Don't wear the American Flag on your shirt in California schools, you might offend the Mexicans.

[Dense_Electric]

On Cinco de Mayo... This sounds like the teens or whatever wanted to piss off some people, so I say it's a good call. Go nuts.

Yes, God forbid someone wear a T-shirt depicting the flag of the country they're in. Frankly if someone get offended by seeing the flag of the country they currently live in, that sounds like their own fucking problem.

Or maybe we can look at this in context and see what it's a deliberate move, not someone just happening to wear an American flag. It's a rather obvious gesture to more or less say "Screw your foreign holiday"

Flags when used to promote nationalistic BS can rather obviously be offensive.

Doesn't matter why they were wearing it, it's the United States. In the United States, you have the right to wear the American flag for whatever reason, however bad, you want.

If I go to Mexico and a bunch of anti-American Mexican nationalists are flying the Mexican flag on the fourth of July, I don't really care. Because it's Mexcio and you're going to see the symbol of that country in that country.

Now, should they do it just to stir up trouble? No. Do they have the right to display the flag? Absolutely. If someone else gets offended, that's their own damn problem.

EDIT: No, seriously, if Fred Phelp's burning the flag and protesting like little kids at military funerals is protected speech, this had better damn well be.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

If your going on the possibility that the American flag "CAN" send another message, then the same could be said about the celebration of Cinco De Mayo. That celebration "CAN" also "also send another message". Why not just stop both parties instead of focusing on one?

Basic reasoning. Like... context. Which it seems you don't really comprehend. It includes things like the *past* and what happened the year before. Oh and of course things like:

Teresa Casillas, parent of two Live Oak students, said the American-flag wearing students were yelling "We live in America!" at the brunch break Wednesday. She said her children were upset by their behavior at school, calling it disrespectful.

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/265455-american-flag-shirts-ignite-firestorm

But you're probably going to plod on thoughtlessly and pretend that the noting the obvious implications of that is mind reading.

Mind reading? Nope, because you see when you actually CITE something, it doesn't come off as you presenting your opinion as fact. It's nice to see that your capable of the most basic functions in discussion. XD

As other people have pointed out, focusing on just one group and making them not show the American flag will not prevent tensions from rising in future events. The school and judge should have tried a different approach that appeals to both sides. If anything, it was a short term solution to a long term problem (as demonstrated by the fact that there was tension the year before).

 

[Dahni]

Britain has been having this problem for years. Dundee (I think) renamed their Christmas celebrations to Winter Fest or something like that in case it offended non-Christian people. Now, I don't know about how other people see it, but to me, turning on some Christmas tree lights, a Santa's Grotto and whatnot are not particularly Christian - we're not talking about a huge nativity play here.

This [http://youtu.be/cycXuYzmzNg] is a very relevant video.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

If your going on the possibility that the American flag "CAN" send another message, then the same could be said about the celebration of Cinco De Mayo. That celebration "CAN" also "also send another message". Why not just stop both parties instead of focusing on one?

Basic reasoning. Like... context. Which it seems you don't really comprehend. It includes things like the *past* and what happened the year before. Oh and of course things like:

Teresa Casillas, parent of two Live Oak students, said the American-flag wearing students were yelling "We live in America!" at the brunch break Wednesday. She said her children were upset by their behavior at school, calling it disrespectful.

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/265455-american-flag-shirts-ignite-firestorm

But you're probably going to plod on thoughtlessly and pretend that the noting the obvious implications of that is mind reading.

Mind reading? Nope, because you see when you actually CITE something, it doesn't come off as you presenting your opinion as fact. It's nice to see that your capable of the most basic functions in discussion. XD

As other people have pointed out, focusing on just one group and making them not show the American flag will not prevent tensions from rising in future events. The school and judge should have tried a different approach that appeals to both sides. If anything, it was a short term solution to a long term problem (as demonstrated by the fact that there was tension the year before).

