Flag-stomping teacher has no regrets, wants student punished

[Mafic]

I do not think a German, Greek or Italian would care very much if someone stomped on their flag, most would just shrug it off or go /giggle and /point.

The only reason flag burning in the US is a thing is because you people seem to revere it on a level that is only rivalled by North Korea.

Nope.

Try stomping or burning a flag that is German and see what happens to you. The anti nationalism sentiment may be really high in Germany, but at the same time they will not allow people to stomp over what the flag does represent of the current Germany.

[Deleted]

Nope.

Try stomping or burning a flag that is German and see what happens to you. The anti nationalism sentiment may be really high in Germany, but at the same time they will not allow people to stomp over what the flag does represent of the current Germany.

None of the Germans that i know would care. The ones in the US might, but the actual ones that i have met wont give a shit.

[Zecora]

Last I checked, specific expressions of freedom of expression are not protected classes, and thus are not protective measures against at will termination. And somehow I doubt that a high school teacher has the clout to get a more protective job contract. They can hire or fire based on subjective criteria. As for prattling on about "but it's in his rights!!!" no one is putting him in prison. Him being fired for presenting information in a means that the school board feels is inappropriate, should their final decision be to do so, is not a violation of his civil liberties. He is entitled to freedom of speech, not a job.

Well, if that situation in the US has degraded to the point where people can be fired on a trumped-up pretext along "we feel this is inappropriate", then freedom of speech is dead there. I cannot think of a single civillized country outside of the US where such actions would be left to stand.

The case is simple: The teacher exercised his freedom of speech. He did not break the school rules, he did not break the terms of his contract, he did not break the laws. The harshest critique that can be levelled at him was that it was unnecessary to do something which could insult people. If that leads to his termination, I sincerely hope he sues the school because I maintain that he has an excellent case.

Unless you can actually track down any such involvement that I had in the Hebdo threads and the like, I'm going to write this as a silly non sequitur, completely unrelated to anything that I have said so far.

Did I say that you did? No. It is possible to make a remark about how sad it is to see people selectively defend freedom of speech without it being directed specifically at YOU.

- - - Updated - - -

So you have a deep seated hatred for journalism than? Not talking about modern tv media, but journalism in itself.

Nice strawman, shall I tell you where you can put it?

[Endus]

Schools -do- have restricted Freedom of Speech though.

No, they don't. I went over this earlier. What they have is limited guardianship over their students. Teachers and admin staff are basically "parents-lite". While kids are free to say what they like in school without government penalty, their teachers and the admin staff are also their guardians, and under that title, can mete out punishments. In the same way that a kid can't sass his dad without punishment, just because dad works at the IRS.

It's a fine line, to be sure.

So his goal was to incite a reaction, and then throw a fit over the reaction? If he wants to induce a response from his students, that's fine, but ultimately he isn't being respectful towards the people he is teaching. They do not have to agree with him. They should not be forced into mental lockstep with his beliefs. There is no real critical thinking element involved if there is only one ultimate result.

The lesson was about what freedom of speech entails. He was specifically demonstrating a concrete example of what was protected under a specific case that had been tried by SCOTUS. He wasn't requiring that his students agree that the American flag is garbage and should be stomped on, he was trying to educate them that someone expressing that is within their rights to do so. The only thing they had to "agree with" was that the teacher had the right to express that, they didn't have to agree with what he was expressing.

Hell, here's his own words, from the original article; "But this is exactly what I teach: You don’t teach kids how to think or what to think; you teach them to go their own path."

I was mostly focusing on the "wants student punished" thing. It just seems... so horribly backwards to publicly express ones right to freedom of expression to entice a reaction for others, and then to barrel down and attack a kid with legal threats for essentially doing the same.

Posting someone's photo with intent to defame them isn't protected speech, though. Also, it looks like he's referencing County school board policies more than federal law statutes; I haven't dug through all those but a lot of school districts don't let kids take or post photos like this.

[Zecora]

In some states filming like this is allowed especially if it is a public venue. Whether a student has a right to film his teacher is up for debate the rest is not.

And trying to stifle a student's free speech to support the teacher's is incredibly ironic.

