Yet another reminder of why we cannot rely on the federal courts to uphold, preserve, protect, or defend any aspect of the United States Constitution:
On Monday morning, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a case from California that allowed a public school [Live Oak High School] to ban American flag apparel worn by students.
Without comment, the Court denied the case of Dariano v. Morgan Hills School District. At least four of the nine Justices were needed to get the case before the Court next year for arguments.
The controversy goes back to a May 2009 incident between two groups of students at Live Oak High School. At a school-sponsored Cinco de Mayo event, a Mexican-American student walked around campus with the flag of Mexico and other students flew a makeshift United States flag in response and chanted at the flag-bearing student. Students on both sides complained about the incident.
Were the chanting students being boorish? Perhaps. Was the school ill-advised in sponsoring the celebration of a Mexican holiday at an American school? Quite possibly, especially since this had the stink of a setup for just such litigation as in fact occurred, and which was entirely unnecessary by any reasonable definition unless the purpose was to "officially Mexicanize" California and erode the First Amendment.
A year later, several students came to school on Cinco de Mayo wearing American flag shirts and school officials told the students to remove the American flag shirts, or turn the shirts inside out. The educators said the American flag shirts could send a message that would offend the Cinco de Mayo celebrants and they had public safety concerns.
Ah, there's that word "offend" again. Quite evidently, not all "offenses" are equal, as the American students could make precisely the same claim against the enforced glorification of Cinco De Mayo and school officials' suppression of their OTM (Other Than Mexican) patriotism.
The parents of the American flag-wearing students sued on their behalf, alleging First Amendment violations by the Morgan Hill School District.
In this new case, the lawyers for the students claim the Ninth Circuit is trying to change this definition, by restricting passive First Amendment speech. And in fact, the student’s attorneys say the Court should make it clear that American flag displays of any type shouldn't be banned at public schools.
“School officials on the scene had ample reason to believe violence and disruption were about to happen.
School officials across the nation act against a backdrop of the need to prevent another Santee, Columbine, Littleton, or any of the hundreds of school shootings that have happened since Tinker was decided,” the Morgan Hill lawyers argue.
Note the convenient stereotyping of "Anglo" students as inherently violent.
They also believe the case isn't a referendum on flying the American flag at public schools.
Which nobody has suggested - at least, not yet. But just give them time. It won't take much, given the rate at which Barack Obama is importing the Mexican population.
As to which set of students have "violent and disruptive" tendencies, this quote pretty much says it all:
The Mexican students accosted the students wearing the American flag by shoving a Mexican flag into the chest of one student and shouting, “Fuck them white boys, fuck them white boys” and “they are racist. They are being racist. Fuck them white boys. Let’s fuck them up.”
In less, shall we say, colorful language, dissenting Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge O’Scannlain summed it up:
The freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution is in greatest peril when the government may suppress speech simply because it is unpopular. For that reason, it is a foundational tenet of First Amendment law that the government cannot silence a speaker because of how an audience might react to the speech. It is this bedrock principle—known as the heckler’s veto doctrine—that the panel overlooks, condoning the suppression of free speech by some students because other students might have reacted violently.
Aaaaaaand privileging the speech of the hecklers.
Leading, as it always does, back to the central question: Whose country is it, anyway? Because it sure as salsa seems like it isn't ours anymore.
Exit question: Remember when the SCOTUS used to slap down the Ninth Circus on a regular basis? Buenos tiempos, buenos tiempos.
No comments:
Post a Comment