And as I pointed out focusing only on long term plans is pretty thoughtless. It was a short term solution to an immediate problem. Ignoring immediate problems because there is no long term solution available at the moment is stupid. You can *gasp* do the short term solution as well as try something more long term. But if you stop to consider the way the parents act it's hardly like the school can do much if the parents work against them.

And wtf, you think the law is negotiable in the court? The judge is supposed to be looking for long terms solutions? That is ridiculous.

You can go on and on about long term solutions all you like. But until you prove that the short term one went against an actual long term plan that you can actually provide, you're just complaining for the sake of complaining, and the long term solution is nothing but a word you use for a red herring.

It's not a red herring, this issue was clearly a problem in the past and it could be a problem in the future. So in order to prevent any future problems, they should take step to prevent it.

Also, while not the judge, the law should consider the future as well, because otherwise this may just turn into a yearly thing that repeats itself. That would be counterproductive for the school.

As I typed, have both parties stop their actions so that it doesn't turn into a "us" vs "them" situation and instead shows that the school will not let either side antagonize the other.

 

[thewaever]

The school has a very important duty to maintain the safety of the children.

So....

IF the school has a history of violence...& the OP has shown that the school does

IF the violence can be demonstrated to be connected to unnecessary provocation in regards to flags...& the OP has shown that the violence is connected to flags

THEN the school should take steps to ensure the safety of all its students by restricting the possibly inflammatory symbols they are wearing.


We are reasonable people. We shouldn't be trying to provoke anyone anyway. Who wears the flag? Seriously. If they wore the flag in day to day fashion, that's one thing. But if these kids were the ones involved in the earlier violence who "coincidentally" choose to wear violence-provoking symbols on an important day of their victims, then YES by all means, the adults should step in & teach them the error of their ways.

That's what the teachers are there for.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Britain has been having this problem for years. Dundee (I think) renamed their Christmas celebrations to Winter Fest or something like that in case it offended non-Christian people. Now, I don't know about how other people see it, but to me, turning on some Christmas tree lights, a Santa's Grotto and whatnot are not particularly Christian - we're not talking about a huge nativity play here.

This [http://youtu.be/cycXuYzmzNg] is a very relevant video.

I'm a Jew, and I would rather people just call it Christmas celebrations. If anything, its insulting to assume that we don't know what Winter Fest is actually referring to. We know it, English Christians now it, just call it what it is and be done with it.

I always find it ironic that America and Europe go to such lengths to not offend people, and yet places like the Saudi Arabia couldn't care less, because it is still against the law for non muslims to enter Mecca. Imagine how people would react if Vatican City said that only Catholics were aloud to visit.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

If your going on the possibility that the American flag "CAN" send another message, then the same could be said about the celebration of Cinco De Mayo. That celebration "CAN" also "also send another message". Why not just stop both parties instead of focusing on one?

Basic reasoning. Like... context. Which it seems you don't really comprehend. It includes things like the *past* and what happened the year before. Oh and of course things like:

Teresa Casillas, parent of two Live Oak students, said the American-flag wearing students were yelling "We live in America!" at the brunch break Wednesday. She said her children were upset by their behavior at school, calling it disrespectful.

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/265455-american-flag-shirts-ignite-firestorm

But you're probably going to plod on thoughtlessly and pretend that the noting the obvious implications of that is mind reading.

Mind reading? Nope, because you see when you actually CITE something, it doesn't come off as you presenting your opinion as fact. It's nice to see that your capable of the most basic functions in discussion. XD

As other people have pointed out, focusing on just one group and making them not show the American flag will not prevent tensions from rising in future events. The school and judge should have tried a different approach that appeals to both sides. If anything, it was a short term solution to a long term problem (as demonstrated by the fact that there was tension the year before).

And as I pointed out focusing only on long term plans is pretty thoughtless. It was a short term solution to an immediate problem. Ignoring immediate problems because there is no long term solution available at the moment is stupid. You can *gasp* do the short term solution as well as try something more long term. But if you stop to consider the way the parents act it's hardly like the school can do much if the parents work against them.

And wtf, you think the law is negotiable in the court? The judge is supposed to be looking for long terms solutions? That is ridiculous.

