Page 37 of 37 FirstFirst ...
27
35
36
37
  1. #721
    Deleted
    I've never understood why people get so worked out over someone doing something to their countries flag. It's just a flag, calm down.

  2. #722
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Gref View Post
    @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.
    You mean he stomped the flag to prove a point about the first amendment in class as part of a lesson but REALLY he secretly always wanted to stomp the flag cause he hates his country?

  3. #723
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    You mean he stomped the flag to prove a point about the first amendment in class as part of a lesson but REALLY he secretly always wanted to stomp the flag cause he hates his country?
    There are plenty of inimical symbols one could choose to stand in for what the 1st Amendment protects that he could be just as hostile to in his reaction as most students would be; a swastika for instance?

    Regardless, again, not sure he understands the 1st Amendment all that well if he thinks that was the demonstration -- he, as an agent of the government, is the only one in a classroom who can actually, not symbolically, violate the 1st Amendment; suppressing or punishing student outrage at his choice of example would be a nominal example, ironically.

  4. #724
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    There are plenty of inimical symbols one could choose to stand in for what the 1st Amendment protects that he could be just as hostile to in his reaction as most students would be; a swastika for instance?

    Regardless, again, not sure he understands the 1st Amendment all that well if he thinks that was the demonstration -- he, as an agent of the government, is the only one in a classroom who can actually, not symbolically, violate the 1st Amendment; suppressing or punishing student outrage at his choice of example would be a nominal example, ironically.
    The 1st amendment doesn't protect defamation.

  5. #725
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    The 1st amendment doesn't protect defamation.
    Which is a fascinating but -- at best -- tangential observation. And the 1st Amendment does provide a very strong defense against allegations of defamation depending on the subject matter and object of the statements, since it came up. But there was no defamation angle to any part of this story. Stomping on the flag doesn't "defame" the country, it just makes you a dipshit. The teacher probably thinks he's proving really compelling things about free speech by stomping on it, but really, his punitive sense of butthurt that his students didn't all love it comes closest to fouling the 1st Amendment. If they want him to stop, that's their free speech; if he punishes them for wanting him to stop, that is a state action nominally infringing their free speech.

    That's a much better lesson in 1st Amendment -- "I'm going to do something completely discretionary and outside the scope of my role as educator. It will piss you off. If you protest it, I'll seek to use my power as educator to punish you. That will show you what suppressing free speech looks like".

  6. #726
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Which is a fascinating but -- at best -- tangential observation. And the 1st Amendment does provide a very strong defense against allegations of defamation depending on the subject matter and object of the statements, since it came up. But there was no defamation angle to any part of this story. Stomping on the flag doesn't "defame" the country, it just makes you a dipshit. The teacher probably thinks he's proving really compelling things about free speech by stomping on it, but really, his punitive sense of butthurt that his students didn't all love it comes closest to fouling the 1st Amendment. If they want him to stop, that's their free speech; if he punishes them for wanting him to stop, that is a state action nominally infringing their free speech.

    That's a much better lesson in 1st Amendment -- "I'm going to do something completely discretionary and outside the scope of my role as educator. It will piss you off. If you protest it, I'll seek to use my power as educator to punish you. That will show you what suppressing free speech looks like".
    He's claiming the student engaged in defamation....

  7. #727
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    He's claiming the student engaged in defamation....
    Then he's an even bigger dipshit than I understood. The student doesn't need a 1st Amendment defense; one of the elements of any defamation claim is falsity, which obviously the teacher cannot show.

  8. #728
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Which is a fascinating but -- at best -- tangential observation. And the 1st Amendment does provide a very strong defense against allegations of defamation depending on the subject matter and object of the statements, since it came up. But there was no defamation angle to any part of this story. Stomping on the flag doesn't "defame" the country, it just makes you a dipshit. The teacher probably thinks he's proving really compelling things about free speech by stomping on it, but really, his punitive sense of butthurt that his students didn't all love it comes closest to fouling the 1st Amendment. If they want him to stop, that's their free speech; if he punishes them for wanting him to stop, that is a state action nominally infringing their free speech.

    That's a much better lesson in 1st Amendment -- "I'm going to do something completely discretionary and outside the scope of my role as educator. It will piss you off. If you protest it, I'll seek to use my power as educator to punish you. That will show you what suppressing free speech looks like".
    It's not their "right" to stop the teacher what are you talking about.
    Geez man he was MAKING A POINT. He wasn't burning the flag shouting death to America. What's wrong with you people.
    God can you imagine the environment that poor kid grew up in to evolve in such an idiotic tool?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Then he's an even bigger dipshit than I understood. The student doesn't need a 1st Amendment defense; one of the elements of any defamation claim is falsity, which obviously the teacher cannot show.
    ....
    Ahah
    Hey dude. Go be a patriot. Some teacher stomped on a flag trying to make a point to the class. This is where you need to be tough man.

