Is Free Speech Being Confused with Hate Speech in Schools?

[BobG]

Ideology had a part, but money also had a lot to do with it.

Slavery did not happen in a vacuum and it didn't occur overnight.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htm

Very good article. There's a difference between political ideology, economic ideology, and cultural values. In any stable culture, cultural values build up over time to support a lifestyle that works and preserve's a culture's ability to maintain that lifestyle in the face of outside pressure. A side effect is that cultural values become so deeply ingrained that they take on a life of their own outside any relevance they may have to that culture. The culture's environment changes; but it's cultural values keep the culture from changing.

There's plusses and minuses to that. It would be interesting to see if there are some basic cultural values that help cultures in a changing environment or if it's pretty much random chance - that some cultural values help a culture survive in one given change of circumstances while the same cultural values result in the culture collapsing completely in a different situation of change. In other words, are there truly good cultural values and bad cultural values, or does it just depend on the environment the culture happens to live in.

I think that with the difficulty of trying to study ancient cultures and the relative newness of cultural anthropology that that's a question one couldn't give a good answer to today. (It would be a very relevant question to have answered, since we've reached a point where the conditions of the world's civilizations tend to change constantly and rapidly and our response is just to guess which of our old cultural values still have relevance.)

Slavery had reached the point of being a cultural value. It was developed because of the economic necessity of slavery, slavery was still relevant to the economy, but it had reached the point where that cultural value would survive much longer than its economic necessity, even if slavery hadn't been prematurely cut off by the civil war.

As the article mentioned, it had a somewhat negative effect in the economic development of the South. The cultural integration of slavery made the civil war both more likely to occur and less likely to succeed.

 

[FlexGunship]

So what do you guys think? I think that the teacher should not have been suspended. First off, these kids were obviously causing a disruption in class. I have seen kids being sent out for much worse. [...] Schools should be safe fro bullying and abuse.

Responding directly to the OP here.

Frankly, this is a scary trend, and it's good that they came down so hard on the teacher. There is no constitutional right to not be offended. People seem to this this exists. You, in fact, have every right to be completely offended, and people have every right to offend you. The line is drawn at targeted harassment. I don't see evidence of that here except for the teach harassing the students.

Actually, when you really look at it, the Confederate flag is, at a minimum, a statement of hatred for the United States. It celebrates the days when the South was free of the United States and it, and the accompanying statement the South will rise again, offers the promise that someday the South will be free of the United States once again.

Considering why the South hates the United States and why the Confederate flag suddenly became popular again in the 50's, I could see people interpreting this as a statement of white supremacy as much as a statement of hatred for the United States.

Not to nitpick, but it's possible that the Confederate Flag is just a symbol for denouncing federalism (and the battle flag, of General Lee fame, is the obnoxiously loud version of this). It seems that you link it with white supremacy, and that's fine. But that might not be what it means to everyone.

 

[FlexGunship]

In any case, you still have not provided an example of what "heritage" you think the Confederate BATTLE Flag ACTUALLY stands for. Not providing the alternatives implies to me that you don't know of anything else it stands for.

I know you're not addressing me, but I feel there is an opposing side to your view, Russ, and it's not being well defended here by the individual(s) you are addressing. I'm going to try to defend the public display of the Confederate Battle Flag (and Nazi Swastikas by proxy) here.

Russ, it is possible that the Confederate Battle Flag might mean something politically significant to an individual. Specifically, it could stand for the ideal that fighting against militarily-enforced federalism is both prudent and respectable. Now, you don't have to agree with that stance, but I'm sure we can both recognize it's existence.

Furthermore, we can readily agree that this interpretation is not, perhaps, the common view. In fact, we could probably agree that the Confederate Battle Flag is borderline inflammatory! It sure seems to carry a lot of baggage with it. However, generating this emotional response in the public as a forum for discussion is the specific goal.

There's no reason to protect speech that everyone agrees with; everyone agrees with it. You don't have to agree with the folks that display the Confederate Battle Flag and you don't even have to respect them. But you certainly do have to tolerate it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Frankly, this is a scary trend, and it's good that they came down so hard on the teacher. There is no constitutional right to not be offended. People seem to this this exists. You, in fact, have every right to be completely offended, and people have every right to offend you. The line is drawn at targeted harassment.

No, it is not.

The courts have ruled more than once (as has been cited in this thread previously) that schools have the authority to place some restrictions on first amendment rights in the interest of preventing a demonstrable and significant disruption to the school's ability to function smoothly. Where the line is drawn for the broader public or the government is different from where it is drawn for public schools.