You can go on and on about long term solutions all you like. But until you prove that the short term one went against an actual long term plan that you can actually provide, you're just complaining for the sake of complaining, and the long term solution is nothing but a word you use for a red herring.

It's not a red herring, this issue was clearly a problem in the past and it could be a problem in the future. So in order to prevent any future problems, they should take step to prevent it.

Which is not relevant to the immediate problem which is being discussed. Ergo... red herring.

Also, while not the judge, the law should consider the future as well, because otherwise this may just turn into a yearly thing that repeats itself. That would be counterproductive for the school.

The law is not here to handle discipline at schools. The law should not be considering the future of this.

As I typed, have both parties stop their actions so that it doesn't turn into a "us" vs "them" situation and instead shows that the school will not let either side antagonize the other.

You say that both have to stop. You don't demonstrate. You don't even provide a reason why both need to stop. If you bothered to think about it, if the students stopped the school wouldn't be doing anything anyways.

There are already laws about what a school can and can't do, just look at when the students wanted to protest the Vietnam war by wearing arm bands.

They both need to stop because, as its been pointed out, there was past threats from both parties when they confronted one another. I didn't think I need to point this out, but kids being kids, a reason for both sides to stop would be that it would be a way to prevent violence happening on school grounds.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

EDIT: Ignore this post, forums are messing with my computer.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

There are already laws about what a school can and can't do, just look at when the students wanted to protest the Vietnam war by wearing arm bands.

They both need to stop because, as its been pointed out, there was past threats from both parties when they confronted one another. I didn't think I need to point this out, but kids being kids, a reason for both sides to stop would be that it would be a way to prevent violence happening on school grounds.

Dont we have enough people screaming/crying about what they can and cant celebrate on school grounds? I sincerely doubt the Mexican students were celebrating Cinco de Mayo just to piss of conservative white Americans. There were however non-hispanic kids using the American flag to as part of a scheme to antagonize Mexicans celebrating Cinco de Mayo.

To me it is clear which group was in the wrong and therefore deserving sanctions, and which group wasnt and therefore deserved to be left alone.

The first year I would say the Mexican students were not in the wrong, however they learned that, pissed people off and they did it the next year knowing that people were going to react in a certain way and yet they still did it. The White students also knew what was going to happen that day as well, so the in turn equally did something they knew would cause a reaction. Both groups should cut the sh*t. If you want to celebrate Cinco De Mayo or your American citizenship, do it somewhere else. School is not the place for it, perhaps a parade that featured both groups would be a better outlet.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

There are already laws about what a school can and can't do, just look at when the students wanted to protest the Vietnam war by wearing arm bands.

They both need to stop because, as its been pointed out, there was past threats from both parties when they confronted one another. I didn't think I need to point this out, but kids being kids, a reason for both sides to stop would be that it would be a way to prevent violence happening on school grounds.

Dont we have enough people screaming/crying about what they can and cant celebrate on school grounds? I sincerely doubt the Mexican students were celebrating Cinco de Mayo just to piss of conservative white Americans. There were however non-hispanic kids using the American flag to as part of a scheme to antagonize Mexicans celebrating Cinco de Mayo.

To me it is clear which group was in the wrong and therefore deserving sanctions, and which group wasnt and therefore deserved to be left alone.

The first year I would say the Mexican students were not in the wrong, however they learned that, pissed people off and they did it the next year knowing that people were going to react in a certain way and yet they still did it. The White students also knew what was going to happen that day as well, so the in turn equally did something they knew would cause a reaction. Both groups should cut the sh*t. If you want to celebrate Cinco De Mayo or your American citizenship, do it somewhere else. School is not the place for it, perhaps a parade that featured both groups would be a better outlet.

Except people were stupid to be pissed off by a single day celebrating something besides mainstream American culture. There's nothing wrong with celebrating for the sake of celebrating. There is something wrong with wearing the American flag just to try to piss people off. The motives are pretty clearly different.

