Teen sues over Confederate flag prom dress - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

smooth · 12-31-2004, 12:30 AM

I draw a distinction between the US government fighting against the Mexican army, or any other foreign army, and a group of US citizens taking arms against their nation.

To me, it's obvious that any actions taken by foreigners against our country is not treasonous, whereas US citizens trying to break from the union and wage war against it is.

If flstf's friend is a US citizen, then his comments are certainly treasonous in any commonsense understanding of the definition. Whether someone will prosecute him may or may not be a waste of time and resources--but it's not my call and the fact that he does or does not get charged doesn't detract from the fact that when US citizens talk about starting a revolution to overthrow the lawful government of their country, they are in treasonous waters.

Now all this is to say that when a person walks into a room displaying the confederate flag, what do they mean when they say it's part of their heritage?

A) Some people think it's a racially oppressive heritage.

B) Others say that it is not a symbol of racial oppression, rather it's a symbol of their general "heritage."

What is it a symbol of? The only other heritage it speaks to (that I know of, and so I'm asking for more reasons right here) is of a group of citizens who sought to overthrow the federal government's control over them and start their own nation. They lost that endeavor yet continue to use the symbol of their losing team to demonstrate the level of their persecution.

What exactly are you people proud of in that symbol?

Tarl Cabot · 12-31-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I have a good friend whose family immigrated from Mexico. He is an engineer and used to hang a large Mexican flag in his office at work. He told me I was one of the good guys and come the revolution I would be taken care of, LOL.

I used to get the same kind of good-natured back-and-forth when I played on a basketball team that was about 50% black.

But I just realized I should have been offended. In fact, I should be offended every time I see a pair of Britannica Jeans, or go to a Stones Concert.

British treasonists!

1010011010 · 12-31-2004, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

If I were the owner of a buisness would it be ok for me to wear a sexually offensive shirt twoard women? I bet you I would get sued for sexual harasment if I did. Freedom of Speech is not freedom to be an asshole.

You would be within your rights. Women would also be within their rights to sue you.
How it played out in court would depend what kind of damage the women were claiming and how that related to the nature of your business. If you worked at a rape crisis shelter, you'd probably lose. If you work at a fetish SMBD strip club, it probably wouldn't work.

Also at question would be the nature of the shirt. If you're wearing a plain white undershirt, they'd probably lose their case, even if that type of shirt is known as a "wifebeater" and is potentially offensive. If there text of the shirt was without question meant to be offensive, it might go the other way.

It's largely a matter of speech that is offensive vs. speech that offends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

no you are wrong flstf freedom of speach is not unlimited. There are many things you cannot say legally. For instance I can not legally lie about someone else. I cannot say things that would insite panic or violence (yelling fire in a crowded theator, insiting others to attack someone, ect). You cannot say you want to kill or someone should kill the president.

And these example have what to do with a dress made out of a flag?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

This dress falls under the saying things that could insight panic or violence.

No, it does not. The dress does not call for any specific action or response.

ANY symbol or speech could incite panic or violence depending on how people choose to respond to it. For the restriction of speech to be justified it has to be shown that the panicked, violent, or toherwise illegal response is the intended reaction. This is why you can't give false alarm (shout fire in a theater), express intention to commit a crime, or call for others to commit crimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

It could have easily escelated things at the prom to a dangerous levels putting everyone at risk.

Those at fault would be those that escalated things and put others at risk. The dress poses no such risk on its own.
Surely you're not suggesting the police were in the right to supress the uppity negros on account that they made the white folks angry by asserting their rights?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

The administration was 100% correct in not letting her wear it. Of course the freedom of speech would only matter if this were a publicly funded event but it wasn't it was privatly funded and as such the school can make up whatever rules they want.

No, the private organization holding the event could make up whatever rules they want. "The school" is not a private organization. Even if by some sleight of hand we accept that there is an ad hoc private organization made up of school administrators, that is not really the school, we then have to bring up the question of this private organization being granted favored access to the students by the school. By selecting which private organization hosts the prom and sets the rules, the school is in effect choosing the rules... which puts us back to square one, private funding or no private funding. If by some further sleight of hand we ignore that... we then have a conflict of interest in the school chosing a private organization managed by its own staff.

How it would finally settle up would probably depend on what policies the school has in place to react to the students organizing their own "private event" without accepting any input from the school.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

For instance is it against free speech that they force people to go to prom in formal attire? What if i wanted to go in a speedo. That should be allowed right? Yet the dance requires formal attire.

Now that you bring it up, I'm not sure I'd agree that it could require formal attire. I think highschool culture is sufficiently self-regulating that the people not wanting to wear formal attire (and, yes, baby blue crushed velvet with ruffled front or a t-shirt printed to look like a tuxedo count as formal attire. Even if you're trying to be ironical, you're still paying homage to formal attire) choose to boycott rather than attend. Personally, I'd make no issue of it, let you get ostracised (but not abused), and go get another glass of punch as you fled. That or be mightily impressed by the metaphorical size of your prominently displayed balls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Any time one's actions are going to, or likely to produce violence or harm to someone, the right to expression is properly limited.