 

[FlexGunship]

The courts have ruled more than once (as has been cited in this thread previously) that schools have the authority to place some restrictions on first amendment rights in the interest of preventing a demonstrable and significant disruption to the school's ability to function smoothly. Where the line is drawn for the broader public or the government is different from where it is drawn for public schools.

(Emphasis added.)

Gokul, I concede the point. You are correct about public schools. Since attendance is mandatory, different rules apply. However, can we agree there is a conflict of interest? A public school teacher is fundamentally a government employee.

I was applying societal ideals to a non-ideal environment (public schools). If attendance at school was optional (like a private school), then it would not be a problem. They would simply lose business by allowing "disruptive" types to enroll.

 

[zomgwtf]

...Sure they can ban stuff that's disruptive but it would appear to me that it's kind of hypocritical.

What seems to have happened here was the TEACHER disrupted the class over the students belt-buckle. If this is an area where many people fly use this flag as symbolism of whatever they believe then it would probably be socially acceptable in this local area to do so. How would this be disruptive?
Something that DID disrupt the classroom (after the teachers initial disruption) was the fact that the teacher wore a symbol for anti-gay bullying. Surely this means that anti-gay bullying symbols are going to be banned from schools in the area?

Of course not because in good-old-'Merica it's not really 'freedom' and minorities without support from the majority are hardly ever protected. (as they should be in a democracy)

 

[Gokul43201]

If this is an area where many people fly use this flag as symbolism of whatever they believe then it would probably be socially acceptable in this local area to do so. How would this be disruptive?

And what if they believe that gays and blacks deserve lynching?

Did you miss BobG's post (#67) above?

 

[Gokul43201]

Since attendance is mandatory, different rules apply.

Is that the basis for the existing case law? I'm not sure without looking it up.

 

[FlexGunship]

And what if they believe that gays and blacks deserve lynching?

Did you miss BobG's post (#67) above?

You can't legislate a belief to make it illegal. That's called thought-crime and it was discussed handily in Orwell's book 1984.

You can make lynching illegal (and it already is!). But you can't make the personal motivations and thoughts of an individual illegal.

 

[FlexGunship]

Is that the basis for the existing case law? I'm not sure without looking it up.

It is regarding the forced recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I cannot speak specifically for cases involving Confederate Battle Flags.

 

[Gokul43201]

You can't legislate a belief to make it illegal.

I'm not saying you can. My response was aimed at the question raised by zomg: "How can this be disruptive"" I was specifically addressing that query.

 

[zomgwtf]

And what if they believe that gays and blacks deserve lynching?

Did you miss BobG's post (#67) above?

What if they believe that treating gays as equal will require punishment of the entire community and possibly end up with an eternity in hell?

This is rediculous, you can not support certain types of possibly offensive symbolism over any other simply because it's not in accordance with the majority belief system, or your own personal belief system.

I don't particularly care if they want to kill every last black person in the world. They are ABLE to formulate these thoughts and they have the RIGHT to formulate these thoughts. If a group of them gets together and has a symbol that represents their group they can SHOW this symbol just like all the other groups can.

This is of course just going with your assumption that they do want to kill blacks/gays. In no way did I get that from this story and in no way did the story suggest that the belt was disruptive for such a reason. It was not disruptive until the teacher made the disruption.

 

[Gokul43201]

What if they believe that treating gays as equal will require punishment of the entire community and possibly end up with an eternity in hell?

This is rediculous, you can not support certain types of possibly offensive symbolism over any other simply because it's not in accordance with the majority belief system, or your own personal belief system.

Irrelevant (at best, and a strawman at worst - I never claimed anything related to the notion that you are attacking). The only thing that is relevant here is whether or not the symbolism could reasonably be expected to cause a significant disruption. By law, even if the symbolism expressed was that we should all be tolerant of each other, it could be banned if it was reasonably expected to be particularly disruptive.

I don't particularly care if they want to kill every last black person in the world. They are ABLE to formulate these thoughts and they have the RIGHT to formulate these thoughts. If a group of them gets together and has a symbol that represents their group they can SHOW this symbol just like all the other groups can.

Out on the streets, they can. Inside a school, there are restrictions.

This is of course just going with your assumption that they do want to kill blacks/gays.

I made no such assumption. I posed a hypothetical. It may or may not be true, but given the history of the place, it is not a stretch to imagine that the symbolism may have expressed more than just "southern pride" in its most benign form (making the expectation of significant disruption plausible).

In no way did I get that from this story and in no way did the story suggest that the belt was disruptive for such a reason. It was not disruptive until the teacher made the disruption.