As I said, what the student did is not freedom of speech. Furthermore, a classroom is NOT a public venue. If you believe it is, take your phone and go try to film some at your local school. You'll soon be put straight.

[Zecora]

In the same you might think creationism is insane (as I do) but if your state requires you to admit it's a possibility you have to teach that way. If you don't, you're fired. Crossing one of those lines is the #1 nono for a teacher, you're not supposed to teach what you think, you're supposed to teach the curriculum.

I suspect that freedom of speech is on the curriculum, wouldn't you agree?

[Endus]

As I said, what the student did is not freedom of speech. Furthermore, a classroom is NOT a public venue. If you believe it is, take your phone and go try to film some at your local school. You'll soon be put straight.

Just to nitpick, though we're mostly on the same side of this, while schools aren't "public venues", you arguable don't have any "right to privacy" in the classroom, either, which is what those laws are usually predicated on.

Though I'll dig back into the school's code of conduct for students; http://ccs.k12.nc.us/wp-content/uplo...f-Conduct-.pdf

Class 1 violation, "inappropriate items on school property", says kids aren't to use cell phones (specifically named, among others) on school property unless it's for educational purposes approved by the administration. So just for snapping the picture, the kid's breaking the rules, and according to said code has to be disciplined.

[Kasierith]

The lesson was about what freedom of speech entails. He was specifically demonstrating a concrete example of what was protected under a specific case that had been tried by SCOTUS. He wasn't requiring that his students agree that the American flag is garbage and should be stomped on, he was trying to educate them that someone expressing that is within their rights to do so. The only thing they had to "agree with" was that the teacher had the right to express that, they didn't have to agree with what he was expressing.

Hell, here's his own words, from the original article; "But this is exactly what I teach: You don’t teach kids how to think or what to think; you teach them to go their own path."

There is no portion of my post that this runs counter to. Like I have said, repeatedly, the issue that many people are having, and that certain others are ignoring for the more simple target of going on about flag worship, is his reaction to the student's response. Defamation in the US requires some form of falsehood in the presentation to skew their message; did the kid do so, or did he simply make a particular opinion more broadly known?

I am not an American citizen, and have literally no attachment to the American flag. Trying to pin my arguments on respecting the flag itself is completely off the point. The student has an equal right to freedom of expression, and in order for those protections to be rescinded and the student prosecuted it falls on the teacher to specifically argue how the student's actions fell into one of those predetermined legal exceptions.

Posting someone's photo with intent to defame them isn't protected speech, though. Also, it looks like he's referencing County school board policies more than federal law statutes; I haven't dug through all those but a lot of school districts don't let kids take or post photos like this.

If it is any consolation, I don't particularly mind it if he is punished per the local code of student conduct for violations. The school has a responsibility to maintain discipline. But two things to consider. First, what he is talking about appears to be legal prosecution. I do not know how defamation suits and such work in Canada; that is an area that I know nothing about. In this situation, though, he would have to present that the student willfully skewed his message in order to damage his character. Second, there is no requirement for said discipline to be made public, so for all you know he has already received detention or whatever punishment applies given the school policies and they simply do not wish to publicize this knowledge because doing so might just fuel the argument even more.

[Ragedaug]

So his goal was to incite a reaction, and then throw a fit over the reaction?

Well, other than the teacher throwing a fit, it actually was a good lesson for the kids. The more I thought about it the more that made sense to me.

Lesson 1: Free speech means I can stomp on this flag and not face legal repercussions.
Lesson 2: Free speech does not mean I'll be free of social or communal repercussions.
In summary: 1) I'm not going to jail but 2) I am losing my job.

Lesson learned by all who witnessed it.

[Endus]

I suspect that freedom of speech is on the curriculum, wouldn't you agree?

And a concrete example pulled directly from a SCOTUS case supporting flag desecration as an expression of First Amendment rights seems pretty on-point. It's about as inoffensive an example as you could possibly make while still being high-school-appropriate, since First Amendment cases only come up when someone's speech pushes enough people's buttons to trigger an emotional attempt to get the government to shut them up.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no portion of my post that this runs counter to. Like I have said, repeatedly, the issue that many people are having, and that certain others are ignoring for the more simple target of going on about flag worship, is his reaction to the student's response. Defamation in the US requires some form of falsehood in the presentation to skew their message; did the kid do so, or did he simply make a particular opinion more broadly known?

