Pacifier

Sort of, the german is right-winged. Buddhism uses both variants, as far as I know

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Rekna

Going to prom is not a right, the school can make whatever rules they want (within reason) for the prom and students must abide or not attend. The prom is a private function the school holds and as such they have full control over it. This is not a free speech issue at all. This is just a kid craving for attention and now a free ride. I seriously doubt not wearing that dress caused 50k in emotional dammage.

Coppertop

A simple GIS for manji shows many variants. Hell, it was in the Legend of Zelda for fuck's sake.

That's swell, unfortunately most people would disagree. Because you're ready for it doesn't mean society is.

guthmund

Well, it's good we haven't strayed into the land of ridiculous hyperbole, isn't it?

If she wants to wear her dress out in public, I'm all for it. If she wants to parade around town, visit Wal*Mart, go to the grocery store, sit in the park or mass produce her dress and sell round the world for profit, I really don't care.

However, as I understand it, the prom is a private event held by the school and at their discretion. They get to make the rules because they sanction the event. Their ball, their rules. In this case at least, it really is that simple. The sacred "Prom" isn't necessary, it isn't mandatory and it isn't tied to any 'rights' a student might have.

If they had kept her out because of her race or because of handicap, then we have a story. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there are no federal laws protecting those that suffer from 'bad fashion sense.'

It's a private event. It had rules. She was warned that if she violated those rules, she might be barred entrance. She's not a patriot, she's not a martyr, her civil rights aren't being violated, she's just an idiot that tried to push back the rock of authority while standing in loose sand.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Seaver

No, because the school uses its own money which is drawn by public funds. It's a public event for the members of the school.

Mephisto2

Just a comment; this thread has certainly created a lot more debate than I had imagined.

It's interesting to see people defend the "right" to abuse, threaten or intimadate others just because of the US Constitution.

Truth be told?

I think the Constitution is often used as a shield to defend what it was originally intended to abjure.


Mr Mephisto

1010011010

That would be interesting, but I guess I'm not looking in the right places.
Could you provide some examples?

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

Mephisto2

Those who said, in this thread, that their rights to dress up as Hitler, Nazis or KKK was enshrined in the First Amendment.


Mr Mephisto

Stompy

I enjoy how people say the confederate flag has nothing to do with slavery and is about southern pride

Yeah, just try putting one on your car and drive through Detroit and see what that gets ya.

It's no different than a German girl wearing a Nazi-flag dress saying, "My grandfather was in the SS. This is part of my family's pride!"

Freedom of expression gets you so far. Yeah, you could twist the subject in such a way to try and convince people it's a "pride" thing, but deal with whatever consequences arise from it if that's how you're gonna take it!

Someone could wear a KKK uniform to an NAACP rally, but they do need to sit back and ask themselves, "Is this a smart thing to do?"

__________________
I love lamp.

Mephisto2

Well said Stompy. Very well said.


Mr Mephisto

tecoyah

Each has the right to express themselves as they see fit. Just as I have the right to form an opinion of them because of it. Personally, I rather enjoy the fact that people show the depths of belief in such a way....as I can avoid them in the future.

__________________
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

Rekna

Ask yourself one question from the point of view of the adminstrators. Do you let 1 girl ruin the prom for many of the other students or do you tell her to wear something else? The girl is completely in the wrong here. The bill of rights should never be taken out of context to justify discrimination against others.

Seaver

A person standing outside a church with a sign of "God is dead". She's not on private property, she isn't stopping the flow of traffic, nor is she saying anything. Do you allow police to arrest her because she ruin that day for all those church members? Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword, you cant just let it go when it has the chance to cut you.

smooth

Your analogy would make more sense if the person was attempting to walk into the church with the sign.

Now, ask yourself, can the congregation make sure she doesn't enter?

I say yes.