  9. #729
    Herald of the Titans RaoBurning's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona, US
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    There are plenty of inimical symbols one could choose to stand in for what the 1st Amendment protects that he could be just as hostile to in his reaction as most students would be; a swastika for instance?
    First off, and I say this honestly: ten points for inimical. Not often I have to tab out to check a definition, but that's a word I haven't seen before.

    Second, use of a (near) universally loathed symbol, like a swaztika, doesn't carry the same punch as a beloved icon. Thus, the point of "people can say/do things you don't like and it's covered under the First, usually" doesn't really drive home so well. Example:

    Teacher stomps on Nazi flag
    Students: Nazis were jerks, what of it? Give me one and I'll torch it.

    Teachers stomps on US flag
    Students: Wait, I like that one stop—ooooh I get it now.

    At least that's how it would work in theory. Demonstrations of concepts tend to stick better than rote lecture. That's why Chemistry is so much fun <3 and Biology is a bore at the lower levels. That and dissection is gross.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is America. We always have warm dead bodies.
    if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

  10. #730
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by RaoBurning View Post
    First off, and I say this honestly: ten points for inimical. Not often I have to tab out to check a definition, but that's a word I haven't seen before.

    Second, use of a (near) universally loathed symbol, like a swaztika, doesn't carry the same punch as a beloved icon. Thus, the point of "people can say/do things you don't like and it's covered under the First, usually" doesn't really drive home so well. Example:

    Teacher stomps on Nazi flag
    Students: Nazis were jerks, what of it? Give me one and I'll torch it.

    Teachers stomps on US flag
    Students: Wait, I like that one stop—ooooh I get it now.

    At least that's how it would work in theory. Demonstrations of concepts tend to stick better than rote lecture. That's why Chemistry is so much fun <3 and Biology is a bore at the lower levels. That and dissection is gross.
    Something tells me that student DID NOT get the point.

  11. #731
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Then he's an even bigger dipshit than I understood. The student doesn't need a 1st Amendment defense; one of the elements of any defamation claim is falsity, which obviously the teacher cannot show.
    Some actions require context to understand the actor's intent. For instance, if someone took a picture of a black man pointing a gun at a cop in a schoolyard, context is required. Removing the context shows either dangerous ignorance or intent to mislead. If the two were doing a demonstration on negotiation or de-escalation, removing that context, in which the intent of the action is made clear, with the intent of suggesting that a gunman is menacing a cop with a gun on a school campus, is defamatory.

    I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but I know that most matters of law come down to who makes the best argument for their assertions. If he can get the case tried, and a compelling argument is made that the kid secured images of the teacher without permission on school grounds during the course of a lecture with the intent to suggest that he was engaging in a protest and thus generate outrage, the teacher's got a case for some form of disciplinary action.

  12. #732
    Quote Originally Posted by RaoBurning View Post
    First off, and I say this honestly: ten points for inimical. Not often I have to tab out to check a definition, but that's a word I haven't seen before.

    Second, use of a (near) universally loathed symbol, like a swaztika, doesn't carry the same punch as a beloved icon. Thus, the point of "people can say/do things you don't like and it's covered under the First, usually" doesn't really drive home so well. Example:

    Teacher stomps on Nazi flag
    Students: Nazis were jerks, what of it? Give me one and I'll torch it.

    Teachers stomps on US flag
    Students: Wait, I like that one stop—ooooh I get it now.

    At least that's how it would work in theory. Demonstrations of concepts tend to stick better than rote lecture. That's why Chemistry is so much fun <3 and Biology is a bore at the lower levels. That and dissection is gross.
    Except the point in the Nazi example is to demonstrate that even if they all want to torch it, stifle it, get the Authority to silence it, they can't do that. It's also especially pertinent since several of the really, really important landmark 1st Amendment cases have been in defense of those who actually do prefer that symbol, like Skokie and Brandenberg.

  13. #733
    Hmm was it the schools flag or one he brought in, if the schools they should be in their right to fire him for destruction of school property.

  14. #734
    Quote Originally Posted by Master of Coins View Post
    There is lots of falsity, just in this thread alone already. People claiming the teacher hates the USA because he stepped on the flag. Also the caption the student added, making similar claim.