This is already covered above. Obscure laws about "fightin words" aside, you can say just about anything you want provided you do not express intent to commit a crime, call others to criminal action, or give false alarm. I suppose slander and libel would come up, too, but I believe that's civil law. If you say something, and someone becomes angry and causes a disturbance, they are the one primarily at fault. It is in the better interests of the state to encourage self-control than to restrict free expression.

For example, it's illegal to incite a riot, but the police can't stop you from speaking to a crowd because you might possibly get the mob riled. After you've committed a crime they have justification for restricting your rights... not before. Which is another important point that I think has been missed. Prior restraint is very difficult to justify.

If you think about it, the justification being made is that you think the students at this highschool lack the maturity and/or intelligence to respond to an ugly dress in any way besides violence. Granted I've known some stupid people from Kentucky (and, incidentally, I count this girl among them), but I'd give them more credit than that.

sob · 12-31-2004, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

As usual, I only need to rely on the facts to refute sob's distortion of the truth.

There is no girl flying a flag in this picture.

Sorry.

This guy, and his group, go around the country explaining the same things that The_Dunedan mentioned in His post to those who don't get it.

sob · 12-31-2004, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

Really could you please cut and paste the law or court decision that makes this illegal? I thank you in advance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Look, I don't know if you are actually serious about your question. I'm not going to go traipsing around the internet finding case after case to build a legal argument against your position.

Nor am I going to sit here and type out page after page from one of my law texts.

I'm certain that JohnBua and the rest of us would accept a simple reference to the appropriate case law from "one of your law texts."

The_Dunedan · 12-31-2004, 10:11 AM

Sob;
Would that be Mr. Edgerton, from Asheville NC?
He walked most of the way across the former CSA a couple of years back, in uniform, carrying various CSA flags, to raise awareness about the true causes of the Civil War and of the importance of maintaining Southron culture. Brilliant man.

sob · 12-31-2004, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Sob;
Would that be Mr. Edgerton, from Asheville NC?
He walked most of the way across the former CSA a couple of years back, in uniform, carrying various CSA flags, to raise awareness about the true causes of the Civil War and of the importance of maintaining Southron culture. Brilliant man.

Now you've done it! You ruined the surprise!

I can usually count on certain unnamed individuals to call me a liar, and I was waiting for that before providing details.

But, of course, you're right, except I think the man pictured is one of the group, not Edgerton himself.

Edgerton is also the past president of the local chapter of the NAACP. I believe one of his mottos is "Racial reconciliation thru historical knowledge."

Link

smooth · 12-31-2004, 11:40 AM

Is he brilliant because he supports your views and revisionism, or because of what he says in the media?

Quote:

Confederate Flag defender, political activist, former President of the Asheville chapter of the NAACP and 52-year-old black man, H.K. Edgerton was recently accosted by two black men while standing by his confederate flag in front of Asheville High School. Though he was appalled by the alleged violent actions of 19-year-old high school drop-out Andre Dewayne and 32-year-old Kevin Miller, he concedes, "I know and understand their pain because they've been lied to for so long. A lot of people know nothing about that time in history."

Describing the event, Edgerton recalls, "A man approached me quickly and when he got a foot away from me, he lunged at me, tried to grab my flag, spit on me, spit on my flag, bent my flag pole. Then another man, who was older, came. I thought he was going to stop him, but he joined in, striking and spitting on me and bending my flag even more." Edgerton said the incident left lingering injuries to his shoulder.

Though Edgerton empathizes with the anguish of the two men he asserts, "You have to know how to conduct yourselves. And give a man a chance to speak. Many people have heckled me and cursed at me. When giving speeches I've had blacks heckle me and they had to be removed in Columbia and Charleston, but never has anyone accosted me or my flag. It is my 1st amendment right to take a stand, and you must not violate my right to do so."

Edgerton blames the media and the educational system for creating the perception that exists today regarding southern history. "This is a continuation about the lies of the Christian southern white folks during the Civil War. African Americans in this country don't know a thing about that war and that time. They see that flag and someone says slavery and it all falls apart and they think of Southern Christian white folks as being evil."

"We can't let the stars and stripes get away that easy. Never were the stars and bars flag flown over a slave ship. And you want to know why? Because it's a Christian Battle Flag that was emulated after St. Andrew, Jesus Christ's first disciple. In 69 A.D. in Petro, Greece -- now a part of Russia -- St. Andrew was jailed because of his teaching and preaching of Jesus Christ, his Lord and Master, and he was told he was going to be crucified on the cross. He begged that persecutor not to nail him to that Latin cross in the shape of "T" because he was not worthy of being punished the way Jesus Christ had been nailed. So he begged to be tied in an X-shape to the cross and the persecutor did what he asked him to. That X is a Greek symbol to CH, the first two letters in Christ's name. When St. Andrew was on the cross he continued his teaching of Christ and all the folks started believing him and for three days he remained on that cross teaching and after three days they begged the persecutor to take him down and when he
did, St. Andrew came down off that cross and died, and he became a martyr and a saint.

"When (Civil War Confederate ) General Beaureguard decided they needed another flag, he chose the cross of St. Andrew for these reasons. Most Southerners, in fact, did not want to do away with the stars and stripes because they didn't feel they had done anything wrong. They thought it was the north who was eradicating the Constitution.