__________________
"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

Seaver

Yes, but the church does not take large amounts of money from the government. Churches are allowed to only allow certain races, or only one sex, or only red haired, or whatever the heck they want to enter. Why? Because they are a PRIVATE group that does not take public money.

Public schools can not do this because they take public government money thus need to follow ALL of the rules.

I'm not saying this girl was totally right, read my posts earlier. She should have gone about the right ways before the prom. But the court rulings have stated that freedom of speech is allowed in school therefore they must be allowed no matter whos feelings get hurt.

smooth

I'm not sure what kind of government money you envision schools obtain.

You seem to be linking your discourse of federal rights on the hinge that schools receive federal funding.

Schools are funded by local dollars. The money they receive is based on local property taxes, which is why there are such large discrepancies between schools located in poor, urban regions versus those in wealthier, suburban areas.

While there are some programs that purport to provide additional financial support, such as, No child left behind and magnet programs, they are not how schools derive their funding.

__________________
"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

flstf

The girl should have been allowed to wear her dress.

The more non-racist people fly the stars and bars as the symbol of southern pride that it is, the sooner it will be accepted as such. If we do nothing then the racist groups that want to use it as a symbol of their hate will have won.

We should not let racists or those who are easily offended destroy such symbols. It reminds me of the Washington D.C. Public Advocate that was forced to resign for using the word niggardly to describe the administration of a fund.

IMHO, this kind of stuff is an example of politically correct racial insanity.

Seaver

I'm not talking about federal dollars. Brown vs. Board was LONG before federal funding was pumped into schools, yet it still outlawed the schools segregating based on race. So, as I said, as the schools recieve public funding (aka local or state taxes) they have to observe the rights of those students who attend (based on court rulings that uphold those rights).

smooth

OK, so you aren't talking about federal funding.

I understand you to be stating that constitutional rights are only protected when the violator receives public money, regardless of whether they are local or federal dollars.


I disagree with that sentiment, too. I don't agree that personal, constitutional rights are guaranteed any more or any less depending on whether one is interacting with a private or public institution.


Rights depend on the context of the situation. And that analysis would need to address the rights of all the individuals involved--this is not some state agency versus the personal opinion of one citizen, although it's being represented that way.

The school board and organizers of this dance represent each and every student in that school. They have a right to assemble without intrusion just as you claim she has a right to express herself. You may not agree, but without checking the case law, I am going to assume the police and other officials are acting constitutionally when they limit the demonstrations of anti-war/peace protestors, or anti-Bush protestors, or WTO demonstrators, or "free-speech" zones on campuses, and a myriad of other types of restrictions on where or when someone can utizilize their freedom of speech.

Now, the case may settle, but that's usually do to the lengthy and expensive process of litigation, and less about the culpability of the accused.


Really, we can sit here and speak about hypotheticals and such, but the reality is that no sane attorney or judge is going to go with the argument that she is being denied a right to prom in a similar fashion as blacks were excluded from equal education by attending segregated schools (which is a somewhat different take on Brown v. BoE than you seem to be implying). I'm not arguing that you claimed they were similar, but they would have to be in order for your analyses of what the court must do to protect one's rights if the offending institution is publicly funded.

__________________
"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

Rekna

In my school prom was not funded by public dollars. It was funded by fee's charged to all attenders. That sounds like a private function to me.

1010011010

I couldn't agree more. What they don't need is the government asking them "Is this a smart thing to do?".Suppose, for a moment, that this school is a hotbed of racism. Should we then allow her dress, but exclude the non-whites, because having them coloreds there would offend the pure white students? What about if they just excluded interracial couples? Would that be okay?

No, you tell those bigoted fuckers to deal with it. And you say the same thing to people that mistakenly think that their choice to take offense, by virtue of being more politically correct, is more righteous.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

mac03

Here's part of her point... If she'd have wanted to wear a dress made from teh US flag, they probably would have had no problem and welcomed it as a patriotic sign.

