Seems like a legit excuse in today’s society, right?
(Fox News) An Arizona teenager is protesting his school’s decision to punish him after getting into a fight with another student over a Confederate flag displayed on his truck.
Jacob Green, a junior at Millennium High School in Goodyear, tells MyFoxPhoenix he was suspended for five days after defending himself against a classmate who confronted him about the flag, which has flown his truck for six months.
“I’ve done nothing wrong,” Green told the station. “I’ve flown a flag on my truck. Somebody fought me because of it. I didn’t fight him.”
Sorry, Jacob, but you’re only allowed to display certain Government Approved flags, and, hey, if you offend someone and they assault you, you’re obviously the instigator. And, of course, the school is more worried about the flag
“Open display — bringing it in — it has been proven to be patently offensive to certain groups and the courts recognize that,” Agua Fria Unified School District Superintendent Dennis Runyan told MyFoxPhoenix.com.
Got that? If it offends someone, it Must Be Banned. I wonder what they would have said had it been an Islamist flag, Che Guerva, Socialist, etc?
Jacob’s parents are upset with the school district and also believe he has a right to fly the Confederate flag at school. They also believe Jacob was attacked by the other student and are calling it a hate crime and are considering filing a police report.
Um, why weren’t the police called in the first place, for what is assault? Schools seem to pull the trigger on calling the police if a kid brings a tiny, fake, plastic gun, but assault? The parents should consider launching a lawsuit, as Government has no right to ban the Confederate Flag. Free Speech, you know.
A less biased account stated that both students were suspended for fighting and Mr. Green was told to keep his confederate flag off school property. Do school districts have the right to enact reasonable policies to protect the safety of students? How about these bumper stickers expressing political speech: “Christians Suck Donkey”, “Cracker Free Zone!”, “White People Ruined America”, “Jesus Was a Bastard”? Should schools be able to have students remove these on the grounds these messages could provoke violence?
jeff,
The boy was displaying the flag of his country. If you are not aware, the South is an occupied country and we very much desire our freedom. I recently posted on a Yankee site and had at Confederate flag gravatar. The host was said he would not post the comment due to the symbol as it was offensive to people. The title of the article I was commenting on was how Republicans are crazy. Now, he was offensive to me. For that matter, you are offensive to me. So, why don’t you remove yourself.
david,
Nice try, but who will work in the South? You can’t expect to subjugate the blacks again, and southern whites are too lazy and dumb to support themselves. Do you hope to enslave the Mexicans? Might work.
I’m sorry the website didn’t post your comment, I’m certain you were enlightened and enlightening as only a southern man can be, and the world is a lesser place for it. Feel free to refuse my comments at your website.
Jeff,
You need some help. Obviously you need some education as well. Throw in a little lesion in logic and critical thinking. You re-comment made no sense. It is clear that you also have problems with bigotry and prejudice and likely, racism.
I thought that free speech assumed the right to offend or it wasn’t free. Liberals want offensive-free speech for the opposition but thrive on liberal offensive speech. Schools as part of the Government do not have the power to ban speech of anykind. business can limit speech on their property.
Blick,
The Supreme Court has long held that the government can impose reasonable “time, place and manner” restrictions on speech. For example, you don’t have the “right” to disrupt a court proceeding. You don’t have a right to disrupt Congress (even though we all may want to for differing reasons.)
There is no way anyone can actually claim that the right of free speech and expression is “absolute.”
The Supreme Court has also allowed that schools can restrict or limit speech and expression when that speech or expression “disrupts the educational” environment.
I would think that most people would recognize and support the idea that a teacher being shouted down by a student is not conducive to “education.” That is why the speaker can be removed from the classroom.
But students and teachers do “not leave their First Amendment rights at the front door.” Schools can restrict speech in situations where there is a real, credible threat to the education of other students.
The problem with this case is that it appears another student started a fight because they disagreed with a certain expression in the form of a Confederate Battle flag.
It seem clear that the flag was not an issue to the school prior to the fight as the student had displayed the flag prior to that for months.
Therefore, what you have is a case where someone was so offended that they started a fight. Instead of punishing the student that started the fight, the school punished both students and then blamed the student with the flag for actions the school had approved previously.
The school is allowed to ban or restrict some forms of free speech, but they also have to protect those engaged in free speech.
The school didn’t do that here.
ummm.. that’s a new one to me. When was a Battle Flag ruled offensive “to certain groups”?
If true that the school told student to remove the flag before this, and he didnt, then he can be punished. Not sure a week suspension was called for.
but, if the school suspended him for the flag and for “instigating” the fight, then they are on very wrong grounds. And, then this has nothing to do with a school’s attempt to limit free speech (as they didn’t care about the flag before).
