Morgan Hill Students Lose Lawsuit Over Right To Wear Flag

[The Northerner]

MORGAN HILL (CBS SF) – The families several high school students who sued the Morgan Hill Unified School District for violating their free speech rights have lost their case.

On Cinco De Mayo, 2010, students at Live Oak High School were told to remove shirts, hats and other clothing bearing the American flag for fear that the articles would incite violence on campus.

The former principal told the boys to turn the shirts inside-out or go home. When the refused, the were asked to leave campus.

Parents claim that the demand violated the students’ first and fourteenth amendment rights.

Read more: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/11/morgan-hill-students-lose-lawsuit-over-right-to-wear-flag/

[KamaAina]

1. There is only an indirect allusion as to why these students suddenly turned patriotic

On Cinco De Mayo, 2010, students at Live Oak High School were told to remove shirts, hats and other clothing bearing the American flag

And why, you might ask, were they wearing American flag apparel on Cinco de Mayo? As a direct incitement to students of Mexican heritage who were displaying the Mexican flag that day, that's why.

Good for the court.

[bluestateguy]

3. Be that as it may

That would also protect the right of students who are offended by Columbus Day observations to wear T-shirts celebrating Native American peoples on that day.

[KamaAina]

4. Would such a T-shirt be a direct incitement to violence?

I doubt it.

[alp227]

7. So do K-12 schools have the right to quell hate speech,

or do children also have 1st amendment rights just as much as adults do? Tinker v. Des Moines ISD asserted the latter.

[bluestateguy]

9. I don't like arbitrary classifications of "hate speech"

A conservative Christian town might then well call a Muslim student's prayers as "hate speech" or a liberal pro-choice feminist student as spouting "hate speech" for daring to articulate the pro-choice side of the argument.

[KamaAina]

10. Even the First Amendment is not absolute

wearing the U.S. flag on Cinco de Mayo, but not on April 7, March 12, or whatever, is like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

[alp227]

12. Well too bad the US can't pass hate speech laws, because of the 1A

there's a reason why hate groups are allowed to assemble in the US. Because free speech is for everyone, even bigots. Only when hate escalates to crime can it be regulated.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Do you know for a fact that these students only wore the flag on May 5,

and never on any other day?

[The Straight Story]

11. And, uh, what does it all have to do with the US flag (Could see if they wore a French one)

date is observed to commemorate the Mexican army's unlikely victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, under the leadership of General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín.<10><11>

Events leading to Cinco de Mayo

Cinco de Mayo has its roots in the French occupation of Mexico, which took place in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, the Mexican Civil War of 1858, and the 1860 Reform Wars. These wars left the Mexican Treasury in ruins and nearly bankrupt. On July 17, 1861, Mexican President Benito Juárez issued a moratorium in which all foreign debt payments would be suspended for two years.<14><15> In response, France, Britain, and Spain sent naval forces to Veracruz to demand reimbursement. Britain and Spain negotiated with Mexico and withdrew, but France, at the time ruled by Napoleon III, decided to use the opportunity to establish a Latin empire in Mexico that would favor French interests, the Second Mexican Empire.

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

[KamaAina]

15. Those U.S. flags said, "This is our country, not yours"

to the Mexican-American students.

French flags would have been a nice touch, and probably flown under the radar, if one really needs a way to express anti-Mexican sentiment. :-)

[bluestateguy]

2. There is no constitutional right to not be offended

And that goes for anybody who is offended by the US flag, the Mexican flag or the Israeli flag, etc.

How is this ruling consistent with Tinker v. Des Moines when a student won the right to wear an anti-war armband to school in 1969. I'm sure that must have offended somebody.

I do hope the ACLU did the right thing and sided with the students and their parents.

[KamaAina]

5. Offended somebody? Certainly.

Threatened them? No.

[alp227]

6. yes they do

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

[Cid_B]

16. Not anymore..

Its all about the little feelers.

Terrible decision...

[no_hypocrisy]

8. There's Supreme Court precedence that says they'd win on appeal.

Tinker v. Des Moines (students wearing black arm bands to public school).

[Nye Bevan]

13. Using "might incite violence" as an excuse makes it too easy to limit speech

and freedom of expression. Imagine pro-military students threatening violence against students who wear clothing with the peace sign. So the principal bans the peace sign because it "might incite violence". I don't approve of limiting freedom of expression because you are caving to threats of violence.

[Mudoria]

17. Judges should be removed