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.

martinguerre

man...i don't know where some of y'all went to school. but prom sure was not a "right" at my school. lots of private funding, some oversight by school officials...

i'm not sure where that leaves it legally in the land of pure thought. but i'm glad it was as it was...and i was a bit of a free speech hellion then. a dance like that just isn't a good public forum for ideas...

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

flstf

Sure it is. Just look at some of the things said and placards used in the last election. Freedom of speech means putting up with things we totally disagree with, like the girls "southern pride" dress.

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.

This dress falls under the saying things that could insight panic or violence. It could have easily escelated things at the prom to a dangerous levels putting everyone at risk. 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. 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.

The_Dunedan

This is nuts. The Supremes have already ruled that students retain their 1A rights at school, including the rights regarding political speech.

"You can't yell fire in a theatre!"
Sure you can, if there's a fire. However, if you yell "Fire!" falsely, this is called Giving False Alarm and is a crime. You are perfectly free to yell "Fire!" Your fellow patrons, the manager, the owner, and anyone else affected are also free to sue you blind if you're lying.

"You can't wear/say things that incite violence!"
This is equally nutso. You're basically saying that, upon sight of this hideous dress, people would spontaneously loose control of themselves and start either attacking minority students or start attacking this girl. That's not a CSA-flag problem, that's a self-control problem, and should be dealt with as such. This is the same arguement Hoplophobes use: apparently my guns are going to make me slaughter my neighbors.....any day now....
This arguement also assumes that such laws are even Constitutional. The 1A begins with "Congress shall make no law..." not "Congress shall make no law unless someone is offended."

"KKK...Nazis....slavery...EVIL WHITE SLAVEOWNING RACIST MOTHERFUCKERS!!!"
Sorry, but no. The WBtS was primarily a states-rights issue and ( initially ) had very little to do with slavery. Lincoln was desperate to preserve the Union so that Northern politicans and corporations could keep bilking Southron citizens through excessive tarrifs and mercantilist trade policies. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states which had already seceeded: neutral or Union states were exempt.
If some fucktards in the KKK have appropriated the Confederate Battle Ensign, this does not make them correct; it makes them fucktards. It does nothing to change the fact that to many Southrons, the CBE and the Bonnie Blue Flag are symbols of states' rights and resistance to tyranny. The somewhat hackneyed slogan "Heritage, Not Hate" portrays this quite nicely.
Let's not forget that the largest slave-importing port in the US prior to 1814 was Boston, the largest slaveowner in the US was black ( lived outside of New Orleans ) and that U. S. Grant only freed his slaves in 1867, while R. E. Lee never owned slaves and condemned slavery as an "Abominable evil."


However, the dress was truly hideous.

smooth

These debates over the meaning of that flag are bizarre to me.

It only meant states rights? And those arguments over states rights weren't brought to a head by the issue of slavery?

hmm, I have never seen such a flag flown in Oregon and almost everyone I met there is concerned with states rights. I have yet to see any thing like it in California in over 20 years and we are embattled with the federal government on many major points.

In fact, thepeople on the West coast differ on major policy points to the federal government in regards to marriage laws, euthenasia, drug policy, immigration, education, and a slew of other issues the government has even gone so far as to take overt police action against, yet none of us from canada's border to mexico's border have taken to flying that flag as a statement of states rights.

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.

Actually, regardless of all that, it's the flag of a group of renegades who fought against our federal government. bizarro.

__________________
"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

The_Dunedan

Well, you don't see the CBE in Oregon because Oregon wasn't part of the CSA. However, Southern Oregon/Norther California have tried to seceed and create their own state several times: the last attempt was in 1941, but was put off by WWII. The new state was to be called Jefferson; some locals still refer to the OR/CA border area by this name.
There were also slaveowning Union states: Maryland, for one.

As for it being the flag of renegades: so is Old Glory.

flstf

Yes, and people should still have the right to display it just like groups today can burn the American flag in protest of the federal government. At least I think they still have that right.

smooth

I'm aware of the desire to create the state of "Jefferson."