No, by posting the image and claiming the teacher was unpatriotic, that's blatant defamation, since it's precisely counter to the lesson being taught.

It's like if I posted an image of Auschwitz victims to discuss how horrible the concentration camps were, and a kid snapped a pic and posted it saying "my teacher's a Nazi sympathizer". That's how egregiously slanderous this was.

If it is any consolation, I don't particularly mind it if he is punished per the local code of student conduct for violations. But what he is talking about appears to be legal prosecution. I do not know how defamation suits and such work in Canada; that is an area that I know nothing about. In this situation, though, he would have to present that the student willfully skewed his message in order to damage his character.

Which seems pretty clear, IMO.

[Zecora]

Just to nitpick, though we're mostly on the same side of this, while schools aren't "public venues", you arguable don't have any "right to privacy" in the classroom, either, which is what those laws are usually predicated on.

Though I'll dig back into the school's code of conduct for students; http://ccs.k12.nc.us/wp-content/uplo...f-Conduct-.pdf

Class 1 violation, "inappropriate items on school property", says kids aren't to use cell phones (specifically named, among others) on school property unless it's for educational purposes approved by the administration. So just for snapping the picture, the kid's breaking the rules, and according to said code has to be disciplined.

I concede the point, I was more speaking of right of privacy in terms of the use of electronic recording devices. If you compare a school to your home environment, I agree that the right to privacy is not at the same level. Though of course, neither is it at the level of a public venue.

[Endus]

Well, other than the teacher throwing a fit, it actually was a good lesson for the kids. The more I thought about it the more that made sense to me.

Lesson 1: Free speech means I can stomp on this flag and not face legal repercussions.
Lesson 2: Free speech does not mean I'll be free of social or communal repercussions.
In summary: 1) I'm not going to jail but 2) I am losing my job.

Lesson learned by all who witnessed it.

The problem with that argument is that this is a public school, meaning the administration is the government. They can't fire a teacher for First Amendment expressions, not unless they breach the teaching code of ethics (this doesn't) or somehow breaks their union agreements (haven't looked at those, but would be flabbergasted if this were covered there).

- - - Updated - - -

I concede the point, I was more speaking of right of privacy in terms of the use of electronic recording devices. If you compare a school to your home environment, I agree that the right to privacy is not at the same level. Though of course, neither is it at the level of a public venue.

Right, that's why it's a tricky point. Schools are pretty unique environments in a lot of ways.

[Ragedaug]

We act shocked when Muslims flip out about people desecrating the image of Mohammed, but then we get angry if anyone messes with our flag.

I would totally get it if Muslims were upset by someone desecrating the image of Muhammad while in a Mosque to the point where they kicked the perpetrator out of the Mosque.

[Kasierith]

Well, if that situation in the US has degraded to the point where people can be fired on a trumped-up pretext along "we feel this is inappropriate", then freedom of speech is dead there. I cannot think of a single civillized country outside of the US where such actions would be left to stand.

The case is simple: The teacher exercised his freedom of speech. He did not break the school rules, he did not break the terms of his contract, he did not break the laws. The harshest critique that can be levelled at him was that it was unnecessary to do something which could insult people. If that leads to his termination, I sincerely hope he sues the school because I maintain that he has an excellent case.

It's... been this way for forever. At will termination is far, far from a new thing. The primary protection from at will termination is unionization and collective bargaining, and the way the school board is moving I don't believe that he is part of a union.

If you don't understand the concept of at will termination, which is basically a staple of how American job contracts function, you really have no business stating your thoughts on the legality of firing him.

Did I say that you did? No. It is possible to make a remark about how sad it is to see people selectively defend freedom of speech without it being directed specifically at YOU.

And like I said, it is a non sequitur to direct the statement at me. I suggest you look up the term.

Nice strawman, shall I tell you where you can put it?

Near the drapes and next to yours would be lovely.

