- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 12 Year Old Kicked Out Of Class Over Gadsden Flag
Posted on 8/30/23 at 1:50 pm to PikesPeak
Posted on 8/30/23 at 1:50 pm to PikesPeak
quote:
And? And parents that use their kids to push a political ideology or agenda are pieces of shite.
or maybe his parents educate him and he has a mind of his own. i certainly was already developing my own political and cultural beliefs by his age. and i'm not shy about talking about stuff like this around my own kids either. am i pushing a political ideology and agenda on my kids? fricking right i am.
0
Posted on 8/30/23 at 2:44 pm to Obtuse1
I read the full article and will try to apply Tinker.
The slavery link, while factually wrong, is irrelevant.
The salient part is where the school district claimed it was disruptive to the classroom environment. Tinker specifically requires actual "substantial" disruption vs. "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance". The key is under Tinker you can not prevent a student from wearing/displaying something unless there is actual substantial disruption. If there was actual disruption as the district's statement suggests then the only thing left to meet the original 1969 Tinker test is showing that the disruption was substantial. If they are able to support this then they are allowed to ban the item.
As to Tinker's requirements of actual disruption, the modern view taken by lower courts that has not been challenged is "reasonable forecast of substantial disruption" this prevents having to wait for the substantial disruption (Melton v Young, a case from Tennesee in the early 70s where a court ruled the school could prevent the wearing of a Confederate Flag jacket before any disruption actually occurred). The three other recent cases that fine tune Tinker are Mahoney, and Bell though both deal with off-campus activity and Hazelwood that deals with school newspaper censorship.
Now other than the school district's statement there may have been no disruption at all (outside of what the teacher likely caused) but if there was actual disruption then it would be a jury question as to whether it reaches "substantial". Again this is only using the Tinker test which is more restrictive on the school than subsequent lower court cases. This and Justice Thomas clearly stating in Morse he would overturn Tinker makes this far less of a slam dunk than some people think.
I want to make something else clear about the application of the Tinker test. The way it is formulated it could protect a display in one school and not protect the same display in another school.
For example:
You could have two schools where a student had a Pride Flag affixed to their backpack. A school with exclusively highly progressive parents and students would be very unlikely to see a substantial disruption from the flag. Therefore under Tinker the school could not ban it. Another school with exclusively highly conservative parents and students might see an actual substantial disruption and could ban the exact same flag. The same could also be true with a Confederate Flag but the schools would probably trade places. This sets up very much like the Miller test for pornography (Miller vs California) which asks if the average person applying the contemporary community standards would find the work mainly appealing to prurient interests with no literary, scientific, political, or artistic value. Miller results in a situation where something could be found to be pornographic in SLC but not in San Francisco.
The slavery link, while factually wrong, is irrelevant.
The salient part is where the school district claimed it was disruptive to the classroom environment. Tinker specifically requires actual "substantial" disruption vs. "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance". The key is under Tinker you can not prevent a student from wearing/displaying something unless there is actual substantial disruption. If there was actual disruption as the district's statement suggests then the only thing left to meet the original 1969 Tinker test is showing that the disruption was substantial. If they are able to support this then they are allowed to ban the item.
As to Tinker's requirements of actual disruption, the modern view taken by lower courts that has not been challenged is "reasonable forecast of substantial disruption" this prevents having to wait for the substantial disruption (Melton v Young, a case from Tennesee in the early 70s where a court ruled the school could prevent the wearing of a Confederate Flag jacket before any disruption actually occurred). The three other recent cases that fine tune Tinker are Mahoney, and Bell though both deal with off-campus activity and Hazelwood that deals with school newspaper censorship.
Now other than the school district's statement there may have been no disruption at all (outside of what the teacher likely caused) but if there was actual disruption then it would be a jury question as to whether it reaches "substantial". Again this is only using the Tinker test which is more restrictive on the school than subsequent lower court cases. This and Justice Thomas clearly stating in Morse he would overturn Tinker makes this far less of a slam dunk than some people think.