As I pointed out before, the first time this happened, fine its just an innocent celebration. However, the second time it happened, the people were well aware that it was not liked by everybody. So the Mexican students did it knowing full well people did not like it last year. I just question the intent of students that decided to celebrate it during school the following year, as apposed to just celebrating it during a parade. This is a school, not a civic center. If people want to celebrate Cinco De Mayo, do it else where. The same goes for people that want to celebrate being American.

I went to school to learn about mathematics, science, ect. Not to go to a place where two groups can have a pissing contest as to who is more "proud" of what they are. There is a time and place for such things, school is not one of them.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

There are already laws about what a school can and can't do, just look at when the students wanted to protest the Vietnam war by wearing arm bands.

They both need to stop because, as its been pointed out, there was past threats from both parties when they confronted one another. I didn't think I need to point this out, but kids being kids, a reason for both sides to stop would be that it would be a way to prevent violence happening on school grounds.

Dont we have enough people screaming/crying about what they can and cant celebrate on school grounds? I sincerely doubt the Mexican students were celebrating Cinco de Mayo just to piss of conservative white Americans. There were however non-hispanic kids using the American flag to as part of a scheme to antagonize Mexicans celebrating Cinco de Mayo.

To me it is clear which group was in the wrong and therefore deserving sanctions, and which group wasnt and therefore deserved to be left alone.

The first year I would say the Mexican students were not in the wrong, however they learned that, pissed people off and they did it the next year knowing that people were going to react in a certain way and yet they still did it. The White students also knew what was going to happen that day as well, so the in turn equally did something they knew would cause a reaction. Both groups should cut the sh*t. If you want to celebrate Cinco De Mayo or your American citizenship, do it somewhere else. School is not the place for it, perhaps a parade that featured both groups would be a better outlet.

So... let's say you like video games. You ware a shirt or otherwise express your love for video games at school. I go ballistic and bring in a giant poster of Jack Thompson and start yelling obsenities at you and threaten you with violence. The school decides to ban both video game references and Jack Thompson posters.

How is this a victory for anyone but me? The only reason I had the Jack Thomson poster was to antagonize YOU. And, now you can no longer express your (presumably) innocent love for video games? Which is what I wanted to stop in the 1st place.

By banning the celebration of Cinco de Mayo you are rewarding the people who responded irrationally and who unfairly wanted to stop people from celebrating what they thought was an important event, and you are punishing people that did nothing wrong.

The whole point should be to prevent violence, not for one group to have a "victory". That makes it sound like the situation is "us" vs "them" and its a battle for "victory". NO, its a school. School is for academics, not video games, ethnic or national pride. I went to school to learn math, science, ect. not to be subject to having to listen to two sides b*tch and moan about something that has no place is school.

You want to show video game, anti-video game, Mexican, or American pride? Join a parade, heck make a AFTER-school club about it, but DON'T make me have to listen to why your proud to be Mexican or American, because that's NOT why I go to school.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

and illegals deserve what exactly? they're breaking the law just coming here, we have legal means to enter the country, but do they even try? some, maybe, most, no, they just walk on over, and , you seirusly expect me to have any kinda sympathy for them?

*facepalm* Alright, let's start simple. First question: how do you think it is that a person of foreign birth obtains both passage into America and US citizenship? For bonus points, do you think that said process is free and instantaneous?

Second question: do you have any idea what the US/Mexico border looks like? Obviously not, because you're under the influence that illegal immigrants "just walk on over" whenever they feel like it.

Well that was the impression I got. I mean I doubt this would even be newsworthy otherwise.

Then I'm sorry to be the bearer of harsh reality. The WBC didn't make headlines because local governments tried to revoke the first amendment within the confines of a cemetery, and these kids didn't get in the paper because they were unfairly victimized bystanders.

The simple truth is that freedom of speech is there to protect the expressions that we don't like, because there's no need to protect the stuff we already agree with. My problem with this case was the fact that these kids were trying to incite some sort of racial conflict. When something constitutes a "clear and present danger," that's when its first amendment coverage ceases.