"And as for President Lincoln, our American hero, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. In march of 1861 Abraham Lincoln called all those black leaders in his office and he told them -- Even if I set you free you'll be inferior. You need to get out of the country because I will colonize you. Lincoln proposed the 13th Amendment, being the only President ever to do so. That amendment said Congress would never have the power to interrupt an institution of state. He told the southerners they could keep the slaves if they paid the North a 42% tariff. The South agreed to a 10% tariff but not 42%. So, who I am supposed to blame the institution of slavery on?

"At that time, one of the richest men in the world, John D. Rothchild told his family to put all their money into the Confederacy and described Lincoln as a crook. He said the slaves in the south were better off than the slaves in the north who had to work for next to nothing in the cotton mills.

"The attack on the Confederacy doesn't get the attention it deserves. These blacks today have no idea what took place back then. (Blacks) earned a place of dignity in that war. If it wasn't for Africans that war would have lasted four days, not four years. We made all of the implements of war, we fought, we participated -- not one slave insurrection happened during that period of time. They did not have whips and guns forcing them to be there. God and his infinite wisdom brought these people here. He brought about a love between master and slave that has never happened before. If you search this empirically then you will know the only one who cared about the African was the man in the south. But we don't want to face that.

"Bill Clinton's apology to (the black race) doesn't mean a thing to me. If Bill Clinton was any kind of a man he would march right down to the Education Secretary and demand that we start telling the truth to all about our history. If there are any apologies to be given, it is me. I need to apologize for walking away from the Christians in the South because I was lied to. Even the NAACP is not a black run operation. The national board is run by white liberals and Jews and I question their motives.

"Those who know their history know that we walked away from the war with dignity. But we took the loyalty we gave to the white man and started believing the lies of the North and now people are believing this madness. But even if you pull this flag from every flag pole and stand in the south you can't pull it from the hearts of the Christians in the south. If you speak to any blacks in the south my age or older you will find out that most of them had kinship to Confederate Veterans. The more who search their backbone will find out they were a part of this. They want to think they were beaten into this. Wrong. That's not how it happened.

"Times have changed. In the old south a young man would have never approached an old gray-haired man like myself. We've gotten away from that. Had we been left alone by the northern carpet-baggers, we would be better off.

"Now I have to watch the Cuban flag flying in land we used to have and know that they can live in Florida without ever speaking English. And I have to hear John Rocker get off the subway in New York and not even know where he is. Well, come get me John Rocker because I don't know where we are either and I want to know.

"My fight for my people continues. In all my speeches, I say -- Don't hurt my people, forgive them. We just don't know. -- I grew up with the same lies, claiming that Lincoln liberated and saved me. What a crock. All we have to do is think about this thing and search out the truth. I would encourage all my African-American friends to go to Southern Confederate Veterans' meetings and they will be greeted open-armed. The only day we will truly be free is when H.K. Edgerton walks out his door and every African-American is holding a Confederate Flag and I will say one thing - Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Praise God, Hallelujah.

"Not one time did Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. put down the Confederate Flag. He wanted blacks and whites to sit and eat together. I asked Dr. Young, one of King's closest friends, what his feelings were about that flag. He said, Leave it alone. Let's do something about the things we can do something about, like our children selling drugs on the street. King could never have brought us all together the way he did if he had put down the (Confederate) Flag.

"At first, I was confused by the NAACP putting down the flag, but they just don't know. I just don't want my people lied to. I hate to see them led down the path of hate. They're in the wrong ball game. There was a Machiavellian view in the North - they are different from the south. The bottom line is, if I would have had a choice back then I would have stayed in the South. If the Southern man set a man free he gave them land and a home. The North did not give them anything. You don't set a man free in the woods without anything.

"But people don't realize this. One time when I was holding the stars and bars on the street, a black man with dreadlocks told me what I was doing was wrong, and then he called to his white girlfriend and their child across the street. Now, tell me that man is not confused.

"It was the wealthy African leaders who sold the poorer Africans to the slave traders. Blacks want to speak of their African heritage, when it was their heritage who sold them out to slavery. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for blacks today to follow the Muslim religion, and Muslims practice slavery today. But no one wants to talk about that."

Send your comments to feedback@ashevilletribune.com.

H.K. Edgerton can be reached by calling 828-281-4454.

He certainly is opinionated. But, judging from this interview he provided to The Tribune Papers, he seems more confused and angry than brilliant to me.

Rekna · 12-31-2004, 12:00 PM

Quote:

One time when I was holding the stars and bars on the street, a black man with dreadlocks told me what I was doing was wrong, and then he called to his white girlfriend and their child across the street. Now, tell me that man is not confused.

Is he trying to say interracial marriage is wrong or that people who are interacially married are inferrior? I'm confused by this sentence.

Overall his article seems like a rant full of accusations with no sources to back up what he said.

1010011010 · 12-31-2004, 01:23 PM

Edgerton has a good gimmick... black guy with a confederate flag. He can lay on the spiel about the noble origins of the design of the flag itself, talk a bit about the 19th century other than as it is commonly taught, and then launch into his racial seperatist pitch. At that point you've come to view him as a reasonable and honest person, and will listen to his thoughts on The Rich White Liberals and Jews for a few seconds before something clicks and you tune him out.