Your whole portion on that buttresses my point; I don't know how you could use it to support yours. If the flag were about state's rights, Jeffersonians would be flying it. They aren't.


Do you seriously see not see the distinction between 'Old Glory' as a renegade banner and the one we are speaking about?


flstf: well, I'm not going to get into it with you over whether people should be burning their own flags or not, but I don't see how that even corresponds to displaying a defeated army's flag.


Are the same people upset about this in the same category as those opposed to frivelous lawsuits? What's up with suing for $50,000?
What exactly is your motive for defending someone's stupidity and outright attempt to instigate an episode? Do you even question how the school new what she was going to wear before she arrived? This doesn't seem like anything other than someone purposely creating a scene.

Arguments like the ones going on in this thread indicate to me that oftentimes people will take very strange positions despite their positions on other similar issues simply because of where they assume liberals will fall on the issue. As if they must defend this girl's attempt to rile up a town even if they won't stand up for equally important rights when they walk into an airport, or get upset about protestors burning flags, or support keeping groups of protestors out of particular areas for 'safety and crowd control.'

__________________
"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

flstf

Well, many of us have relatives who were drafted as young men and fought in the civil war. To my family from Louisiana, the Confederate battle flag was never a symbol of racism and I hate seeing it portrayed as such, which is what seems to have been the reason for not allowing it here.

I don't like the idea of people burning the U.S. flag either but they have that right so far. I believe there are some polititian's trying or have tried to pass laws against it though. Then it would be up to the courts. I was just using an example of an activity of legal protest against the federal government in response to your renegade flag comment.

The_Dunedan

Actually, Smooth, I have serious and hotly-voiced problems with abominations like "Free Speech Zones" and the Gestapo tactics of the TSA. I support flag-burning as a 1A issue as well.

JohnBua

And freedom of speech means that you can dress up in a KKK hood and go to a NAACP rally and have a confederate flag in detroit. Freedom of speech covers unpopular speech as well. Not just speech you find alright.

smooth

Usually flying the flag of an army that was at war with the US nation would be considered treason, I would think. That was my point. Yet when it comes to something you support, it's ok.

Somehow I think your position would change if I erected a North Korean flag on the steps of the federal courthouse. That's free speech, too. Perhaps I should exercise my free speech capabilities by smoking a cuban cigar in front of the courthouse. That would be the ulitmate: a (banned) communist commodity, on the steps of an area that is disignated by law to be smoking free. At some point, common sense will dictate where we want to go with this thing.

I can't speak for your family. It doesn't matter, frankly, what they thought of the flag 100 years ago or what their descendants think about it now.

I hope that people will go back and read the relevant case law. Host posted a portion of it. For one, even the small tidbit clearly states that schools can stop children from wearing inflammatory clothes. They just have to have an appropriate reason to do so.

__________________
"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

smooth

No it doesn't. This has already been sufficiently covered in this thread.

__________________
"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

sob

Quick--arrest this Milwaukee girl for treason!

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SAAFA7kWh085jWw6ZURrW6TXwR0SsA4VIUVMrimjyS4TaKxLsLMPD*obj0mjOiLsHYnjF*iOEd0WNr!yFYNFzygD5!79DIX6!1b1WdHcFUSBAAAAynJhAg/cinco.jpg?dc=4675503867006400391></img>

JohnBua

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

smooth

The courts have consistently ruled that the freedom of speech can properly be constrained in time and place. Any time one's actions are going to, or likely to produce violence or harm to someone, the right to expression is properly limited.

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.

If you are seriously interested in whether your opinion is legally correct, call an attorney in the morning, ask for a quick legal consultation, and read him or her exactly what you typed into here. Then ask if it's legal.

Please respond to me in the morning whether the first thing he or she says to you is, "Please tell me you didn't do that?"

__________________
"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

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.