How do you know it was not disruptive? I've not carefully followed all the news reporting on this - are there first person accounts stating that it was not disruptive? Moreover, a strong expectation of disruption is all that is legally required for the school to take preventive measures.

 

[zomgwtf]

Precisely my point Gokul, so gay support should also be banned at schools. It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see that some could be disruptive about it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Precisely my point Gokul, so gay support should also be banned at schools. It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see that some could be disruptive about it.

It could be (as could support of smooth pebbles over jagged ones), as long as the school reasonably expects that it would lead to a significant disruption.

 

[FlexGunship]

I could be (as could support of smooth pebbles over jagged ones), as long as the school reasonably expects that it would lead to a significant disruption.

This is turning into a very slippery slope.

In my mind, the other option is to simply allow all forms of expression which don't directly endanger an individual and which don't constitute a type of individually customized harassment.

I define" individually customized harassment" as a type of expression which doesn't target a group, but rather targets an individual. "Democrats should die" versus "Jimmy should die." (Edit: the questionable area is when there is only one individual in a group... what if Jimmy is the only Democrat in a classroom?)

 

[Galteeth]

What if you are not explicitly inciting violence, but wear an emblem of those who did to show your support? (I'm not sure, seems like a grey area)

Like the american flag?

 

[WhoWee]

I wonder if anyone would be offended if the American flag was displayed on their food stamp card, or Medicaid card, or HUD documents, or student loans, or FDA inspected items? Maybe all welfare recipients should be required to wear an American flag pin - or fly a flag at their home - UNTIL THEY GET OFF THE BENEFITS?

 

[Al68]

I wonder if anyone would be offended if the American flag was displayed on their food stamp card, or Medicaid card, or HUD documents, or student loans, or FDA inspected items? Maybe all welfare recipients should be required to wear an American flag pin - or fly a flag at their home - UNTIL THEY GET OFF THE BENEFITS?

This would be far more appropriate:

And before anyone objects to this as representing the USSR, it more generally represents the "proletariat/peasantry" in socialist ideology.

 

[Galteeth]

I wonder if anyone would be offended if the American flag was displayed on their food stamp card, or Medicaid card, or HUD documents, or student loans, or FDA inspected items? Maybe all welfare recipients should be required to wear an American flag pin - or fly a flag at their home - UNTIL THEY GET OFF THE BENEFITS?

My proximal point was that all flags are a symbol of "violence." All nation states are founded on the notion of militarily protecting their borders and using violence or its threat to enforce their rules.

My real point was that it is all very subjective, and it is indeed a slippery slope to ban forms of speech, symbolic or otherwise, for the perception of what they might mean or the ideas they advocate.

 

[Al68]

My proximal point was that all flags are a symbol of "violence." All nation states are founded on the notion of militarily protecting their borders and using violence or its threat to enforce their rules

Sure but "violence" in that sense encompasses the entire spectrum between purely defensive force and mass murder, rendering the word "violence" a fairly meaningless word to use in that context. And your second statement is true for most nations that are not nation states as well, like the U.S.

 

[Gokul43201]

My real point was that it is all very subjective, and it is indeed a slippery slope to ban forms of speech, symbolic or otherwise, for the perception of what they might mean or the ideas they advocate.

To the best of my understanding, schools do not possesses the authority to ban forms of speech based on the perception of what they might mean or the ideas they might advocate. They may only ban speech that is expected to significantly disrupt their ability to function smoothly - the perceived meaning of the speech is essentially irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

All nation states are founded on the notion of militarily protecting their borders

Nope. Not all.

Sez your Canadian friends to the North...

 

[Al68]

All nation states are founded on the notion of militarily protecting their borders

Nope. Not all.

Sez your Canadian friends to the North...

Galteeth specifically referred to nation states. There may be a counter-example, but Canada isn't one of them, since it's not a nation state.

 

[zomgwtf]

Galteeth specifically referred to nation states. There may be a counter-example, but Canada isn't one of them, since it's not a nation state.

I'm pretty sure he just misused the word. It seems he was responding to something that was said about America and America is not a nation-state, just like Canada.

 

[Galteeth]

I'm pretty sure he just misused the word. It seems he was responding to something that was said about America and America is not a nation-state, just like Canada.

Ok, I know this is venturing off topic, but how do you define "nation-state"?

Going by wikipedia, the US and Canada seem to qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

 

[Galteeth]

Sure but "violence" in that sense encompasses the entire spectrum between purely defensive force and mass murder, rendering the word "violence" a fairly meaningless word to use in that context. And your second statement is true for most nations that are not nation states as well, like the U.S.

I' be happy to discuss this further, but probably a new thread is appropriate.