Strange Famous · 12-31-2004, 01:49 PM

cant we all agree, at the end of the day, that:

1 - while the contradiction between the right to free speech and the right of societies to enforce certain norms of beahviour is a constantly varying argument....

a - a dress made out of a confederate flag would make the person wearing it look very foolish

b - whatever the moral logic of this case, the claimant does not deserve the amount of money she is trying to get, that even if she has a case, not going to a dance has not damaged her to the tune of the money she wants. Shortly, she is on the make.

?????

sob · 12-31-2004, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

cant we all agree, at the end of the day, that:

1 - while the contradiction between the right to free speech and the right of societies to enforce certain norms of beahviour is a constantly varying argument....

a - a dress made out of a confederate flag would make the person wearing it look very foolish

b - whatever the moral logic of this case, the claimant does not deserve the amount of money she is trying to get, that even if she has a case, not going to a dance has not damaged her to the tune of the money she wants. Shortly, she is on the make.

?????

I have yet to see a topic on this forum where we could all agree.

Unless I missed it, no one had any sympathy for the poor school administrators. As far as I know, they don't get paid extra for trying to provide a social function for the school.

My opinion? Attendance at a dance is voluntary. The administrators should therefore be able to establish rules that ensure a peaceful event, instead of allowing some attention-seeker (who is probably unable to draw attention to herself by virtue of actually ACCOMPLISHING something) to ruin it for many of the attendees.

It would sure be a lot easier on the administrators if they simply canceled future social events to keep their students from pulling this kind of shit.

And just to hear the liberals howl, I'll say that the administrators should ALSO be able to ban any asshole who decides he has to go in drag.

smooth · 12-31-2004, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

instead of allowing some attention-seeker (who is probably unable to draw attention to herself by virtue of actually ACCOMPLISHING something) to ruin it for many of the attendees.

She's a four year honors student who had multiple scholarships to her university until the bad publicity.

This could all be prevented if you educated yourself on the facts before posting.

mac03 · 12-31-2004, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

At the very least, it's a strange coincidence that the only states doing it and figthing for the right to officially fly it are those ex-slave owning states.

.

Umm... last time I checked prior to the emancipation proclaimation, every state in the Union had slavery... not just the states that joined the Confederacy.

flstf · 12-31-2004, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

cant we all agree, at the end of the day, that:

1 - while the contradiction between the right to free speech and the right of societies to enforce certain norms of beahviour is a constantly varying argument....

a - a dress made out of a confederate flag would make the person wearing it look very foolish

b - whatever the moral logic of this case, the claimant does not deserve the amount of money she is trying to get, that even if she has a case, not going to a dance has not damaged her to the tune of the money she wants. Shortly, she is on the make.
?????

a - Yes, I agree. I also find much of what young people wear today looks rather foolish.

b - Yes, she does not deserve that much money. Our society sues much too often.

I think the dance promoters should also be able to set some limits on attire. My biggest objection with this case is that they are essentially banning the colors of the CSA battle flag. I believe they are thinking it is a racist symbol when it is not. Now if they would say something like there will be no bright colored attire allowed, I would think it is rather silly, but I wouldn't object as much. Her dress looks like typical formal wear except for the colors.

smooth · 12-31-2004, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac03

Umm... last time I checked prior to the emancipation proclaimation, every state in the Union had slavery... not just the states that joined the Confederacy.

Then check again.
This falls under the same response I gave to sob.

Also, if you were posting in an attempt to refute my point, your statement doesn't have anything to do with mine.

I listed the states I was referring to--none of them are flying the "state's rights flag" even though they are embattled with the federal government over numerous issues currently. This doesn't have anything to do with who did or did not allow slavery in the past. It had to do with the claim that the Confederate flag only stood for "state's rights." If it did, state's rights advocates across the nation would use it; they don't, however, it's only flown in the regions that owned and fought over the state's "right" to own slaves.

If it stood for state's rights in regards to medical marijuana or gay marriage, there'd be a whole bunch of Confederate flags flying around California.

BTW, The states I referred to outlawed slavery decades before the Emancipation Proclamation.

Seaver · 12-31-2004, 07:15 PM

Quote:

It had to do with the claim that the Confederate flag only stood for "state's rights." If it did, state's rights advocates across the nation would use it; they don't, however, it's only flown in the regions that owned and fought over the state's "right" to own slaves.

Really? Cause I've seen it flown from Minnesota to Boston to even, yes, California. And the majority of those I talked to were not racist.

That flag that to you says slavery says to us states rights. You can NOT tell us what it means to us. You can NOT tell those that fly the flag WHY they fly it. You can only say what it means to YOU.

I dont believe in slavery, I'm in no way shape or form racist. I do, however support those that fly the flag as a symbol of their heritage or of, yes, states rights. What that flag may mean to you personally I dont care, it's your right to interpret that how you wish. Claiming those that fly it are either racist or traitors is however over the line.

smooth · 12-31-2004, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Really? Cause I've seen it flown from Minnesota to Boston to even, yes, California. And the majority of those I talked to were not racist.

That flag that to you says slavery says to us states rights. You can NOT tell us what it means to us. You can NOT tell those that fly the flag WHY they fly it. You can only say what it means to YOU.

I dont believe in slavery, I'm in no way shape or form racist. I do, however support those that fly the flag as a symbol of their heritage or of, yes, states rights. What that flag may mean to you personally I dont care, it's your right to interpret that how you wish. Claiming those that fly it are either racist or traitors is however over the line.

