent decision was a brief denial to rehear the case by the full panel of the 9th Circuit court of appeals. Thus the previous decision by a three judge panel is the final decision of the 9th Circuit court of appeals.
Here is the actual opinion in this case (This is the RECENT Decision in regards to reargument, it has a LONG dissent but the actual decision is just one page long):
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/09/17/11-17858.pdf
Here is the previous decision (it is from February):
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/27/11-17858.pdf
Previous DU Thread on this case (again from February):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014740752#post2
The Facts of the case, as found by the District Judge and adopted by the 9th Circuit court of appeals (This is from the THREE Judge Panel decision in February 2014):
Live Oak had a history of violence among students, some gang-related and some drawn along racial lines. In the six years that Nick Boden served as principal, he observed at least thirty fights on campus, both between gangs and between Caucasian and Hispanic students. A police officer is stationed on campus every day to ensure safety on school grounds.
On Cinco de Mayo in 2009, a year before the events relevant to this appeal, there was an altercation on campus between a group of predominantly Caucasian students and a group of Mexican students.2 The groups exchanged profanities and threats. Some students hung a makeshift American flag on one of the trees on campus, and as they did, the group of Caucasian students began clapping and chanting USA. A group of Mexican students had been walking around with the Mexican flag, and in response to the white students flag-raising, one Mexican student shouted f***them white boys, f*** them white boys. When Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez told the student to stop using profane language, the student said, But Rodriguez, they are racist. They are being racist. F*** them white boys. Lets f*** them up. Rodriguez removed the student from the area.
At least one party to this appeal, student M.D., wore American flag clothing to school on Cinco de Mayo 2009. M.D. was approached by a male student who, in the words of the district court, shoved a Mexican flag at him and said something in Spanish expressing anger at M.D.s clothing. A year later, on Cinco de Mayo 2010, a group of Caucasian students, including the students bringing this appeal, wore American flag shirts to school. A female student approached M.D. that morning, motioned to his shirt, and asked, Why are you wearing that? Do you not like Mexicans? D.G. and D.M.were also confronted about their clothing before brunch break.
As Rodriguez was leaving his office before brunch break, a Caucasian student approached him, and said, You may want to go out to the quad area. There might be somethere might be some issues. During the break, another student called Rodriguez over to a group of Mexican students, said that she was concerned about a group of students wearing the American flag, and said that there might be problems. Rodriguez understood her to mean that there might be a physical altercation. A group of Mexican students asked Rodriguez why the Caucasian students get to wear their flag out when we [sic] dont get to wear our [sic] flag? Boden directed Rodriguez to have the students either turn their shirts inside out or take them off. The students refused to do so.
Rodriguez met with the students and explained that he was concerned for their safety. The students did not dispute that their attire put them at risk of violence. Plaintiff D.M. said that he was willing to take on that responsibility in order to continue wearing his shirt. Two of the students, M.D. and D.G., said they would have worn the flag clothing even if they had known violence would be directed toward them.
School officials permitted M.D. and another student not a party to this action to return to class, because Boden considered their shirts, whose imagery was less prominent, to be less likely [to get them] singled out, targeted for any possible recrimination, and significant[ly] differen[t] in [terms of] what [he] saw as being potential for targeting.
The officials offered the remaining students the choice either to turn their shirts inside out or to go home for the day with excused absences that would not count against their attendance records. Students D.M. and D.G. chose to go home. Neither was disciplined.