[Ragedaug]

The problem with that argument is that this is a public school, meaning the administration is the government. They can't fire a teacher for First Amendment expressions, not unless they breach the teaching code of ethics (this doesn't) or somehow breaks their union agreements (haven't looked at those, but would be flabbergasted if this were covered there).

Disagree that this didn't breach their code of ethics. Hate speech by a teacher is not tolerated in the class room under the 1st amendment.

[Stop Pretending]

No, they don't. I went over this earlier. What they have is limited guardianship over their students. Teachers and admin staff are basically "parents-lite". While kids are free to say what they like in school without government penalty, their teachers and the admin staff are also their guardians, and under that title, can mete out punishments. In the same way that a kid can't sass his dad without punishment, just because dad works at the IRS.

It's a fine line, to be sure.



The lesson was about what freedom of speech entails. He was specifically demonstrating a concrete example of what was protected under a specific case that had been tried by SCOTUS. He wasn't requiring that his students agree that the American flag is garbage and should be stomped on, he was trying to educate them that someone expressing that is within their rights to do so. The only thing they had to "agree with" was that the teacher had the right to express that, they didn't have to agree with what he was expressing.

Hell, here's his own words, from the original article; "But this is exactly what I teach: You don’t teach kids how to think or what to think; you teach them to go their own path."



Posting someone's photo with intent to defame them isn't protected speech, though. Also, it looks like he's referencing County school board policies more than federal law statutes; I haven't dug through all those but a lot of school districts don't let kids take or post photos like this.

1. Yes they do. Hence when they send kids home for wearing political t-shirts, bands the faculty finds offensive. teachers have been fired recently for teaching about slavery and referencing the word nigger. If you think these teachers have the ability to use free speech, and not get punished for said free speech, then you're being ignorant on purpose. Which is kinda your thing.

2. I never once seen you reference when students would post videos about police interactions on school property. So what is it? It's allowed as long as it fits YOUR narrative, and then not allowed when it goes against it?

3. Does being a hypocrite ever get tiresome for you?

[Ragedaug]

Where exactly did he 'hate speech' ?

It was the part where he stomped on the flag of the United States of America.

[Kasierith]

No, by posting the image and claiming the teacher was unpatriotic, that's blatant defamation, since it's precisely counter to the lesson being taught.

It's like if I posted an image of Auschwitz victims to discuss how horrible the concentration camps were, and a kid snapped a pic and posted it saying "my teacher's a Nazi sympathizer". That's how egregiously slanderous this was.

The route that you are describing in terms of a defamation suit would require him to have purposefully spread false information. Unless you can argue that the student did not actually believe it to be true and that the teacher was not being unpatriotic, it does not fall under defamation in American law. How do you think Alex Jones and Limbaugh and co have gotten away with things so long? "It isn't defamation if I am stating what I personally perceive to be true." It might be morally reprehensible depending on one's point of view, but it doesn't fall under legal defamation for that reason.

- - - Updated - - -

It was the part where he stomped on the flag of the United States of America.

Doing such things to an American flag has gone to the SCOTUS and been determined to fall under first amendment protections. The question of whether or not he had the right to damage the flag really isn't up to any sort of debate.

[Ragedaug]

Doing such things to an American flag has gone to the SCOTUS and been determined to fall under first amendment protections. The question of whether or not he had the right to damage the flag really isn't up to any sort of debate.

So what? No one is arguing against that.

[ControlWarrior]

The problem with that argument is that this is a public school, meaning the administration is the government. They can't fire a teacher for First Amendment expressions, not unless they breach the teaching code of ethics (this doesn't) or somehow breaks their union agreements (haven't looked at those, but would be flabbergasted if this were covered there).

- - - Updated - - -



Right, that's why it's a tricky point. Schools are pretty unique environments in a lot of ways.

Well, a teacher can be dismissed if their actions can be classifed under...
Immoral conduct
Incompetence
Neglect of duty
Substantial noncompliance with school laws
Conviction of a crime
Insubordination
Fraud or misrepresentation

And while "public" schools are public institutions, they are not directly administered by the Federal government. Local and state boards handle the the day to day administrative activities. So no, the school administration is not the government. Its more like a body which confers standards and practices.