I don't think it's over the line because, regardless of how you or I feel about it now, I consider the people who flew that flag during the civil war to be traitors to this nation because that's how I define citizens who take arms against the lawful government of our country in order to dismantle it. I may like the cause (such as Iraqis taking arms up against Saddam, or as sob pointed out, George Washington against England), but that doesn't prevent me from considering such people as "traitors."

I certainly didn't say what that flag means to me.
It doesn't mean anything to me. I never even thought about it before this thread.

I asked plain as I can make it up above for someone to explain what it stands for if it didn't stand for the right to own slaves and/or the heritage of a group of citizens who attempted to break away from the United States.

You don't want to answer that, fine. But your statement of "it's heritage" is vague and doesn't tell me much. It's like a container that needs to be filled with meaning before I can understand what you are trying to tell me. Heritage of what? All heritage means is something that you inherited from your ancestors. What did you inherit from your anscestors that you find so compelling that the rest of the country doesn't seem to buy?

sob · 12-31-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

She's a four year honors student who had multiple scholarships to her university until the bad publicity.

That wouldn't have been particularly attention-getting at MY high school. In fact, in some areas, it draws the WRONG kind of attention.

Anybody else know of a person at their high school who might have made good grades, but was a social outcast?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

This could all be prevented if you educated yourself on the facts before posting.

Perhaps you'd like to re-post some of your "expert facts" on the military and treason for us. They might get moved to the humor section, though.

Still waiting for that US Code reference you've been too busy to find in your law texts, BTW. (The one where you said freedom of speech doesn't cover unpopular speech.)

sob · 12-31-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac03

Umm... last time I checked prior to the emancipation proclaimation, every state in the Union had slavery... not just the states that joined the Confederacy.

Purely for historical accuracy, I'd like to point out that the Emancipation Proclamation specifically exempted the North from having to free their slaves.

sob · 12-31-2004, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

EDIT: BTW, regardless of what you feal about it now, the people who flew that flag were traitors to this nation. There is no other way you can define a group of citizens who took arms against the lawful government of our country. If that makes you proud, so be it. But it's certainly historically accurate to regard people who support(ed) that movement as traitors. Too bad if that hurts your feelings.

It's interesting that by your logic, you define George Washington, among others, as a traitor.

smooth · 12-31-2004, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

That wouldn't have been particularly attention-getting at MY high school. In fact, in some areas, it draws the WRONG kind of attention.

Anybody else know of a person at their high school who might have made good grades, but was a social outcast?

Perhaps you'd like to re-post some of your "expert facts" on the military and treason for us. They might get moved to the humor section, though.

Still waiting for that US Code reference you've been too busy to find in your law texts, BTW. (The one where you said freedom of speech doesn't cover unpopular speech.)

sob,

as much as I suspect people are sick of our tit-for-tat posts, I'm compelled to respond to these points because I think you have misrepresented my position on them.

1) you stated that she was attention seeking because she probably couldn't accomplish anything.

Once I pointed out that she was actually very accomplished, you want to now recast your statement as being about her social abilities. Then you follow it up with a remark about how academic achievement didn't hold positive value in your school. Hopefully that was just an off-the-cuff remark and your school environment wasn't as dumbed down as you seem to be suggesting.

My school environment certainly wasn't like that. Throughout my education, whether in primary school, college, or the university I now attend, I have found academic achievement to be held in high regard among people who are trying to learn.

2) I never stated any expert opinion on anything regarding the military. You claimed to know all the high-level officials and to know the official opinion of military families.

When asked how I could point out that you couldn't speak for all of them, I followed up with the claim that I am a military family member and your statements about me (as one of the families you purported to be representing) were inaccurate. You then declined to set up a meeting (that you offered) between me and those high-level officials who were speaking for me and other military families.

I was speaking in my capacity as a military family member. If you understood it to be an expert opinion of anything other than my and my family's own opinion, you shouldn't have.

3) You end with a claim that I refuse to post any case law about the legality of voicing unpopular opinions.

My point did not hinge on whether the position was unpopular or not.
What I responded to was the speculation by one member of the community that he was legally entitled to walk into an NAACP function in full KKK garb.

I pointed out that the courts have repeatedly ruled that freedom of expression is properly limited in place and context. It hinges on safety, as well as the rights of others to peaceably assemble, among other factors. I then suggested that anyone interested in whether what I said was accurate should call an attorney who deals with that type of law and post the attorneys response. Evidently, neither you nor the person I addressed that post to has bothered to do that.

Why should I take the time to construct a legal argument I doubt you would bother to take the time to understand? I suspect you would just comb through such a post and try to find minor errors in it. I doubt you are unable to understand it, you just prefer to distort my statements in an attempt to make liberals look silly--hopefully someday you will stop.

EDIT:

The Emancipation Proclamation exempted certain states for political and economic reasons. Obviously we wouldn't have wanted Maryland to succeed and take our Capitol with it.

Washington State, Oregon, and California (I don't know about any others, I wasn't talking about them) had already made it illegal for people to own slaves by the 1840's.

