From left to right: Daniel Galli, Austin Carvalho, Matthew Dariano and Dominic Maciel. These boys with friend Clayton Howard were asked to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out or go home when they wore them to Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill on Cinco de Mayo. (Julie Fagerstrom)
Adding appalling anti-American insult to unconstitutional anti-free speech injury, the outlawing of the American flag decision came down on ‘Constitution Day’!
Hispanic legal jihad in Mexifornia.
INSTEAD mind you, instead of EXPECTING students of Mexican heritage to RESPECT the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of ALL American citizens, patriotic red blooded American students must acquiesce to the violently inclined anti-American Mexican thugs, who are so offended at the sight of an American flag t-shirt worn on the campus of an AMERICAN high school they may/will resort to violence. Instead of demanding the anti-American Mexican student thugs behave in a civilized lawful manner while on the campus of a taxpayer funded public school, patriotic American kids must relinquish their constitutional rights.
The court has officially justified their violent inclinations. The court has officially given them superiority over American traditions and values. They now officially have the upper hand. And if you think their arrogant anti-American supremacist behavior was stunning before this anti-American decision ….just wait…
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to rehear challenge in American flag t-shirt case.
Via American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ):
This morning [Sep. 17, 2014] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined a request for an en banc hearing in a case holding that school officials could censor students who peacefully wore American flag clothing because those students were violently threatened by anti-American classmates. In other words, the court upheld a classic “heckler’s veto,” and in so doing empowered violent bullies and undermined decades of free-speech jurisprudence.
The facts of Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District are relatively simple: On Cinco de Mayo, anti-American students threatened a small group of their fellow students who chose to wear American flag–themed clothing. Rather than discipline the bullies, the school gave the kids who wore the flags a choice, turn their shirts inside-out, or go home. Two students chose to go home.
Under traditional constitutional principles, this is an easy case. Your free-speech rights do not depend on a listeners’ subjective response, and they are certainly not conditioned on a listeners’ willingness to break the law. Otherwise, free speech means nothing — bullies would be empowered to shut down speech whenever and wherever they wish.
Even in the academic setting, the traditional prohibitions against heckler’s vetoes prevail, for the same, obvious reasons. While the Supreme Court has held that free speech is broadly protected in public schools unless the speech causes a “substantial disruption” to the academic environment, the “substantial disruption” refers to the nature of the speech itself, not to the listeners’ reaction.
The dissent, by Judge O’Scannlain, gets these concepts exactly right:
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.
But the case went beyond a heckler’s veto (as bad as that is) and veered into outright viewpoint discrimination. By banning the American flag displays while permitting other flag displays, the Court didn’t just censor one view, it privileged others.
UPDATE: Next stop the Supreme Court.
Lawyers for the parents, backed by 20 Republican members of Congress, had asked the 9th Circuit to rehear the case with a special 11-judge panel. Three 9th Circuit judges dissented, saying they disagreed with both the court’s ruling in the case and its decision to not grant a new hearing.
William Becker, the parents’ lawyer, called the decision “outrageous” and vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court. “(We) will not allow the politically correct judiciary to insult our flag,” he said.
If the American flag shirt wearing students had threatened violence over being offended at the sight of Mexican flags instead of donning flag shirts, would they have been treated in the same respect as the Hispanic students?
I think not.
America land of the free, where art thou?