In the aftermath of the students departure from school, they received numerous threats from other students. D.G. was threatened by text message on May 6, and the same afternoon, received a threatening phone call from a caller saying he was outside of D.G.s home. D.M. and M.D. were likewise threatened with violence, and a student at Live Oak overheard a group of classmates saying that some gang members would come down from San Jose to take care of
the students. Because of these threats, the students did not go to school on May 7.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/27/11-17858.pdf
In the recent denial of a hearing by the whole panel of the 9th Circuit, the dissent wrote a lengthy dissent, here is they opinion as to the facts of the case, notice it is NOT that different from the above:
One year later, during Cinco de Mayo 2010, three of the students wearing American flag shirts were confronted by other students about their choice of apparel. Id. at 22. One student asked M.D., a plaintiff in this case, Why are you wearing that? Do you not like Mexicans[?] Id. A
Caucasian student later told Assistant Principal Rodriguez before brunch break, You may want to go out to the quad area. There might be somethere might be some issues. Id. During the break, a Mexican student informed Rodriguez that she was concerned there might be problems due to the American flag shirts. Id. Another asked Rodriguez why Caucasian students get to wear their flag out when we dont get to wear our flag? Id. (alterations omitted). Principal Nick Boden instructed Rodriguez to have the students wearing the American flag shirts turn their shirts inside out or take them off. Id.
Rodriguez met with the students wearing the shirts, who did not dispute that they were at risk of violence due to their apparel. Id. The school officials allowed two students to return to class with their American flag shirts on because their shirts had less prominent imagery and were less likely to cause an incident. Id. at 23. Two other students were given the choice to turn their shirts inside out or to go home. Id. They chose to go home. Id. All plaintiffs in this appeal received threatening messages in the days after the incident. Id.
As the three Judge Panel Ruled, this is a case of balancing Free Speech with public order, here you have clear evidence of violence unless something was done and what was done was the bare minimum to maintain peace. This was NOT a case of POTENTIAL violence but actual violence and the efforts to control such violence was done on the minimal level.
7962
(11,841 posts)Especially since it was the Mexican flag that was the impetus for the original problem.
After all, it IS still America. For now.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"For now.."
I imagine many people define their country by brightly colored shirts that may or may not be allowed in a public school. Granted, it's a narrow and simplistic view, yet as many people are indeed, narrow and simplistic themselves, I can certainly understand why symbolism is the best they have to offer...
christx30
(6,241 posts)this is America. We have the right to free speech. It was the threat of violence from the Mexican students caused the school to violate the first amendment rights of the Caucasian students. The "heckler's veto" as some on this thread have mentioned. All someone has to do to shut you up, to stop you from expressing yourself, is threaten violence.
You wouldn't tolerate that kind of BS if it was a right winger screaming at a pro choice rally. "Because that guy in the 'End Abortion Now' shirt is angry and is holding a weapon, we're going to shut down this rally. You're going to have to pack up and go home." Why tolerate it just because you don't like the side wearing the shirts?
The guy at the rally needs to be arrested on weapons charges. The violent kids need to be suspended.
7962
(11,841 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Reverse racism!
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Glad the court decided against the rascist rethugs trying to disrupt Cinco De Mayo!
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Not that the Caucasians were innocent, two Caucasians rather leave the school then wear their T-Shirts inside out. On the other hand the one Caucasian who had had a Mexican flag shoved into his face the previous year was permitted to continue to wear his t-shirt with an American Flag for the school found it NOT to provocative.
This is a very narrow ruling, one where the school could point to ACTUAL violence that it had to avoid, not speculation of violence AND then the school did the bare minimum needed to maintain peace. i.e. some students, whose t-shirts were NOT provocative were permitted to wear them even if they had a US Flag on them.
The opinions, which I cite above in previous comments on this thread, clearly point out the violence and that is the key to this decision. The School has a duty to maintain a safe environment and can trample all over the first amendment if that is what is needed to maintain safety PROVIDED the threat is REAL and what the School does is the bare minimum to maintain peace.
Please note Cinco de Mayo, is only a holiday in two Mexican States (one of which is where the battle in commemorates took place). It has been celebrated in California since 1863 (to show solidarity with Mexicans during the time of the French Occupation of Mexico, Cinco de Mayo celebrates the Mexican Victory on the fifth of May 1862 over the invading French Army). It appears to have also been celebrated among Mexican Americans in the Rio Grande Valley since 1863 (and Northern Texas, which tended to stay loyal to the Union in 1861, but NOT celebrated in East Texas which was the population center of Texas till urbanization after WWII and the area for the votes that lead to succession from the Union in 1861).