If you are talking about whether George Washington was a traitor to England, then yes, I don't know anyone (other than you) who would refute that position. Whether that is something laudible or not to his ex-countrymen, I don't know or care, I never was a citizen of England.

uncle_el · 12-31-2004, 08:26 PM

lots of good points in this thread, and some stupid ones too... but what can you do?

my take on the confederate flag (written during georgia's discussion over whether to remove the symbol from the flag):

Quote:

starsandbars

yea,
I don’t mind that symbol
that image
bein’ on the state flag
‘cause it reminds me
of a time of
sit-ins and marches,
protest and boycotts,
eloquent leaders
with fire-red hair
and horn-rimmed glasses
or a preaching preacher’s son
stressing nonviolence.

that
blue, red, and white
symbol of your heritage
invokes memories
of sharecroppers in Hope,
standin’ on buses,
colored-only fountains,
restaurant back entrances,
fire hydrant on a
summer day
not for us to run through though.

yea,
your flag
stirs up thoughts of Reconstruction,
grandfather clauses,
Jim Crow laws,
white cloaked white men in the dark of night.

keep it on the state flag
let’s reminisce on
outright oppression
freedom papers and documents,
sugar cane and tobacco fields,
plantation estates,
up with the rising sun
and the going down of the same,
whips, brands, mutilations,
rape of my queens.

yea,
remind us all of being three-fifths human,
middle passage cruises,
bartering and kidnapping
of people to do your work,
build your country,
the country you’re so proud of.

yea,
it’s your heritage
and mine too
I don’t ever wanna forget.
So keep it up
let it fly
over the State Capitol
for eternity
so every time
I ride Eighty-five
I’ll be reminded of
where the fuck I’m from.

is the confederate flag truly a symbol of heritage? i wouldn't think so. but people say that it is. but just because you say it so, doesn't make it so. to keep it in perspective, the former governor of georgia, roy barnes, made a concerted effort to remove the confederate flag from the georgia state flag. once it was done, he was called by many in the state a traitor. in cartersville, georgia (about 70 miles north of atlanta) people held up signs that read "barnes = al qaeda" and "barnes is bin laden" in response. that seems/seemed a particulary ignorant and foolish way to want to keep one's heritage around! many people felt that he lost the election (which current governor sonny perdue won) simply because of the flag issue. of course, these same people are now upset at perdue, because the flag debate didn't go their way. i'm not sure if choosing leadership based on opinion the confederate flag shows how dedicated these southerners are towards their heritage, or just how ignorant they are... but i'm leaning towards the latter, lol.

edit:
as far as this case goes...
the dress looked horribly tacky regardless of the symbol on it.
i'm not sure how 50k helps her (as i doubt she had to seek medical attention for being disallowed to attend the prom; and it didn't stop her from attending college).
unfortunately, i think she'll likely win.

flstf · 12-31-2004, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

Purely for historical accuracy, I'd like to point out that the Emancipation Proclamation specifically exempted the North from having to free their slaves.

I am afraid we are notoriously threadjacking but it is interesting to reflect on some of the statements made regarding the war.

From the following link:http://www.daveblackonline.com/take_...l_war_quiz.htm

Quote:

Abraham Lincoln:
Contrary to what most of us were taught in school, Abraham Lincoln did not launch the war in order to make blacks equal with whites. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he said, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races, and I have never said anything on the contrary.” Lincoln supported the Illinois law that prohibited the immigration of blacks into that state. And his career-long position on the race issue was colonization (i.e., deportation). He advocated sending every last black person to Haiti, Central America, Africa—anywhere but here. Clearly, he didn’t care about the Negro struggle for freedom. In a famous letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, on August 22, 1862, he wrote, “My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

Quote:

General Ulysses S. Grant:
"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." The speaker is Union General Ulysses S. Grant. If ever proof was needed to show that the war not fought to free the slaves, this is it.

uncle_el · 12-31-2004, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I am afraid we are notoriously threadjacking but it is interesting to reflect on some of the statements made regarding the war.

From the following link:http://www.daveblackonline.com/take_...l_war_quiz.htm

Quote:

General Ulysses S. Grant:
"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." The speaker is Union General Ulysses S. Grant. If ever proof was needed to show that the war not fought to free the slaves, this is it.

just because general grant said that, doesn't make it so. the civil war was not fought on the principles of what general grant thought or believed. president lincoln chose to go to war, and appointed general grant.

if a u.s. general today was to say "we're at war in iraq because they have wmd" doesn't make it so. if he were to say "we're at war because i think iraq was involved in 9/11" doesn't make it so.

however, that's not to say that i believe or think either the quotes from president lincoln or general grant to be false. i just don't think his statement is proof that the war was not fought to free the slaves... i think the statements from lincoln are the proof, lol.

flstf · 12-31-2004, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle_el

is the confederate flag truly a symbol of heritage? i wouldn't think so. but people say that it is. but just because you say it so, doesn't make it so.

is the confederate flag truly a symbol of slavery? i wouldn't think so. but people say that it is. but just because you say it so, doesn't make it so.

uncle_el · 12-31-2004, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

is the confederate flag truly a symbol of slavery? i wouldn't think so. but people say that it is. but just because you say it so, doesn't make it so.

i don't/didn't think that i said it was a symbol of slavery. but you are correct, just because i say it's so, doesn't make it so.

Seaver · 12-31-2004, 10:52 PM

Quote:

just because general grant said that, doesn't make it so. the civil war was not fought on the principles of what general grant thought or believed. president lincoln chose to go to war, and appointed general grant.

