The Heckler's Veto

[lawrocket 3]

Situation was this: on May 5, 2009, some white kids put an American flag in their high school quad. This did not go over well with the students toting a Mexican flag on campus that day, and there were threats made that white kids were going to get fucked up.

A year later to the day at the same high school, some kids wore shirts with American flags on them. Administrators instructed them to either turn their shirts inside out or go home. The problem they wished to avoid was that the ones celebrating Cinco de Mayo were going to "fuck them up."

The kids who were censored sued. The Ninth Circuit said yesterday that because of the risk of violence resulting from the speech (American flags) that the First Amendment was not violated by censoring them.

The Court did not address the really tough issue: "The Heckler's Veto." It basically says that the free speech ends when violence is threatened as a response. So it's meant to shut up people on the basis that some other person will react violently to the speech.

What is the effect of a rule like this? I think it ENCOURAGES threatening violence as a response to speech. "Hey. This guy here is on a streetcorner in Boston saying that Tsarnaev's rights were violated. Somebody might beat him up for that, so we cops better shut him up."

I find this to be an extremely touchy thing. All it takes is for people to hear something that pisses them off and the government is therefore allowed to ban speech. The Court didn't even touch this argument. Not at all.

Is this Heckler's Veto something that is defensible to any of you? Or is there some speech where the subject is so seditious that it should be prevented.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>Is this Heckler's Veto something that is defensible to any of you?

Defensible? No. Understandable in this case? Yes.

[lawrocket 3]

Why is it understandable in this case? Why does the threat of violence from one group of speakers mean that the other group of speakers must be forced into silence?

What if the white kids threatened violence?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>Why is it understandable in this case?

I can understand why someone in charge of the safety of children would choose the option that reduces the odds of their death.

>What if the white kids threatened violence?

Same thing. Doesn't matter if the issue was a US flag shirt, a Ukraninan flag shirt, or a shirt that said "I love Al Qaeda." I can understand why a school administrator would choose kid's safety over a shirt. Doesn't mean it's right, but to me at least it's understandable.

[Boogers 0]

Back in the 60's when segregation was coming to an end, a whole bunch of white folks threatened violence if the government let black kids into a white school. Governor Wallace even stood at the entrance door to block their path. The National Guard was called out to protect those black students and ensure their safety. If only they had stopped desegregation because of the threat of violence! Drat!



Yes, this court ruling is a bad thing. You CANNOT allow people who threaten violence to decide which constitutional rights can be exercised.

The proper response is to provide enough law enforcement to prevent violence, and to catch and punish those who start it.

[jakee 1,255]

I think there was stuff I wasn't allowed to do at school that I am allowed to do now.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Boogers 0]

billvon

>Why is it understandable in this case?

I can understand why someone in charge of the safety of children would choose the option that reduces the odds of their death.

>What if the white kids threatened violence?

Same thing. Doesn't matter if the issue was a US flag shirt, a Ukraninan flag shirt, or a shirt that said "I love Al Qaeda." I can understand why a school administrator would choose kid's safety over a shirt. Doesn't mean it's right, but to me at least it's understandable.

So what have the white kids learned from this event? They've learned that next year they'll have to threaten violence also, in order to stop the display of Mexican flags. And that will be oh so wonderful with both sides threatening violence. Courtesy of our government political correctness courts.

[jakee 1,255]

Boogers

Back in the 60's when segregation was coming to an end, a whole bunch of white folks threatened violence if the government let black kids into a white school. Governor Wallace even stood at the entrance door to block their path. The National Guard was called out to protect those black students and ensure their safety. If only they had stopped segregation because of the threat of violence! Drat!

Desegregation?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,122]

It's a school, which isn't an entirely public forum; the school has a responsibility to protect the kids, which isn't true in the general public. I find it to be indefensible, and understandable, but probably more indefensible. Maybe the first year was a surprise, but the second year shouldn't have been.

I'm assuming that the kids wearing the American flag were doing it in a "fuck you this is America" way (was this the only day they chose?), but that's their right. In the public forum, it'd be their right to get their asses kicked, but the school needs to be proactive about preventing it.

Me, I'd probably not allow the flying of any flag on that day, nor the wearing of any flag on t-shirts. A discussion of its meaning would be fine, without the added attempts at provocation.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,400]

>So what have the white kids learned from this event? They've learned that next
>year they'll have to threaten violence also, in order to stop the display of Mexican
>flags.

Agreed. On the plus side, they are alive.

[jclalor 12]

You expected different from the 9th Cir? Schools are for learning, not for political theatre. This school is about 2 blocks from me and most from around here forgot all about this.

[jclalor 12]

BTW, I don't think this case really deals with the "Heckler's veto". I think it's based on Tinker v Des Moines




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

[Boogers 0]

jakee

***Back in the 60's when segregation was coming to an end, a whole bunch of white folks threatened violence if the government let black kids into a white school. Governor Wallace even stood at the entrance door to block their path. The National Guard was called out to protect those black students and ensure their safety. If only they had stopped segregation because of the threat of violence! Drat!

Desegregation?

Corrected:"stopped DEsegregation..."

Thanks.

[toolbox 0]

So you are saying if the kids with the American flag threaten the kids with the Mexican flag,then the kids with the Mexican flag should be ordered to put the mexican flag away for their own protection?
Or, are you saying the American flag should always be put away if there is ever any threat of violence on behalf of any group towards any group involving the flags of nations?

[toolbox 0]

[billvon 2,400]

>So you are saying if the kids with the American flag threaten the kids with the
>Mexican flag,then the kids with the Mexican flag should be ordered to put the
>mexican flag away for their own protection?

No. I am saying that if you are a school official charged with protecting the students under your care, you are going to tell EVERYONE to stop wearing shirts that might incite violence. That might not be right, but it's probably going to accomplish the goal of protecting those students.

>Or, are you saying the American flag should always be put away if there is ever
> any threat of violence on behalf of any group towards any group involving the
>flags of nations?

Not even close.

[lawrocket 3]

jclalor

BTW, I don't think this case really deals with the "Heckler's veto". I think it's based on Tinker v Des Moines




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

This was the basis. What the court didn't discuss was the Heckler's Veto scenario, which the facts of the case fit. It's why I wish the Court would have confronted the issue.

My wife is hotter than your wife.