US Flag shirt is a No No in a California School

[Volzfan]

Actually, I remember when wearing the American flag WAS considered offensive by MANY, in the 60's. And I believe it was banned here and there, seems like it even went up the court ladder, kids wearing it sewn into back pockets and whatnot, hippie days.

For a different reason, of course, disrespect to the flag and all that.

- OS

The following is from the US Flag code.

Flag Code

I have always hated seeing any type of clothing made or fashioned after the American flag. To me it is disrespectful and wearing clothing with the flag is addressed in the US Flag Code. It is not intended to be an article of clothing.

§8. Respect for flag

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

1. The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

2. The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.

3. The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.

4. The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

5. The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.

6. The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.

7. The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

8. The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

9. The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

10. No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

11. The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning

[G27]

Both are protected by the 1st.

Both places are in violation of the constitution. (how many here hate the no carry in schools because of this?)

It is a double standard.

Not sure why you don't get this, but courtroom ≠ schoolroom.

Just as 2A doesn't 'extend' everywhere, neither does 1A.

[mcurrier]

Not sure why you don't get this, but courtroom ≠ schoolroom.

Just as 2A doesn't 'extend' everywhere, neither does 1A.

Roger that!

[strickj]

Not sure why you don't get this, but courtroom ≠ schoolroom.

Just as 2A doesn't 'extend' everywhere, neither does 1A.

No, I did not know a court was not a school. Thanks for pointing that out to me

Let me recap...you said minors\school kids had no rights regarding the 1st so my comparison to this incident to the incident with the girl has no merit.

I gave proof via case law that school kids do in fact have those rights.

Adults also have these rights, in case you forgot.

It doesn't matter what Gov building you're in, you still have these rights to the 1st.

It is not ok for our rights to be taken from us in either place.

Doesn't matter if someone is offended by a shirt that says "*****" or "America"

Edited May 7, 2010 by strickj

[G27]

No, I did not know a court was not a school. Thanks for pointing that out to me

Well, it seemed a point worth making...

Let me recap...you said minors\school kids had no rights regarding the 1st so my comparison to this incident to the incident with the girl has no merit.

Nope, I've never said they had "no rights regarding the 1A".

What I'm saying is that both courts and classrooms can limit 1A. If you think you could wear a RATM shirt that said "F*** you I won't do what you tell me" to school and be protected under 1A (no repercussions), well, I honestly wouldn't know what else to say you.

It doesn't matter what Gov building you're in, you still have these rights to the 1st.

It is not ok for our rights to be taken from us in either place.

Doesn't matter if someone is offended by a shirt that says "*****" or "America"

I understand what you're saying, my point is that practically speaking, this isn't the case. If you really think you're able to say the same things in the courtroom or classroom that you're able to on a public street, you may be in for a rude awakening if you're ever in either of those places.

There may well be laws or rulings which allow the judge the latitude that you think is so out-of-bounds - I'm betting, in fact there are - we just don't know where to find them.

Perhaps some of our resident attorneys will know where to look.

[memphismason]

The following is from the US Flag code.

Flag Code

I have always hated seeing any type of clothing made or fashioned after the American flag. To me it is disrespectful and wearing clothing with the flag is addressed in the US Flag Code. It is not intended to be an article of clothing.

Again, the US Flag code was not broken because none of this included an actual Flag. It was and article of clothing that had a US Flag pinted on it. Big difference.

[strickj]

What I'm saying is that both courts and classrooms can limit 1A. If you think you could wear a RATM shirt that said "F*** you I won't do what you tell me" to school and be protected under 1A (no repercussions), well, I honestly wouldn't know what else to say you.

I think the shirt you speak of would be what they meant by:

First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.

[MCSCOTT]

No, I did not know a court was not a school. Thanks for pointing that out to me

Let me recap...you said minors\school kids had no rights regarding the 1st so my comparison to this incident to the incident with the girl has no merit.