And, as you can see the feelings of J in his comments. Like John, he hates everyone who is not like him.
Both students involved in the fight were suspended for 5 days. Mr. Green was not suspended for flying the confederate flag. Obviously, the school cannot stop him from displaying the flag, only from displaying it on school property. If a student flew a nazi flag the school would most likely order the student to remove it. We can’t say for certain if the Supreme Court (who decides constitutionality in the US) would support the free speech rights of a student flying a nazi flag on school property but past cases suggest they would support the school.
Do you guys really see this as a case of liberal overreach and the oppression of this provocateur’s free speech rights?
Again, you assume that Mr. Green’s tale about what happened is true. It may not be. I didn’t see the other kid’s statement.
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/2013/11/25/Arizona-school-bans-student-from-displaying-Confederate-flag-on-campus/4941385408856/
Once again Jeffy, no one claimed Green was suspended for flying the flag.
But unless you cannot read, Green had been flying the flag for 6 months prior to being attacked by another student. Therefore the school had not considered the flag an issue.
The flag only became an issue when someone started a fight over the it. Someone attacked Green because of the flag – the very same flag the school had not objected to before the attack.
In other words, a kid was suspended for defending himself from being physically assaulted by another person who didn’t like the school approved speech of Green.
The school is reacting to the fight in restricting the speech of Green. Most people can see the dangerous precedent this establishes in this school: to get an idea, poster, banner, tee shirt, speech or action banned by the school, start a fight over it.
The school has some duty to protect the exchange of ideas as well as protect the learning environment.
In this case, the problem is that the approved speech of a student was shut down because someone attacked him.
The suspensions themselves cause some very interesting questions:
1) As Green was attacked, why was he suspended? In what other scenario do we allow the victim and the perpetrator of a crime to be punished together for the same amount of time?
2) If the answer is that Green wasn’t suspended for defending himself, why was he suspended? The answer for that can only be “because of the flag.”
So it is your choice to either support the idea that victims of assaults should be punished for defending themselves, or support the idea the kid was suspended for flying the flag and therefore support a “heckler’s veto” or “veto by violence.”
Given your comments, I suspect you support both.
giddy,
gummyballs suggested that Green was suspended for the confederate battle flag.
The story said Green and the other student were suspended 5 days for fighting.
As I pointed out, unless you have better information, there is no objective account of the “fight”. We only have Green’s word that he was assaulted.
Most likely Green got what he wanted, a confrontation.
No he didn’t.
Gunball wrote:
but, if the school suspended him for the flag and for “instigating†the fight, then they are on very wrong grounds.
That doesn’t suggest anything but instead is addressing the hypotheticals and possibilities of the case. That is not the same as “suggesting” anything.
Once again, you have a reading comprehension problem.
That would be known as the word of the “victim” in the case. Do you have any evidence that Green’s account of the fight is not true?
If not, then you have no facts to support your position.
Right. You believe that because the student flew the flag off of the back of his truck for 6 months with the blessings of the school and then decided one day to instigate a confrontation. Yeah……that makes sense.
And just for kicks and grins, if Green wanted a confrontation and started the fight, why was the other student suspended for fighting? Why is it that you would think it to be acceptable to suspend a student for defending themselves?
So let’s add up the tally, shall we?
You lied about Gumball’s remark.
You lied about the evidence.
You lied about the motives of Green.
The funny thing is that you keep telling people that you only deal in facts and logic and yet once again, for the umpteenth time, we see you having to lie, misrepresent and make up things to fit what you believe.
Your credibility is shot, Jeffy.
As Gitarcarver stated, J can’t or refuses to read. J has always had issue even reading the post before he spews his liberal hate out. Most often than not, he is widely off topic. But, here is what I wrote:
Meaning, as a supposition for being suspended for the flag, and if the school did previously tell him to remove the flag but yet he refused (again, all supposition on my part since we have very little info to go on), then the school was within its rights to punish Green. And yet again, a week suspension is not fair in this hypothetical instance.
But then I also stated this:
meaning, taking the story at face value (with a little supposition), and they suspended him for the flag after the fight, they were wrong. If they suspended him for thinking he flew the flag in order to instigate a fight (as J suggests) then they were wrong.
And as I mentioned, in counter to J’s windbag rant, allowing a flag to fly for months prior and then only later to suspend him for that flag is a limit on free speech as they allowed that speech prior. But in this case it IS NOT an issue of “speech rights” because we do not believe he was suspended for the presence of the flag. At least I don’t.
I believe he was suspended for defending himself during a fight, while also happening to have a Confederate flag. Which made him “more” guilty in the school’s eyes.
But, again, we do not have all the facts. Which is the reason why I left everything in hypothetical land.