Through NOT a Mexican Holiday, Schools in Mexico are closed that day. Thus in many ways Cinco De Mayo is more important in the US then it is in Mexico.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)So get used to sharing.
Remember how your Mom told you to do with your toys?
Oh, your Mom didn't teach you to do that?
Okay then, stay home and play with your toys alone.
Until you grow up!
Demit
(11,238 posts)he had two tickets for driving violations serious enough to get his license suspended, that cost him thousands of dollars. And how he is mightily aggrieved at this & considers it discrimination.
alp227
(32,018 posts)who has... a Spanish last name (appears to be from marriage). self hatred, apparently.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Not everyone with a spanish surname is in love with Mexico. Some of us (father's last name was Abalos) like living in the US and wouldn't live in Mexico for a million dollars.
And from what I understand, American kids wore the American flag on shirts on Cinco de Mayo. I don't see a problem with it. Not everyone gives a rip about May 5th, nor should they be forced to. No one was stopping the Mexican students from expressing their culture. They had the Mexican flag. They were doing their own thing. The Mexican students felt disrespected by the flag shirts, and reacted with violence. Rather than clamp down on the violence, the school admins clamped down on the free expression of the Caucasion students.
Just like I tell people about the BS "War on Christmas" meme that gets floated out every year. Not everyone has to care about your culture. People are going to keep their own culture, no matter what. You do what you want to do. But you don't have the right to force others to comply with your culture.
alp227
(32,018 posts)Those boys were too scaredy cat to say what they mean and instead resort to hiding behind their shirts to mask their bigotry.
"Not everyone has to care about your culture"? Fine. But disagreement and bigotry are two different things. Here's another relevant example, since Yom Kippur is in 2 weeks or so. If a bunch of Muslim students showed up to school on Yom Kippur wearing Palestinian flag T-shirts, that's bigotry. If the Muslim students dressed plainly on Yom Kippur, it's disagreement. Get the picture? (But in this case, the right wingers who rallied behind the Live Oak students would have stood with the Jewish students who were offended and called on the Muslim students to be punished...because Jews good Muslims evil.)
christx30
(6,241 posts)group should have been punished for what they wore. If someone wears a festivest shirt at Christmas time, that person isn't hurting my enjoyment of the holiday. Even if I knew for a fact that the person hates Christmas, hates Christians, ect, it's none of my concern. I still have no right to react violently to his clothing choice. I don't care what he's doing, the second I commit violence, I am 100% in the wrong.
And who care if the decision to wear the flag is bigotry or not. It is, and has always been protected under free speech. It protects all political speech (and don't give me the "fire in a crowded theater" hair splitting, that's not even what I'm talking about), not just the popular stuff. Violence is not. You find a shirt politically incorrect or bigoted, and you threaten violence or commit violence against someone, you are 100% wrong.
Those kids that threatened the American flag wearing kids should have been suspended or expelled.
alp227
(32,018 posts)Rather, my point is that the boys' action should be called what it is: bigotry. Yet their lives shouldn't be dragged thru the mud like this. How much money have their families lost for lawyers and court costs?
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)Utter, utter dislike.
The speech you don't like being banned today becomes the speech you do like and even need being banned tomorrow.
7962
(11,841 posts)Look at how many times a speaker at a university gets cancelled because of protesters simply not agreeing with the speaker? It doesnt have to be some racist or such. It could be ANYONE. Condi Rice comes to mind. Either that or if they DO speak, they get yelled down.
Its disgusting as far as I'm concerned. If you dont have a good counter argument, you yell.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Threaten disruption and violence if someone is allowed to say something you don't like. Then hope that that speech is suppressed because of the possibility of disruption and violence. This is a very disappointing decision.