I gave proof via case law that school kids do in fact have those rights.

Adults also have these rights, in case you forgot.

It doesn't matter what Gov building you're in, you still have these rights to the 1st.

It is not ok for our rights to be taken from us in either place.

Doesn't matter if someone is offended by a shirt that says "*****" or "America"

I agree with you to an extent, however we live in a country where too many people hide behind the Constitution in order to do things that are morally wrong. Taking that into account, certain people are given a certain amount of power in certain places so that they can maintain order in these places. Based on this, a courtroom does in fact = a classroom in that order needs to be maintained. Same holds true for my house even, where I have the power to maintain order, even if doing so means that you do not have complete freedom of speech when you walk through my door.

This basically leads us to what those in power (judges, teachers, etc.) feel is morally right and wrong in these locations. Since those students most likely weren't aware of any flag rules, and unless I missed the part of the article that mentions flag rules, then the simple fact in this case is that they were wearing the shirts as their way of showing support for our country. What is sad about this, is that those in power in this location view this as being morally wrong, because what I gather from the article is the problem came in the fact that it was done on the holiday of another country. I'm betting if they had worn a flag pin, close to their heart in accordance to the flag rules, they would have still gotten similar results or at least been asked to remove the pin.

That's just part of my .02 on it. My other opinion, knowing how teenagers are these days, is that these kids chose to wear these shirts to get the Mexican students in the school riled up, and are in a way hiding behind the excuse that they were trying to show support for their country. This would leave the teachers no other option than to kick the kids out of school so that order can be maintained. It is simply my opinion that those that are offended by someone showing their support for their country should have been the ones that got kicked out though, so that it gives them a lesson that it is morally correct to support the country that you live in.

[strickj]

I agree with you to an extent, however we live in a country where too many people hide behind the Constitution in order to do things that are morally wrong. Taking that into account, certain people are given a certain amount of power in certain places so that they can maintain order in these places. Based on this, a courtroom does in fact = a classroom in that order needs to be maintained. Same holds true for my house even, where I have the power to maintain order, even if doing so means that you do not have complete freedom of speech when you walk through my door.

This basically leads us to what those in power (judges, teachers, etc.) feel is morally right and wrong in these locations. Since those students most likely weren't aware of any flag rules, and unless I missed the part of the article that mentions flag rules, then the simple fact in this case is that they were wearing the shirts as their way of showing support for our country. What is sad about this, is that those in power in this location view this as being morally wrong, because what I gather from the article is the problem came in the fact that it was done on the holiday of another country. I'm betting if they had worn a flag pin, close to their heart in accordance to the flag rules, they would have still gotten similar results or at least been asked to remove the pin.

That's just part of my .02 on it. My other opinion, knowing how teenagers are these days, is that these kids chose to wear these shirts to get the Mexican students in the school riled up, and are in a way hiding behind the excuse that they were trying to show support for their country. This would leave the teachers no other option than to kick the kids out of school so that order can be maintained. It is simply my opinion that those that are offended by someone showing their support for their country should have been the ones that got kicked out though, so that it gives them a lesson that it is morally correct to support the country that you live in.

Some say this in regards to the 2nd, you know!

Some find it morally wrong to shoot people, even in self defense.

Your morals, my morals, a judges morals have no impact on the Constitution. None!

And FWIW, no words are offensive to me because I understand their meanings.

"*****" in reference to a cat, is morally fine to people.

"*****" in reference to that thing with two lips, is not morally fine.

"Vagina" in reference to that same thing with two lips, if fine.

[MCSCOTT]

Some say this in regards to the 2nd, you know!

Some find it morally wrong to shoot people, even in self defense.

Your morals, my morals, a judges morals have no impact on the Constitution. None!