 

[zomgwtf]

Ok, I know this is venturing off topic, but how do you define "nation-state"?

Going by wikipedia, the US and Canada seem to qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

Both USA and Canada are home to a huge amount of different ethnicities and religions. There are other reasons but I think those are the largest.

 

[BobG]

Ok, I know this is venturing off topic, but how do you define "nation-state"?

Going by wikipedia, the US and Canada seem to qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

Both USA and Canada are home to a huge amount of different ethnicities and religions. There are other reasons but I think those are the largest.

Nation-states refer to countries. Nations refer to people. Granted, common usage creates so much ambiguity in the terms, that it's almost easier to differentiate between nations and countries - especially if you want to get picky and differentiate between states (borders), nations (people), and decide that to be a nation-state, there has to be one nation (people) that coincides with the state borders.

You can have nations that overlap state borders (the Kurds, for example). You can have more than one nation within a country. China has the most nations using the social term. India, United States, Canada, and the old USSR used to fill out the top five. (In the US, those nations would consist of Iriquois, Navaho, Hopi, etc).

This was what he was referring to, using a tighter restriction on the term nation-states than is usually used (even if his usage might be the technically correct usage?)

 

[zomgwtf]

Nation-states refer to countries. Nations refer to people. Granted, common usage creates so much ambiguity in the terms, that it's almost easier to differentiate between nations and countries - especially if you want to get picky and differentiate between states (borders), nations (people), and decide that to be a nation-state, there has to be one nation (people) that coincides with the state borders.

You can have nations that overlap state borders (the Kurds, for example). You can have more than one nation within a country. China has the most nations using the social term. India, United States, Canada, and the old USSR used to fill out the top five. (In the US, those nations would consist of Iriquois, Navaho, Hopi, etc).

This was what he was referring to, using a tighter restriction on the term nation-states than is usually used (even if his usage might be the technically correct usage?)

Well it's not a tighter definition, it's the correct definition but yes... and I was just pointing out to Al68 that the original usage of this term in this thread wasn't one using that definition.

 

[Al68]

Ok, I know this is venturing off topic, but how do you define "nation-state"?

Going by wikipedia, the US and Canada seem to qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

Going by wikipedia, neither would qualify. The U.S. is not a nation state for two major reasons:

First, the U.S. is not a state at all. It is a nation of member states. The federal government is not a "sovereign territorial unit", it gets its "political legitimacy" from a contract between the member (sovereign) states.

Second, the political boundary of the U.S., or its member states, is not the geographical boundary of an ethnic or cultural group.

 

[mugaliens]

My question is - why is the confederate flag taken as a reference to the KKK? Please- answer me that. I really want to know the source of this.

It's largely a misnomer, although some racist groups have adopted it (wrongly, in my belief) as a symbol of their movements. In so doing, I believe they've pretty much smeared its true cultural heritage, and ruined its use for other, non-racist, and legitimate groups which reflect a Southern heritage.

 

[Galteeth]

It's largely a misnomer, although some racist groups have adopted it (wrongly, in my belief) as a symbol of their movements. In so doing, I believe they've pretty much smeared its true cultural heritage, and ruined its use for other, non-racist, and legitimate groups which reflect a Southern heritage.

Well, actually, I would say there is some historical connection. The KKK started out largely as a southern insurgency movement during reconstruction, composed of former confederate officers.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, actually, I would say there is some historical connection. The KKK started out largely as a southern insurgency movement during reconstruction, composed of former confederate officers.

Yes - however, the KKK movement was not limited to the South. This wiki article addresses the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

"Three Klans
First KKK
The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee by veterans of the Confederate Army. Although it never had an organizational structure above the local level, similar groups across the South adopted the name and methods. Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States As a secret vigilante group, the Klan focused its anger reacted against Radical Republican and sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871 the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing Republican voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

Second KKK
In 1915, the second Klan was founded and remained a small organization in Georgia. Starting in 1921 it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. The second KKK preached Americanism and purification of politics, with a heavy tome of racism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Communism, nativism, and antisemitism. Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses, and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.[11]

The second Klan was a formal fraternal organization, with a national and state structure. At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930. It finally faded away in the 1940s.[12]

Third KKK
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[13] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. Today, researchers estimate that there may be approximately 150 Klan chapters with upwards of 5,000 members nationwide.[14]

Today, a large majority of sources consider the Klan to be a "subversive or terrorist organization".[14][15][16][17] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.[18] A similar effort was made in 2004 when a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization so it could be banned from campus.[19] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant.[20]"

At it's peak, the KKK was a national organization.