I want to make something else clear about the application of the Tinker test. The way it is formulated it could protect a display in one school and not protect the same display in another school.
For example:
You could have two schools where a student had a Pride Flag affixed to their backpack. A school with exclusively highly progressive parents and students would be very unlikely to see a substantial disruption from the flag. Therefore under Tinker the school could not ban it. Another school with exclusively highly conservative parents and students might see an actual substantial disruption and could ban the exact same flag. The same could also be true with a Confederate Flag but the schools would probably trade places. This sets up very much like the Miller test for pornography (Miller vs California) which asks if the average person applying the contemporary community standards would find the work mainly appealing to prurient interests with no literary, scientific, political, or artistic value. Miller results in a situation where something could be found to be pornographic in SLC but not in San Francisco.
Posted on 8/30/23 at 2:56 pm to Riverside
This Gadsden thing is stupid. Teacher is a moron that doesn't know history.
But this:
Isn't true. He had giant flags that were against the rules due to the size. The school had American flags displayed in multiple locations. It was the size of the flags, not the type, and the overly large size was against pre-existing policy.
Can we have actual complaints about the direction our country is headed without watering down facts with hyperbole and misinformation? It discredits everything and everyone.
But this:
quote:
Last week a school in Virginia banned a high school student for having an American flag in his pick-up truck.
Isn't true. He had giant flags that were against the rules due to the size. The school had American flags displayed in multiple locations. It was the size of the flags, not the type, and the overly large size was against pre-existing policy.
Can we have actual complaints about the direction our country is headed without watering down facts with hyperbole and misinformation? It discredits everything and everyone.
Posted on 8/30/23 at 3:44 pm to CatfishJohn
quote:
Can we have actual complaints about the direction our country is headed without watering down facts with hyperbole and misinformation? It discredits everything and everyone.
Not since one side decided they were the only ones allowed to intentionally mislead
Posted on 8/30/23 at 6:31 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
You get that from a kid wearing an American historical saying at school? Not the kids who have been sexually mutilated by their white liberal mothers
I’d guess they’re both candidates for being psychotic later in life. Both cases seem like examples of grooming.
Posted on 8/30/23 at 6:51 pm to DownSouthCrawfish
quote:I remember when I was told this. It didn't work.
Just go to school and try not to be weird.
Posted on 8/30/23 at 6:59 pm to MorbidTheClown
Poor little Braxton is having his "beliefs "that his parents have been virtue signaling through his backpack trampled on. How will he ever recover from his parents using him to get 15 minutes of attention on Newsmax?
This post was edited on 8/30/23 at 7:00 pm
Posted on 8/30/23 at 7:01 pm to Hoops
quote:
Not since one side decided they were the only ones allowed to intentionally mislead
Let me guess, it's the other side. Definitely not your side.
Posted on 8/30/23 at 7:59 pm to MorbidTheClown
Posted on 8/30/23 at 8:08 pm to Jester
quote:
Let me guess, it's the other side. Definitely not your side.
The “2 sides” are the same side dipshit.
Posted on 8/30/23 at 8:12 pm to Jester
Awe, poor little Jester is upset his groomer "beliefs” aren’t being forced down this kid’s throat by indoctrinators
Posted on 8/30/23 at 8:28 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
But my point is if the school bans anything remotely political then this could fall into that.
The kid is literally a political candidate in a school sponsored student election. I'm pretty sure they would find it hard to play that angle.
This isn't directed at you, but the "yea but" dimwits trying to belittle this kid in lieu of focusing on the issue can't seem to grasp that regardless if this kid is a weirdo, or regardless if his parents are opportunistic activists, it would have been a normal day in Colorado, America if the teacher and school hadn't chosen such a pathetic and ignorant hill to die on.
Imagine the story being a precocious 12 year old who loves learning about the founding of America decided to model his class campaign on the American Revolution and how goddamn adorable that is.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News