Right, but you must not have read my entire reply, and I can understand why since I type too much in them. The fact that comes after the morality point is that certain judges in certain courtrooms are given the power to decide what is morally right and wrong because it is THEIR courtroom. Again I will bring up the point that this is also true in people's homes, such as mine, where I am in power to decide what is morally right and wrong.

Are you saying that I don't have the right to tell someone what they can and can't say in my own home? So your way of thinking is that if I came to your home I should be allowed to raise my voice, curse, whatever, and even direct it at your family. This should be ok based on the Constitution...right? Personally anyone that comes to my home would quickly find out that I take a different stand on such things, and your opinion seems to be that I am wrong in doing so....

As for the comments about the 2nd, your statement is true but I really don't see how it comes into play in these situations. Before a judge can be put in power there has to be some kind of knowledge of their moral beliefs, same goes true for any jury that's picked out. They are given their power based partially on this, so those that think shooting someone is wrong even if it was self defense will most likely never become a judge. There is a chance they could be come a teacher that could kick a kid out of school for wearing a certain shirt, but just honestly it's getting pretty far out there when you start relating shooting someone to wearing a shirt with a flag on it.

[strickj]

Right, but you must not have read my entire reply, and I can understand why since I type too much in them. The fact that comes after the morality point is that certain judges in certain courtrooms are given the power to decide what is morally right and wrong because it is THEIR courtroom. Again I will bring up the point that this is also true in people's homes, such as mine, where I am in power to decide what is morally right and wrong.

Are you saying that I don't have the right to tell someone what they can and can't say in my own home? So your way of thinking is that if I came to your home I should be allowed to raise my voice, curse, whatever, and even direct it at your family. This should be ok based on the Constitution...right? Personally anyone that comes to my home would quickly find out that I take a different stand on such things, and your opinion seems to be that I am wrong in doing so....

As for the comments about the 2nd, your statement is true but I really don't see how it comes into play in these situations. Before a judge can be put in power there has to be some kind of knowledge of their moral beliefs, same goes true for any jury that's picked out. They are given their power based partially on this, so those that think shooting someone is wrong even if it was self defense will most likely never become a judge. There is a chance they could be come a teacher that could kick a kid out of school for wearing a certain shirt, but just honestly it's getting pretty far out there when you start relating shooting someone to wearing a shirt with a flag on it.

You can do as you wish in your home. It's your home.

A judge does not own the court.

The court is part of Government.

The Government must abide by the Constitution.

[MCSCOTT]

You can do as you wish in your home. It's your home.

A judge does not own the court.

The court is part of Government.

The Government must abide by the Constitution.

Again this is where I start partially agreeing with you, but it does not hide the fact that order must be maintained in these places. If the judge must abide by the Constitution in a courtroom, then what gives them the right to even tell people to be quiet? Could you imagine how hard it would be to have a trial, where the judge and the jury needs to hear the case, while everyone else in the room is talking so loud that it sounds like Logan's Roadhouse on Friday night? What about a classroom where a teacher is trying to give lessons?

[strickj]

Again this is where I start partially agreeing with you, but it does not hide the fact that order must be maintained in these places. If the judge must abide by the Constitution in a courtroom, then what gives them the right to even tell people to be quiet? Could you imagine how hard it would be to have a trial, where the judge and the jury needs to hear the case, while everyone else in the room is talking so loud that it sounds like Logan's Roadhouse on Friday night? What about a classroom where a teacher is trying to give lessons?

Good point.

But imprisoning for talking is wrong, too.

AFAIK, a judge may order someone from a courtroom w\o violating rights.

[MCSCOTT]

Good point.

But imprisoning for talking is wrong, too.

AFAIK, a judge may order someone from a courtroom w\o violating rights.

I agree with that as well, but we're both getting side tracked now on which thread we're in...

[Worriedman]

FOXNews.com - Tensions High at California High School Following Flag Flap

Police have been told to be on alert for gang-related retaliation against the boys, according to Ken Jones, whose stepson, Daniel Galli, was one of the students who refused to turn their T-shirts inside-out when asked by a vice principal on Wednesday.