    Claiming someone is a USA-hater, when they're not, is pretty clear defamation to me.
    Clearly you're coming from a depth of knowledge in both torts and 1st Amendment law.

  15. #735
    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    Since when is it libel to observe that whichever side that can put significantly more lawyers in the courtroom tends to win cases in the US?

    - - - Updated - - -



    This just in! Teaching students about what you can and can't do under the freedom of speech now makes you a "radical".

    Seriously...are we talking about the US or the USSR here? Because one is starting to look much like the other to me...
    Hyperbole! What a great tactic! Stomping a flag isn't an objective lesson in free speech. It's a message. I bet you'd be super ok with a teacher hanging a confederate flag in their classroom all year too wouldn't you?

    Oh no, that's different, it might offend someone... which is MUCH worse than instilling an unwarranted sense of anti-establishment into the malleable minds of children.
    I think I've had enough of removing avatars today that feature girls covered in semen. Closing.
    -Darsithis

  16. #736
    Herald of the Titans RaoBurning's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona, US
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    Except the point in the Nazi example is to demonstrate that even if they all want to torch it, stifle it, get the Authority to silence it, they can't do that. It's also especially pertinent since several of the really, really important landmark 1st Amendment cases have been in defense of those who actually do prefer that symbol, like Skokie and Brandenberg.
    Well sure, you can't go around torching flags that other people own, obviously. But if I go buy my own Nazi flag (does anyone sell them or are they all home made?) then it's fair game. Though we can perform a second example:

    Teacher: "I pledge allegiance, to the flag [...]"
    Students: Yeah okay I say that every morning.

    Teacher: "Seig Heil!" *heel click*
    Students: No shut up—ooooh I get it now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaide View Post
    Stomping a flag isn't an objective lesson in free speech. It's a message.
    When the lesson is about First Amendment protections and the teachers says pretty plainly, "this is an example of protected actions under the First Amendment," then, no, it's not really a message or anti-establishment call-to-arms. Context isn't that hard, guys.
    Last edited by RaoBurning; 2016-09-28 at 02:41 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is America. We always have warm dead bodies.
    if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

  17. #737
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaide View Post
    Hyperbole! What a great tactic! Stomping a flag isn't an objective lesson in free speech. It's a message. I bet you'd be super ok with a teacher hanging a confederate flag in their classroom all year too wouldn't you?

    Oh no, that's different, it might offend someone... which is MUCH worse than instilling an unwarranted sense of anti-establishment into the malleable minds of children.
    If said teacher were teaching a class about the American Civil War, then sure, why not?

    It's interesting that you would call freedom of speech lessons " instilling an unwarranted sense of anti-establishment into the malleable minds of children" though. I suppose freedom of speech is something that students shouldn't be told about in your world? After all, it might make them "anti-establisment" and we can't have that, can we now...

    I still wonder if we are talking about the US or the USSR, because this level of forced patriotism and walking in lock-step would fit REALLY well in the latter...

  18. #738
    Quote Originally Posted by RaoBurning View Post
    Well sure, you can't go around torching flags that other people own, obviously. But if I go buy my own Nazi flag (does anyone sell them or are they all home made?) then it's fair game. Though we can perform a second example:

    Teacher: "I pledge allegiance, to the flag [...]"
    Students: Yeah okay I say that every morning.

    Teacher: "Seig Heil!" *heel click*
    Students: No shut up—ooooh I get it now.



    When the lesson is about First Amendment protections and the teachers says pretty plainly, "this is an example of protected actions under the First Amendment," then, no, it's not really a message or anti-establishment call-to-arms. Context isn't that hard, guys.
    You're right, so he could have also spewed nazi propaganda for 5 minutes so long as he was like 'HEY GUYS, THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT!". That's your argument, that's pretty stupid.
    I think I've had enough of removing avatars today that feature girls covered in semen. Closing.
    -Darsithis

  19. #739
    I think this Teacher's actions and the response to them show a lack of freedom of speech in the USA.

  20. #740
    Herald of the Titans RaoBurning's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona, US
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaide View Post
    You're right, so he could have also spewed nazi propaganda for 5 minutes so long as he was like 'HEY GUYS, THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT!". That's your argument, that's pretty stupid.
    Five minutes might push the envelope of necessity but basically, yes; provided (and I know this is hard still) the appropriate context is present.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is America. We always have warm dead bodies.
    if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •