Flag-stomping teacher has no regrets, wants student punished

[triplesdsu]

Again, racism is explicitly prohibited in the teacher code of ethics he's sworn to, and that is why he could be summarily fired for it.

There's no such passage covering stepping on a flag. This is the mother of all false equivalences.

Ok fine. Not that i'm familiar with a no racism code, its generally more a catch all rule regarding being unprofessional, but ill pick a more benign example. The teacher or any employee for that matter tells his class/people that his boss is idiot. No threats, no hate. Just freely speaking his opinion through words. Is the job unable to discipline that behavior as it is "free speech"?I think not. Hell that baseball player for seattle got suspended for saying unkind things about blackliesmatter. The organization was free to do that. I've heard of several cops who got disciplined for facebook posts that were critical of the same movement that werent unprofessional (there have been some unhinged ones that deserved it) but the dept didn't like the blowback. Their employer is the government. Granted you're canadian but the amount of people who dont understand what the 1st amendment does and doesnt protect you from is amazing.

[Endus]

Do professionals other than doctors swear their code?. I explicitly sign into mine by admission to the collegiate, but swearing sounds démodé.

It's the same thing. If you sign it (which is required by professional associations), that's as legally binding as a swearing-in ceremony. The ceremony's just dressing on top of the legal procedure.

I took a second glance at the NC code of ethics, and you're right; it's not explicit but couches it in "will respect diverse views" and such language. Racism is one of those things that pretty clearly breaches those more-general precepts, however.

but ill pick a more benign example. The teacher or any employee for that matter tells his class/people that his boss is idiot. No threats, no hate. Just freely speaking his opinion through words. Is the job unable to discipline that behavior as it is "free speech"?I think not.

Absolutely actionable. The code of ethics requires that teachers remain a "positive role model" for students, and bad-mouthing your superiors is a breach of that, plus other sections about respect for colleagues and their views. So not a First Amendment issue, at all; it's an ethical breach.

Stomping on a flag is not, unless you consider legal protest to somehow be a "poor role model", which is a completely ridiculous and indefensible standard.

Hell that baseball player for seattle got suspended for saying unkind things about blackliesmatter. The organization was free to do that.

Because they're a private organization. They could suspend a player for saying "shenanigans" too often. Or for liking peanut butter. Or whatever.

Public schools are branches of the government.

I've heard of several cops who got disciplined for facebook posts that were critical of the same movement that werent unprofessional (there have been some unhinged ones that deserved it) but the dept didn't like the blowback. Their employer is the government.

Would need more specifics to be sure, but I can comfortably guess that those posts broke department policy or ethical codes in some way. Otherwise, absolutely yes, those officers would have grounds for an unlawful dismissal suit.

Granted you're canadian but the amount of people who dont understand what the 1st amendment does and doesnt protect you from is amazing.

I really don't see why people pull the "but you're a Canadian" thing. I'm just as capable of understanding how American legal concepts work. It's not like there's some injection that Americans get in their youth that's needed to understand American concepts. It's not even written in a foreign language; it's in plain English.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

To be clear, this is not an argument but a frame of mind. One you may or may not share with others.
Defining something by what practitioners think it means is fine and dandy. But It clashes severely with bystander perception: things can be offensive, or profane, if perceived like so, even when unintended. Your framing posits that what is, is what the practitioners intend, rather than what the bystanders perceive.
We see this issue emerge quite often, Most notably around transgenderims: your framing would favor what folks identify themselves to be, over what they're perceived to be.

Interestingly, post-modernism was founded on the idea that intent doesn't matter at all. But eventually that very postmodern thought settled on the idea that identity does matter. We're back to square one, it appears. What a pointless century.

My argument does not work in every context but in so much as you are trying to define the nature of a deliberate act, in this case idolatry. In order for an act to be deliberate, it must be intentional. Therefore intention has a great deal of influence on the status of a sin.

Homosexuality is a great example. It is no worse in Catholicism for me to be attracted to another man than it is for me to be attracted to women other than my wife. The proclivity towards one or the other is not what is in question. What is allowing those base desires to develop into thoughts and actions. Christ for all his toleration of human failure, set the bar for success really really high.

I personally think linking a set of actions as coming inevitably with either self identification or classification is inherently dangerous. Doing so removes agency from the individual and makes the case that their choices were inevitable and outside their control. I read an article recently by a black educator that bemoaned judging the performance of black students against "white standards." This woman made the case that black people cannot be expected to exhibit "white virtues" such as personal drive, independent thinking, risk-taking, and personal responsibility. She continued that black people were more "communal" in nature and could only achieve as a "collective" requiring the aid of a benevolent government. Fucking seriously? You could have copy pasted that drivel from the 19th cultural anthropologists who promoted social Darwinism.

That is why I don't really buy into the whole "I was born this way" argument. You don't have to ascribe to my personal definition of what is moral or immoral, but please don't excuse your behavior under the argument that you simply can't help it. (We kind of went off topic here, so I'll let you have the last word on this one.)

[Direpenguin]

Another thread that shows no one cares about free speech when its someone they dont like.

So should elementary teachers be allowed to share anti-homosexuality sentiments with their students, under the guise of 'free speech' as well?

Or do your nonsensical comments only apply to narratives you happen to agree with...

In this sense, the teacher has every right to stomp on the flag, without fear of persecution from the government. However, standards that are applied to professionals in his field of work might cause him to lose his job over it. I don't see him being arrested over it, so I don't see his 1st amendment rights being violated in any way. Nor should the student be punished for his defamation claims, as posting a picture of his actions is in no way untruthful.

[Tijuana]

Again, racism is explicitly prohibited in the teacher code of ethics he's sworn to, and that is why he could be summarily fired for it.

There's no such passage covering stepping on a flag. This is the mother of all false equivalences.

Bad as that analogy is, it's right as rain. Free speech only applies to legal proceedings. You can still be fired if you piss off your boss, for any reason. The only exception being personal and union contracts.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Because they're a private organization. They could suspend a player for saying "shenanigans" too often.

Isn't that a restaurant with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?

I really don't see why people pull the "but you're a Canadian" thing. I'm just as capable of understanding how American legal concepts work. It's not like there's some injection that Americans get in their youth that's needed to understand American concepts. It's not even written in a foreign language; it's in plain English.

Clearly you don't understand the impact sleeping through a high school civics class can have on your life.

[GennGreymane]

So should elementary teachers be allowed to share anti-homosexuality sentiments with their students, under the guise of 'free speech' as well?

Or do your nonsensical comments only apply to narratives you happen to agree with...

In this sense, the teacher has every right to stomp on the flag, without fear of persecution from the government. However, standards that are applied to professionals in his field of work might cause him to lose his job over it. I don't see him being arrested over it, so I don't see his 1st amendment rights being violated in any way. Nor should the student be punished for his defamation claims, as posting a picture of his actions is in no way untruthful.

People complain about damaging the flag as a whole in any circumstance. I am also aware of OPs position on numerous other free speech issues and this is why I point this out.

[matt4pack]

Again, racism is explicitly prohibited in the teacher code of ethics he's sworn to, and that is why he could be summarily fired for it.

There's no such passage covering stepping on a flag. This is the mother of all false equivalences.

Please if it was a koran instead of a flag you would have your pitchfork out.

[Molis]

He tried to get shock value out of his lesson, and probably went too far. He could have easily used another more current topic.

It was his right to do it, but he should also accept the consequences of doing this in a public school to try to be cool or edgy.

[triplesdsu]

It's the same thing. If you sign it (which is required by professional associations), that's as legally binding as a swearing-in ceremony. The ceremony's just dressing on top of the legal procedure.

I took a second glance at the NC code of ethics, and you're right; it's not explicit but couches it in "will respect diverse views" and such language. Racism is one of those things that pretty clearly breaches those more-general precepts, however.



Absolutely actionable. The code of ethics requires that teachers remain a "positive role model" for students, and bad-mouthing your superiors is a breach of that, plus other sections about respect for colleagues and their views. So not a First Amendment issue, at all; it's an ethical breach.

Stomping on a flag is not, unless you consider legal protest to somehow be a "poor role model", which is a completely ridiculous and indefensible standard.



Because they're a private organization. They could suspend a player for saying "shenanigans" too often. Or for liking peanut butter. Or whatever.

Public schools are branches of the government.



Would need more specifics to be sure, but I can comfortably guess that those posts broke department policy or ethical codes in some way. Otherwise, absolutely yes, those officers would have grounds for an unlawful dismissal suit.



I really don't see why people pull the "but you're a Canadian" thing. I'm just as capable of understanding how American legal concepts work. It's not like there's some injection that Americans get in their youth that's needed to understand American concepts. It's not even written in a foreign language; it's in plain English.

Just because a public school is government run doesn't mean the same rules of employee conduct don't apply. The first amendment DOES NOT protect your job, regardless of your employer. Period. Im sure they have some catch all language in their rules and regs.

As for the cop situation, a nearby PD officer (who is overly religious) had written a letter to a local newspaper voicing his opinions against the recent supreme court ruling regarding gay-marriage and citing the bible, etc. He was subsequently suspended and disciplined by the department. He didn't get fired but the fact that he worked for the government and he excercised his freedom of speech to a local paper in regards to his freedom of religion did not protect him from consequences at work. He was off duty and this wasnt done in any official capacity. Personally, I wouldnt have minded if he got fired or demoted but that's not the point.

[soulzek]

Someone like that shouldn't be in a position to influence the minds of children.

As if teachers really affect young people as much as the media or brainwashing groups (which pose a FAR GREATER risk in terms of damage done)

many luls

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

"Actions have consequences" ... or so I'm told.

[cubby]

I know I'm new to the party here, but somethings can't be set aside.

Ok so meet Lee Francis, a teacher who stomps on a flag in school and threatens to cut it up and set it on fire because "reasons".

And he didn't even have to have reasons to do it - did he?

He did this because he was ranting about 1st Amendment and apparently thought it was ok to go this far to make his point. Only now after his moonbat antics were caught on film, leading to him being suspended, he's become butt-hurt over it and wants students who took his picture punished. He even goes so far as to say that taking a picture of him stomping on a flag is "defamation of his character" as if some piece of garbage like him had any character to begin with haha.

Piece of garbage or not - it's his right to defile the American flag, set out in law.

“There were some laws broken as far as photos of me taken that violate the county’s policies – and issues that could be considered defamation of character,” he said.

He said the student who snapped the photo of the flag desecration “broke the law.”

“I believe that child does need to be punished in some way – absolutely,” he said. “I can’t take a picture of them and in turn they cannot do the same of me.”

Sounds like a local issue - is there any reality to this claim? Is there a policy of no teach/student photos? If so, the teacher may have an argument (although how he thought desecrating the flag wouldn't get his picture taken is beyond me).

The indoctrination of youth and the programming of radical anti-American sentiment is an ever growing and ever vicious plague but its nice to see that its not a nation wide pandemic ...yet.

I don't understand how you get to this narrative from someone exercising their constitutional right.

[Docturphil]

He is free to stomp on the flag, as that doesn't make him any less American. I find such exercises in free speech actually more AMerican.

However, a business, and likely also a school district unless they have less freedom of free speech laws, can make their own judgements on wether they want to keep the guy or not as a reflection of their values.

Either way, I'm really tired of this fake patriotism thing, where we decide who is true and who is not based upon correctly followed rituals rather than honest to god principles (and no, blindly respecting your country is not such a principle, or freedom to protest wouldnt be a thing).

He's free to stomp on the flag, sure. His employers are also free to fire him and everyone else in this country is free to judge him provided their judgment does not lead to harassment and/or violent behavior against him.

Seriously though, stomping on the flag just makes you look like an ass hole. I feel like that does make you less of an American just like stomping on a Green Bay Packers flag would make me less of a Packers fan. Sure, it's just a flag, but it represents something. You know that, I know that, and he knew that.

You see Crissi, I don't think America is perfect. It's my home though. It's a lot of people's homes. When people stomp on the American flag it's like they're metaphorically stomping on my home. They're basically saying, "Fuck your home! Fuck your friends! Fuck your family! Fuck your sports teams!" That's just not cool, and I'm really not sure how feeling that way that ties into "fake patriotism".

Now, I understand the point this guy is trying to get across. The way he's doing it though is just inappropriate.

[Deleted]

Why did he have to do a demonstration he knew was going to cause butthurt with somebody. The irony of him and this thread is perfect.

"I am perfectly within my rights to deface a flag"

"But don't you DARE film me doing exactly what I said I was doing as that goes against my character"

[chrisberb]

"I am perfectly within my rights to deface a flag"

"But don't you DARE film me doing exactly what I said I was doing as that goes against my character"

There's a thing called context.

[Dr Assbandit]

I don't now exactly when or how this particular tradition came about. These things have a way of developing over time. Take the Tomb of the Unknowns for example. When it was first established it was left unguarded. Visitors to Arlington would picnic on top of the sarcophagus because the original one was much lower and could easily be sat on. I can't remember the exact story but it was a retired veteran i believe who witnessed this and decided it was all together unfitting for such an important monument to be so casually regarded. He and a veterans organization started guarding it during their free time while the cemetery was open. Then I believe the parks service guarded it for a while. Eventually the Army took over the job and the 11th Infantry "The Old Guard" began guarding it around the clock 365/7 in 1948. Even after that visitors were allowed right up against the tomb and guard mat and could reach out and touch the guards. It was becoming too much of a chaotic spectacle so they moved the ropes well off the mat and now if you even speak loudly or reach across the rope the guards will come to port arms and bark at you. Becoming a tomb guard is now one of the highest honors and difficult tasks a young soldier can achieve outside of combat itself. I imagine the flag burning ceremony progressed a similar way. The reverence involved increased over time as attachment to the symbol increased.

Oh wasn't aware of the backstory on that, it was an interesting read thank-you.

- - - Updated - - -

Why did he have to do a demonstration he knew was going to cause butthurt with somebody. The irony of him and this thread is perfect.

"I am perfectly within my rights to deface a flag"

"But don't you DARE film me doing exactly what I said I was doing as that goes against my character"

Do you lot blindly take everything as literal and at face value or do you tend to apply basic context to it?

[May90]

I don't understand why so much of this discussion is being led (even here) under the pretense that he defiled the flag. Defiling the flag is an abstract act. Stomping on a flag isn't defilement unless it's done with the express purpose of ridiculing what it represents. This guy was doing the exact opposite. Anyone with anything between their ears worth the space can recognize that he was actually honoring the flag.

The problem is, some people see symbol as more important than the values behind it. I think this effect has cultist/religious roots. People express their feelings through worshipping a symbol (flag, idol, prayer, song, dance, etc.), and eventually they see the symbol as sacred in itself. And even if one is honoring the symbol by following the values behind it by damaging the symbol, they see it as a bad thing to do.

That's why I'm against such things as patriotism, strong cultural traditions, etc. They tend to always lead to symbolism winning over pragmatism. As in this case, a colored piece of cloth is more important to some people than the teacher's right to stomp on his property.

- - - Updated - - -

still what do you want then? If you are not happy with your country what do you want to change by stomping the flag? I really don't get it. Also I hate my government, rotten, corrupted to the core they are. But nobody would step on the flag including me here. But what about americans? by stepping on the flag, is it criticizing the government? I do not get it. What do you want? what do you hope to accomplish by stepping on it? It won't accomplish anything except pissing off people imo.

In this particular case, the teacher stomped on the flag to demonstrate 1st amendment. One doesn't need to be unhappy with their country to want to stomp on a flag, there might be many reasons for one to do that. I agree that as a form of protest stomping on a flag doesn't make much sense, one should make their case with words, not with stunts - but it doesn't mean that stomping on a flag is somehow inherently wrong.

[Gref]

@May90 I can totally understand it if it is for demonstration. That is no problem at all. But was it really? No way to be sure. Anyway I see your point. I agree.

[Bryntrollian]

The photos aren't defamation, but it's possible that the accompanying caption was.

I think memes can be classified as defamation these days.