[Guest SUNTZU]

**** that noise.

[MCSCOTT]

Umm.......

More than 200 Hispanic students reportedly skipped class on Thursday and marched to school district headquarters while chanting "we want respect" and "si se puede" -- "yes we can"

Why exactly where the Hispanic students skipping class for this???

From my understanding it was American students, doing what they though was showing patriotism for America, in an American school. From what I read it was these American students that were sent home from this American school. These so called Hispanic-Americans should be doing this in protest of the boys being sent home, and any gang retaliation shouldn't be against the boys, it should be againt the school. These people that took part in this march are trying to say that it is wrong to show support for the country they are living in, and it should NOT be allowed to happen. Again I will say, the Constitution should not apply to those that protest against it. How long will Americans allow people to use the 1st in order to protest this country in such a manner?

Edit: Finally something else to argue over, as I'm sure that the usual guys will want to argue over my opinion with me.

[Mark@Sea]

See, this is why I'd make a lousy principal; I'd call that 200 expulsions.

[raydog1]

"Police have been told to be on alert for gang-related retaliation against the boys, according to Ken Jones, whose stepson, Daniel Galli, was one of the students who refused to turn their T-shirts inside-out when asked by a vice principal on Wednesday."

Google searches of that area show reports of Hispanic gang activity. So I'm not sure I'm ready to hang Asst. Principal Rodriguez just yet until we've heard the whole story. I can imagine that it's possible he got wind of some threat against these students and hoped they could solve it by having them turn their shirts inside out.

I hate this whole situation as much as the next guy, but I don't ever want to see a child become a martyr for the 1st Amendment, the flag, whatever.

[Guest SUNTZU]

"Police have been told to be on alert for gang-related retaliation against the boys, according to Ken Jones, whose stepson, Daniel Galli, was one of the students who refused to turn their T-shirts inside-out when asked by a vice principal on Wednesday."

Google searches of that area show reports of Hispanic gang activity. So I'm not sure I'm ready to hang Asst. Principal Rodriguez just yet until we've heard the whole story. I can imagine that it's possible he got wind of some threat against these students and hoped they could solve it by having them turn their shirts inside out.

I hate this whole situation as much as the next guy, but I don't ever want to see a child become a martyr for the 1st Amendment, the flag, whatever.

I'm sure Mr. Rodriguez did it for the children based on the interviews we've read so far. I do agree in not wanting to see a child hurt.

[mikegideon]

"Police have been told to be on alert for gang-related retaliation against the boys, according to Ken Jones, whose stepson, Daniel Galli, was one of the students who refused to turn their T-shirts inside-out when asked by a vice principal on Wednesday."

Google searches of that area show reports of Hispanic gang activity. So I'm not sure I'm ready to hang Asst. Principal Rodriguez just yet until we've heard the whole story. I can imagine that it's possible he got wind of some threat against these students and hoped they could solve it by having them turn their shirts inside out.

I hate this whole situation as much as the next guy, but I don't ever want to see a child become a martyr for the 1st Amendment, the flag, whatever.

If they would get their heads right on the 2nd ammendment, maybe the gangs wouldn't be running the place. I really hate California.

[raydog1]

If they would get their heads right on the 2nd ammendment, maybe the gangs wouldn't be running the place. I really hate California.

Amen to that!

Kalifornia in the year 2095:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If they would get their heads right on the 2nd ammendment, maybe the gangs wouldn't be running the place. I really hate California.

Ditto. California is the experiment that failed. Not just guns, everything.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Amen to that!

Kalifornia in the year 2095:

Yeh, maybe before the great earthquake. If those idiots are the ones alive

out there, what will the bag limit be during idiot hunting season? I predict

an open season on varmints.

[Mike.357]

oops wrong clothing thread

Edited May 7, 2010 by Mike.357