Civil Wars are different than regular wars buddy. Civil wars are over whatever the people fighting say it is for.

To Grant it was about saving the Union, NOT about slaves. It's been pointed out many times he owned slaves until about 8 years after the war ended.
To Lee it was about state rights, NOT about slaves. It has also been well documented that Lee would push to have slavery abolished after the war in the South, and stood strongly against it.

Ok, so the general for the North argued it wasnt about slavery, he owned slaves himself, and disagreed with emancipation. The general for the South owned no slaves, supported emancipation, and argued it wasnt about slavery... what does that tell you about the war?

It's suddenly easy to see it wasnt about slavery.

tecoyah · 01-01-2005, 03:25 AM

This is getting somewhat dissapointing

Lest I begin to "Sob", in remeberance of the "Smooth" sailing days of this forum, We will be forced to revert to the Pre-election harshness we all remember in this forum........I did not enjoy that, as many of you likely did not either. Please help us to avoid such a descision on the part of the staff.

As of this writting the Temp Ban stick has been removed from the closet.

pocon1 · 01-01-2005, 07:48 AM

I think what many people are forgetting is that Lincoln was not the only person running the country. People are forgetting about Congress, and its powers. Lincoln needed to hold the country together, and he was never elected by wide margins, even when the South seceded. Congress was busy creating laws like balancing the amount on slave states vs nonslave states entering the Union. (wasn't there a problem with Missouri trying to enter and the people did not want slavery?) So all this talk about what Lincoln or Grant wanted is not the entire country. Lincoln was trying to hold the country together. Grant was a general who later became a fairly lousy politician. Congress was fighting like crazy about slavery. The North was trying to punish the south with tariffs over their views of slavery. Southerners screamed about states rights (to own slaves, or whatever else they wanted). Lincoln was first and foremost a politician and understood the value of compromise. He did not feel like he had a "mandate from the people".

flstf · 01-01-2005, 10:18 AM

pocon1

In my opinion:

I think Lincoln was a very good polititian and many of the things he said about slavery were probably in trying to placate those who were pro-slavery (in the north and south) in order to unite us. But he said them none the less. And after the war slavery was abolished in the north and south and the nation was united. This is what we remember him for mostly.

To the poor farm boys who did most of the fighting for the south, they were not in it because of slavery. They were fighting for their homeland against an invasion from the north. If anything they were anti-yankee and not necessarily pro-slavery. For the most part only the wealthy could afford slaves.

They did not wage a war on their own country, they seceeded and formed their own country. Entrance into the union required the approval of a states legislature, so it would make sense that the same legislature reserved the right to leave.

The CSA battle flag should be a reminder of their bravery against tremendous odds. We know from the words and actions of the leaders in the north at the time that the south was not alone in being racist. The whole country seemed to be. I think slavery's days were numbered and would have ended soon with or without the war.

Back on point, I believe the CSA battle flag should not be considered racist and the girl should not have been denied the right to display it for that reason (even on a tacky dress).

james t kirk · 01-01-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I'm a strong supporter that the "confederate flag" really has less to do with slavery than states rights and southern pride...

But this is a case of being a jackass. She was told before hand, she knew the consiquences, and she did it and now is sueing. She had plenty of time to appeal it the right way.

I agree.

Oh, and by the same token, the Swastika is actually an East Indian symbol of peace.

So, if some dumb ass girl should decide to make a dress out of a swastika, that should be ok too.

There's this thing in the world call sensitivity.

Maybe some Afro-Americans are a wee bit sensitive to the Stars and Bars just as some Jews maybe a bit sensitive to the Swastika.

It would be nice if the people wanting to parade around with these emblams of hate might keep that in mind.

This chick can blow me. She's fucked in the head and should be more worried about studying by the sounds of things. What's a 19 year old still doing in high school?

JohnBua · 01-03-2005, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

I agree.

This chick can blow me. She's fucked in the head and should be more worried about studying by the sounds of things. What's a 19 year old still doing in high school?

Nice personal attack. I assume in your neck of the woods, people only have freedom of speech when they agree with you?

sob · 01-03-2005, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

Nice personal attack. I assume in your neck of the woods, people only have freedom of speech when they agree with you?

This has been a fun thread. It's not lost on me that you presented this idea earlier, and got dodged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBua

Really could you please cut and paste the law or court decision that makes this illegal? I thank you in advance.

I think Lebell posted the same sentiments.

I, who consider the Confederate battle flag a statement of heritage, say she should not be permitted to wear the dress to the dance. However, the same goes for going in drag, or dressed as a vagina to "demonstrate that women are oppressed" or any of the other idiotic things you occasionally read about.

That's because dance attendance is a privilege, not a right or a requirement, and no one should be allowed to ruin the event for others.

If she wants to promote her opinions, there are better times and places.

I need to go on record as saying that just because I think she shouldn't be allowed to wear it at the dance, students who don't like the dress are not free to take matters into their own hands, no matter how many courts hand down bullshit rulings about "fighting words." Fighting words are a problem with the recipient, not the speaker. That's a whole new thread right there.

Other people, whom I can only describe as liberal (or at least, hard-core free speech advocates) are also saying she should not be allowed. One even posted a few times to that effect, and promptly reversed himself when he found out he was disagreeing with the ACLU.

If I have interpreted the posts correctly, some people want to censor her public statement of a dress, unless it embraces something they espouse, such as homosexuality or gay rights. In that sense, although I disagree with you about wearing the dress to the dance, I agree with your dislike of people who want to choose when the First Amendment applies.

Permitting free speech based on its content smacks of hypocrisy to me.

12-31-2004, 12:30 AM	#121 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I draw a distinction between the US government fighting against the Mexican army, or any other foreign army, and a group of US citizens taking arms against their nation. To me, it's obvious that any actions taken by foreigners against our country is not treasonous, whereas US citizens trying to break from the union and wage war against it is. If flstf's friend is a US citizen, then his comments are certainly treasonous in any commonsense understanding of the definition. Whether someone will prosecute him may or may not be a waste of time and resources--but it's not my call and the fact that he does or does not get charged doesn't detract from the fact that when US citizens talk about starting a revolution to overthrow the lawful government of their country, they are in treasonous waters. Now all this is to say that when a person walks into a room displaying the confederate flag, what do they mean when they say it's part of their heritage? A) Some people think it's a racially oppressive heritage. B) Others say that it is not a symbol of racial oppression, rather it's a symbol of their general "heritage." What is it a symbol of? The only other heritage it speaks to (that I know of, and so I'm asking for more reasons right here) is of a group of citizens who sought to overthrow the federal government's control over them and start their own nation. They lost that endeavor yet continue to use the symbol of their losing team to demonstrate the level of their persecution. What exactly are you people proud of in that symbol? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 01-01-2005 at 01:56 PM..

12-31-2004, 01:23 PM	#130 (permalink)
1010011010 Psycho Location: Virginia Beach, VA	Edgerton has a good gimmick... black guy with a confederate flag. He can lay on the spiel about the noble origins of the design of the flag itself, talk a bit about the 19th century other than as it is commonly taught, and then launch into his racial seperatist pitch. At that point you've come to view him as a reasonable and honest person, and will listen to his thoughts on The Rich White Liberals and Jews for a few seconds before something clicks and you tune him out. __________________ *Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions*

12-31-2004, 01:49 PM	#131 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	cant we all agree, at the end of the day, that: 1 - while the contradiction between the right to free speech and the right of societies to enforce certain norms of beahviour is a constantly varying argument.... a - a dress made out of a confederate flag would make the person wearing it look very foolish b - whatever the moral logic of this case, the claimant does not deserve the amount of money she is trying to get, that even if she has a case, not going to a dance has not damaged her to the tune of the money she wants. Shortly, she is on the make. ????? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-01-2005, 03:25 AM	#149 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Think Before You Submit This is getting somewhat dissapointing Lest I begin to "Sob", in remeberance of the "Smooth" sailing days of this forum, We will be forced to revert to the Pre-election harshness we all remember in this forum........I did not enjoy that, as many of you likely did not either. Please help us to avoid such a descision on the part of the staff. As of this writting the Temp Ban stick has been removed from the closet. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

12-31-2004, 10:11 AM	#126 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Sob; Would that be Mr. Edgerton, from Asheville NC? He walked most of the way across the former CSA a couple of years back, in uniform, carrying various CSA flags, to raise awareness about the true causes of the Civil War and of the importance of maintaining Southron culture. Brilliant man.

01-01-2005, 07:48 AM	#150 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	I think what many people are forgetting is that Lincoln was not the only person running the country. People are forgetting about Congress, and its powers. Lincoln needed to hold the country together, and he was never elected by wide margins, even when the South seceded. Congress was busy creating laws like balancing the amount on slave states vs nonslave states entering the Union. (wasn't there a problem with Missouri trying to enter and the people did not want slavery?) So all this talk about what Lincoln or Grant wanted is not the entire country. Lincoln was trying to hold the country together. Grant was a general who later became a fairly lousy politician. Congress was fighting like crazy about slavery. The North was trying to punish the south with tariffs over their views of slavery. Southerners screamed about states rights (to own slaves, or whatever else they wanted). Lincoln was first and foremost a politician and understood the value of compromise. He did not feel like he had a "mandate from the people".

01-01-2005, 10:18 AM	#151 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	pocon1 In my opinion: I think Lincoln was a very good polititian and many of the things he said about slavery were probably in trying to placate those who were pro-slavery (in the north and south) in order to unite us. But he said them none the less. And after the war slavery was abolished in the north and south and the nation was united. This is what we remember him for mostly. To the poor farm boys who did most of the fighting for the south, they were not in it because of slavery. They were fighting for their homeland against an invasion from the north. If anything they were anti-yankee and not necessarily pro-slavery. For the most part only the wealthy could afford slaves. They did not wage a war on their own country, they seceeded and formed their own country. Entrance into the union required the approval of a states legislature, so it would make sense that the same legislature reserved the right to leave. The CSA battle flag should be a reminder of their bravery against tremendous odds. We know from the words and actions of the leaders in the north at the time that the south was not alone in being racist. The whole country seemed to be. I think slavery's days were numbered and would have ended soon with or without the war. Back on point, I believe the CSA battle flag should not be considered racist and the girl should not have been denied the right to display it for that reason (even on a tacky dress).